LogFAQs > #876999650

CruelBuffalo posted...

Theres a difference between a situation not being addressed and violating the contract. I don't see this situation being addressed by what you posted. You'd have to post something to the effect of "you cannot be removed from a flight for any reason except: "

Your being childish or otherwise do not understand how contracts work.

The contract demonstrates why this situation shoud never occur.

The contract is that you may not be allowed to board due to overbooking. That automatic demonstrates that that once you have boarded you cannot be allowed to be forcifully removed due to overbooking.

This is repeated at length by the contract's agreements for when it is and is not acceptable to boot people off.

The second they allowed him to board and then booted him out due to overbooking, they violated their contract.

Now they have 3 choices:

1. Try to claim the victim was being violent or refused ID.

2. Try to blame the cops.

or 3. Settle with a big payoff.

Now both the company and the police force have admitted fault #1 is unlikely.

But the "We didn't break the law/our contract" argument will get you no where when the police, Airport and every lawyer you ask will say they did.

You cannot allow boarding and THEN kick someone off due to overbooking. Once you have boarded, you have boarded. The only reasons they contractually allow to now kick you off, are demonstrated in Rule 21. That's the agreement. That's the contract.

"It's not in the contract but it could have been potentially!" is not a defense of breach of contract, hell that makes the entire point of a contract meaningless. The only rights they have to boot a boarded passenger off are shown in rule 21.

They violated their contract.
---

^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg