I strongly agree with Cardinal Fang that United’s Contract of Carriage (see https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx) did not give United the legal right to have security or the police forcibly remove someone from the plane in these circumstances.
Throughout the contract, denial of boarding is referred to separately from removal from the aircraft (see, e.g., Rule 16B(2)); they are two separate terms and the former does not include the latter. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 25 regarding denial of boarding in cases of overbooking are irrelevant — even leaving aside the question of whether this situation actually came within the contract’s definition of an “Oversold Flight” (see Rule 1)* — and do not apply to removal from the aircraft. Removal from the aircraft is governed by Rule 21, which sets forth an exclusive list of grounds for which United has “the right to refuse to transport or . . . the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger.” There is nothing in that list authorizing involuntary removal from the aircraft in these circumstances, specifically, for refusing to volunteer to vacate the plane in cases of overbooking (assuming this situation qualified as such).
Some people seem to be arguing that United was justified in removing this man pursuant to Rule 21H(2), which provides for removal from the plane of “Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives.”
But I see that as essentially a circular argument, since it assumes that the orders he failed to comply with were valid in the first place. If they weren’t justified in the first place under the contract in demanding that he leave the plane — in other words, if their underlying reason for requiring him to leave was invalid — then they can’t manufacture a valid reason for removing him, and turn an invalid reason into a valid one, simply by giving him an invalid instruction and ejecting him for refusing to obey it! Here’s an analogy: Obviously, as a common carrier and under applicable law (as well as the Contract of Carriage itself), United would not have had the right to forcibly remove this man from the plane on grounds of his race, i.e., that he was Asian. Directing him to get off the plane because of his race and then having him forcibly dragged off for refusing to do so would clearly not provide legal justification for his removal on the alleged ground of refusing to obey the crew’s directives! This situation is equivalent.
And, apart from everything else, even if there were an ambiguity in the meaning of the contract terms (such as “boarding” and “oversold flight”) it should be construed against the drafter, i.e., United.
- The term "Oversold Flight" means "a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats." Does the situation of United's deciding after the fact -- long after the "prescribed check-in time" had expired -- that it had to accommodate it own employees so they could make another flight come within this definition? I have my doubts.
Separately, I find the reflexive suggestions that this man was “drunk,” or “overreacting to what happened,” or that this is “fake news,” both astonishing and reprehensible.
