It's not who he was it's how it was dealt with ... legally he has a good case because overbooking should only result in denial of boarding ... not removal from the plane .. for which there are many reasons an airline can remove you but not for their overbooking and not by physical enforcement... they've paid by share price and will pay in sales and litigation ... and rightly so
so IMHO the doc thing dose err does not wash. He was a passenger on a plane requested to leave and by contract he signed he needed to leave. dispute it after words, yes.
That's what I was trying to say earlier. He was being removed for not complying with standard procedure, procedure he agreed to when he purchased his ticket. His resisting arrest got him those injuries.
Nope standard procedure for overbooking is denial of boarding - not removal of seated passengers ... if they state that reason they did not have authority to ask him to de board for that specific reason and within his rights to refuse for that specific reason according to their own rules .. hence the valid law suit .. regardless it was ridiculous to use force rather than pay other passengers who volunteered for 1600... instead they have paid dearly
I would just have made an announcement over the PA system stating that unfortunately the plane would not be able to depart until the good doctor did. Wonder how much sympathy his fellow passengers would have had for him at that point. I am pretty sure the intent of the rules regarding denied boarding cover this situation, however the wording is a bit ambiguous. If this goes to court it will be a game of semantics.
They will have to prove 4 places were pre reserved for staff and then deal with the federal law which describes 'involuntary denial of boarding' not removal of seated passengers for which their are different rules .. none of which mention overbooking ... whether it sounds like semantics or not that is the letter of the law .. I think he will do well
Yes, there is an enormous difference between a positive space and a space available airline employee. Both require a reservation, so that information should be readily available and would even show the date/time and location of the booking. So if the crew or employees walked up and got the gate agent to book it on the spot then that will be obvious. It would of course be against policy to unseat a passenger to accommodate an employee even if the employee was flying for business purposes.
Edit: if the employee did not have a reservation for positive space. Usually for flight crews this is handled well in advance by crew scheduling and is only used for repositioning crews. It is the crew member's responsibility to get to their crew base to start their trip by their own means.
It's a tough balance .. and not usually the frontline guys fault but more the corporates who set the rules that push these situations to occur more often in the name of profit - and it's a lesson united bosses in particular seem to need
Hello; this is my take as well. He may well have some sort of legal case for being asked to leave the plane, That I cannot say. But, to me, he had a big hand in the way things played out. He made choices and as I have already said refused a lawful order from police officers.
As pop's says, if he asks you to leave his house and you refuse he can then call the police. After they ask you to leave private property it is time to go. Later if you have some legit reason for being in pop's house, tell it to a judge.
Hello; One of the talking head experts on TV said that even after a person is on a plane and then asked to leave it is still considered denial of boarding. Something like this applies until the plane starts to taxi to a runway. You may know better, I for sure do not know such details.
