Got it the first time. This is a different question around the practice of overbooking.
Last edited:
United Airlines incident
- Thread starter wyomingosualum
- Start date
You're assuming the passenger agreed to being kicked off the plane so UA employees wouldn't be inconvenienced. By your own admission you have not read the legal agreement. You have no idea if that circumstance is covered.
The one Chicago policeman proved to be a thug and a bully, and was put on temporary leave, as he should have been.
I must confess your willingness to blindly submit to authority is a little disturbing.
Well, it seems to me a no show paid for the seat whether he used it or not. Until the plane lands at the designated stopping point the seat belongs to the no show. If the airline sells the ticket to someone else they should reimburse the no show.
Obviously the "hate crime" comment was said with extreme sarcasm. How do you know none of the other three were minorities?
Should, morally or ethically to you....but in a free market society, should the seller of the seat be compelled to reimburse a no show when they sell it to someone else via overbooking?
Shoot, in a completely free market environment, why not slam the four extra in standing room only and let the customers decide whether or not they want to deal with an airline that does that? Why should the airline reimburse the no show if the bargained for exchange included no refunds or reimbursement for no show?
The legal answer to your underlying question is primarily that federal law details required reimbursement/remuneration for individuals involuntarily removed from a flight due to overbooking. The law aso allows the sell of no refund/no reimbursement tickets. Given that law, the airlines try to maximize their return based upon experience by doing a cost v benefits calculation involving possible increased revenue from no shows vs costs associated with convincing passengers to voluntarily exit the plane or pay the statutorily required remuneration for involuntary removals.
I'm kind of shocked that you are questioning the propriety of a seller setting their own carriage and removal rules and letting buyers decide whether or not to purchase such a ticket.
Why on earth would you be shocked? I am an advocate for individual liberty, not big business. I would have thought you would have figured that out long ago.
It seems to me the proper course of action is as follows: a trade is made between two parties. One party exchanges his money for the product or service of the other party. Once the money is received the second party is obligated to provide the product or service that had been paid for. Why is that so complicated? Under what convoluted logic does the second party get to renege? If, in the case of the airlines, the argument is the airline is not reneging because it is offering compensation (whether the first party wants the compensation or not) and it's "in the legal agreement," I am surprised it has been allowed to proceed. I am surprised it has not been challenged in court. It strikes me (as the complete legal novice that I am) the airlines would lose in such a case. Unless, of course, the airlines have a trump card in regulations provided and enforced by the government. But that can't be it. I have been assured by several people on this board that government regulations are there to protect us little people against the ravages of evil corporations. There's no way the airlines could slip in a regulation or two that protects their backsides. So I remain confused about the practice of overbooking.
Let me put it another way. United Airlines sells me a ticket to ride on a specific flight, in a specific seat, expected departure at a specific time, leaving from a specific airport, headed to a different specific airport. Then it sells another ticket to a different person for exactly the same seat. How is that not fraud?
It's not fraud if they expressly reserve the right to do so in their carriage agreement which clearly expresses you're not entitled to a refund.
So you're saying anyone can commit fraud as long as they tell you in advance? How convenient. I repeat I find it difficult to believe in this litigious age that airlines can commit fraud legally without it being challenged in court, and vilified by ambitious politicians.
The parties agreed to engage in a business transaction where the carriage terms of the agreement allowed exactly what you find objectionable from the start....which you are surprised would be "allowed" to proceed and which the airlines would lose in such a case....is a pure expression of "freely negotiated" market terms between the parties.
I would suggest you remain confused about the practice of overbooking because you don't think the market parties "should" be able to sell a conditional, non-refundable/non-reimburseable ticket subject to overbooking. Thinking in terms of what conditions or restrictions a seller, "should" be allowed or to sell a service is directly contrary to idealistic libertarian principles.
Heck, even talking in terms of what a seller should be "obligated" to provide is contrary to purely free market principles. If a seller routinely fails to provide the exact service or product the buyer believes he is due....let the market settle it out by the buyer convince other buyers to not deal with the unscrupulous seller. After all, a fundamental aspect of truly, completely, absolutely free markets is "caveat emptor". The entire notion of successfully chanllenge in court as a fraud is, itself, a governmental regulation.
In a truly, completely free market.....yes....if a seller openly states the conditions under which they are willing to sell you a good or service and you accept those conditions....THERE IS NO FRAUD.
Hell, even in our regulated society, there is no fraud by legal definition.
Your entire premise that they shouldn't be able to do this if the possible buyers are fully informed of the possibility and that it should even be capable of being "challenged" in the courts enacted and controlled by the state is, itself, contrary to idealistic libertarianism.
You defining this based upon your own principles as "fraud" and suggesting the courts (the state) could be relied upon to bar such a practice infringes upon the individual liberties of the two parties to utilize the free market to enter into whatever agreement they choose to enter into.
Maybe you're not quite the anarcho-capitalist you fancy yourself.
Maybe you're not quite the anarcho-capitalist you fancy yourself.
My God, conversing with you is a frustrating experience!
Look, in the libertarian, free market world of my fantasies United Airline could demand people wear their clothes inside out if they wanted. They could overbook, provide in the fine print that they could kick out a passenger for any reason - or no reason - and bully for them if they found any takers. In a free market another airline would provide a guaranteed seat, advertising they don't overbook, but you have to pay for your seat regardless of whether you use it or not. There would be a myriad of options available to the flying public.
My questions pertain to the world in which we live today. I'm surprised that airlines get away with things like overbooking. The fact that they ALL do it suggests to my cynical mind that government intervention (protection of the airlines) is involved. But that's just my cynical mind at work. It really surprises me that a politician hasn't tried to pass a law, or an ambitious lawyer or a watchdog group hasn't taken it to court.
It seems that in today's world you buy your plane ticket, arrange all your plans around same; but until you have boarded the plane, found your seat, and the plane has actually lifted off the ground, your seat is not assured. What a world we live in.
Light reading during your next layover:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
I get the feeling that conversing with anybody that doesn't buy into your ideals and challenges you on them is probably pretty frustrating to you.
Under the present state of the law of commercial transactions, if the terms of the transaction are clearly expressed and agreed to by the parties....there is no fraud.
That fact has nothing to do with governmental regulation favoring airlines. The regulations on the airlines basically require them to provide remuneration to people booted....remuneration that the legal principles of fraud and the courts would NOT require absent the regulation. Your conclusion that it is government intervention that allows overbooking this is factually in error. Maybe you want to educate yourself a bit before making that assumption. If anything, the governmental intervention places financial costs for doing so on the seller that would not be present absent the regulation.
I know. It goes on forever.
There was a South Park episode about clicking "I have read and agree to the terms of service" without actually reading the terms of service.
If I got frustrated every time someone disagreed with me I'd spend most of my time being frustrated. No, what frustrates me is to make repeated comments as regards practices in the real world only to have it suggested I'm contradicting my "ideals."
I defer to you that no fraud has been committed in a legal sense. Although I just watched a lawyer who specializes in airline litigation suggest otherwise.
I made no suggestion that I concluded government is involved in overbooking. Saying I suspect something is far removed from making a conclusion.
Last edited:
Looks like there's at least a little government involvement in airlines overbooking. Explains how discrimination based on the cost of a ticket is practiced.
https://hbr.org/2017/04/airlines-li...umped-passengers-because-of-a-government-rule
https://hbr.org/2017/04/airlines-li...umped-passengers-because-of-a-government-rule
I hate the airlines and their rules. They are allowed to get away with just about anything in today's post 9/11 world. My solution is free market. I find other means of transportation. I will drive before I fly because I don't want to be strip searched to get to point b. I will take a train because I would rather relax in space than be sardined into the middle seat next to Sam Mayes. I honestly don't know how you airline travelers do it. But the solution for Dan is don't fly. There are other means of transportation. Most of them want to provide you a better experience than the airline cause they are slower and have to compete. Enjoy the slow lane in travel. You get to see more at least.
I haven't flown in many years for several reasons. You hit a couple of them here.
If I do something illegal or am caught in a suspicious circumstance, then I expect to be searched. But when I have done nothing wrong, count me out.
So you weren't suggesting or indicating something SHOULD be done about overbooking.
Got it.
And you made no suggestion that you concluded government is involved in allowing or encouraging overbooking.
Yeah...okay.
Whatever you say.
It's really hard to take you seriously and credibly when you post "looks like there's at least a little government involvement in airlines overbooking" and your very next post is "I made no suggestion that I concluded government is involved in overbooking."
You most certainly did make such a suggestion.
Last edited:
I love flying but I also have status with AA so that makes it a lot better than it is for the cattle. Driving more than a few hours just sucks to me.
I also love airports. I always get there really early. It takes a lot of the stress out of it. Plus you have time to get a good buzz before the flight.
It's a new day and I would appreciate it if someone who knows could explain the actual process of airline overbooking.
Here's how I am given to understand it. Say United has a plane that holds 100 passengers flying from Chicago to Louisville. I buy a ticket for the flight. Once United has my money in their possession they issue me a ticket for an exact, designated, specific seat: Business Class, Row 12, Seat A. I have the ticket in my possession. The plane holds 100 passengers, but for some reason United sells 104 tickets, thus overbooking. 104 tickets have been issued for 100 seats; each person holds a ticket for an exact seat. Which means at least 5 people have been given a ticket for one seat, or as many as eight people have tickets for 4 seats. Or any combination thereof. I show up at the airport, ticket in hand, only to discover another person has his own ticket for the same seat. United' solution for the dilemma is to ask four of us to deboard and take a subsequent flight. If no one agrees to that solution United reserves for itself the right to physically remove four people. Their defense resides in the legal agreement they claim passengers agree to when they buy a ticket.
My confusion resides in how United is allowed to overbook in the first place. And why would they stop at 104? The plane holds 100 passengers. Why don't they sell 200 or 300 tickets? What is stopping them? If they can sell 104 tickets for 100 seats, why can't they sell 200 or 300 and point to the fine print in the 50 page legal agreement if anyone complains? Do other industries get to overbook? Why wouldn't the Dallas Cowboys sell 200,000 tickets for specific seats, take the money, deny entrance to 110,000, and point to a legal agreement that lets them do it?
Obviously I don't understand how overbooking actually works. Obviously the airlines are permitted to do it. From my perspective it looks like a clear cut case of fraud. CowboyJD assures me it is not fraud because the airline spells everything out in the legal agreement. So, what looks like fraud to me is not legally fraud. I accept that. But that doesn't change the confusion on why airlines do it, why they are permitted to do it, and why don't other industries/venues do the same if all they have to do is put it in a legal agreement.
Here's how I am given to understand it. Say United has a plane that holds 100 passengers flying from Chicago to Louisville. I buy a ticket for the flight. Once United has my money in their possession they issue me a ticket for an exact, designated, specific seat: Business Class, Row 12, Seat A. I have the ticket in my possession. The plane holds 100 passengers, but for some reason United sells 104 tickets, thus overbooking. 104 tickets have been issued for 100 seats; each person holds a ticket for an exact seat. Which means at least 5 people have been given a ticket for one seat, or as many as eight people have tickets for 4 seats. Or any combination thereof. I show up at the airport, ticket in hand, only to discover another person has his own ticket for the same seat. United' solution for the dilemma is to ask four of us to deboard and take a subsequent flight. If no one agrees to that solution United reserves for itself the right to physically remove four people. Their defense resides in the legal agreement they claim passengers agree to when they buy a ticket.
My confusion resides in how United is allowed to overbook in the first place. And why would they stop at 104? The plane holds 100 passengers. Why don't they sell 200 or 300 tickets? What is stopping them? If they can sell 104 tickets for 100 seats, why can't they sell 200 or 300 and point to the fine print in the 50 page legal agreement if anyone complains? Do other industries get to overbook? Why wouldn't the Dallas Cowboys sell 200,000 tickets for specific seats, take the money, deny entrance to 110,000, and point to a legal agreement that lets them do it?
Obviously I don't understand how overbooking actually works. Obviously the airlines are permitted to do it. From my perspective it looks like a clear cut case of fraud. CowboyJD assures me it is not fraud because the airline spells everything out in the legal agreement. So, what looks like fraud to me is not legally fraud. I accept that. But that doesn't change the confusion on why airlines do it, why they are permitted to do it, and why don't other industries/venues do the same if all they have to do is put it in a legal agreement.
No bro! Reading JD's lawyering made my brain bleed. I think it's mostly better today.
I will step out of the overbooking of airplanes part, but comparing to a sporting event is absolutely different. A sporting event happens once. An airline has several trips and several ways to get from point A to point B.
What pisses me off more than double booking is when they overschedule flights snd then just randomly cancel flights at the las second (see Laguardia to Boston). I nearly got stuck in that deal with Delta....since that ordeal, they have been awesome, including a cheap upgrade for first class on a San Antonio round trip from Tampa.
What pisses me off more than double booking is when they overschedule flights snd then just randomly cancel flights at the las second (see Laguardia to Boston). I nearly got stuck in that deal with Delta....since that ordeal, they have been awesome, including a cheap upgrade for first class on a San Antonio round trip from Tampa.
OK, how about a limousine service. Can a limousine service schedule two or three or more customers for the same limo at the same time, send the limo to one of the patrons and direct Uber to the others because they put it in their legal agreement, while collecting their money?
And once again, there you go comparing apples to oranges. Maybe this YouTube video will help explain it to you.
I'm not sure how I'm comparing apples to oranges, but I greatly appreciate the video. It was illuminating.
A limo driver can take only ONE passenger; the airline takes MANY SEVERAL per flight. The odds of "some" of those MANY SEVERAL not showing up are, by logical extension, HIGHER. That said, if an airline is in business to make money - duh - how best to improve the bottom line. Bada bing, bada boom: overbook. As I previously posted, "revenue maximization"; empty seats equals lost revenue.
