【 在 hongkongpig () 的大作中提到: 】 自愿的能要求现金吗？ 被强制的能要求提高补偿吗 交通部对赔偿数量和方式没有规定。 虽然陶医生的那班飞机并不是over-booking，但是当时机组应该把赔偿数量提上去直到有志愿者。当时乘客有提出1600的。 https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers.
United Airlines has just made a big change to its overbooking policy, in the wake of the disastrous removal of passenger Dr. David Dao. Effective immediately, a passenger cannot be removed to accommodate a United crew member unless it's essential for the crew member to make the flight in order to work another flight, AND the crew member arrives at least 60 minutes before the doors close. The idea is that the airline will make decisions on who to boot from a flight at the gate or lobby area ... before the passengers board the jet.
Passengers will no longer be ordered off a plane if it’s overbooked — because they won’t be allowed to board in the first place. They’ll be given the bad news in a gate or lobby area.
And a United employee who needs to get to another airport to staff a different flight will have to arrive at the departure airport at least an hour before takeoff.
In the case of the doctor, booted Sunday from a flight to Louisville, the airline at first said the plane was overbooked.
Then United changed its story, saying it needed the seat for an employee who was needed for another flight. The doctor refused an offer of $800 to give up his seat.
太容易被忽悠了，哪里说坐下以后不能bump人？照这新规矩，Dr Dao还得再被拖一次。the idea is的那部分 是脑部或洗地，不算。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 UA自己都修改了政策。现在是：除非内部人员赶不上必须要服务的班机，不会迫使乘客 让位；让位也是必须在飞机起飞前60分钟以上的时间里安排。实际上就是说：乘客登机 后不可以被赶下去。 http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/14/united-changes-policy-overbooking-removing-passengers/ United Airlines has just made a big change to its overbooking policy, in the wake of the disastrous removal of passenger Dr. David Dao. Effective immediately, a passenger cannot be removed to accommodate a United crew member unless it's essential for the crew member to make the flight in order to work another flight, AND the crew member arrives at least 60 minutes before the doors close. ...................
【 在 ffviii (当当当) 的大作中提到: 】 太容易被忽悠了，哪里说坐下以后不能bump人？照这新规矩，Dr Dao还得再被拖一次。 the idea is的那部分 是脑部或洗地，不算。 the United in 你这是strawman。没人说不能bump人，但是不能像以前那样随便bump人。 修改的有两条. 1.公司员工有急务才可以bump人。 2.bump人必须在起飞前60分钟以上（也就是说还没上飞机前）。
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 UA自己都修改了政策。现在是：除非内部人员赶不上必须要服务的班机，不会迫使乘客 让位；让位也是必须在飞机起飞前60分钟以上的时间里安排。实际上就是说：乘客登机 后不可以被赶下去。 http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/14/united-changes-policy-overbooking-removing-passengers/ United Airlines has just made a big change to its overbooking policy, in the wake of the disastrous removal of passenger Dr. David Dao. Effective immediately, a passenger cannot be removed to accommodate a United crew member unless it's essential for the crew member to make the flight in order to work another flight, AND the crew member arrives at least 60 minutes before the doors close. ...................
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “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.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.
It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.
Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane. If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract.
Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)? Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.
Finally, Rule 21 includes a provision on force majeur and other unforeseen circumstances such as weather, but there is no evidence that the airline had to specifically deplane Dao due to a force majeur that was impacting his plane. Perhaps UA could make the argument that getting the airline employees to Louisville was a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances (weather-related flight delays and cancellations in another city that caused the crew to be misplaced). The contract allows the airline to take actions that are “reasonable” or “advisable” in response to circumstances beyond its control.
UA might give “reasonable” a utilitarian gloss and argue that it was reasonable (i.e. economical) for it to deplane four passengers to transport the misplaced crew and thus prevent cancellation of another flight that would have impacted a far greater number of passengers. (I have no idea if the facts support this contention or not.) The argument is vulnerable to various questions about the reasonableness or advisability of the action. Could the airline have arranged alternate transportation for the misplaced crew, such as renting a car and driver, or used a larger aircraft, but refused to do so because it was too cheap? Following this train of thought might just make the public angrier. The utilitarian argument suggests that the rights of individual passengers can be balanced away—which is precisely why so many people are furious about the airline’s conduct.
All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao from the aircraft. What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on Refusal of Transport states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule” and that the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket. In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in accordance with this Rule,” but probably acted contrary to the Rule. So, the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply.
The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case. In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.
That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house. In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer. Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 按照那位康内尔教授的分析（Professor Dorf表示完全同意的分析），联航工作人员自 己对自己的规则都不清楚。值得一提的是，它的相关的关于行动的规则里含有“ reasonable”者“advisable”这样有人性的文字。 下面有个评论 拿UA广告开涮 For, while the skies are friendly enough, the ground can be a mighty dangerous place . . .
如果是自愿拿voucher走人，皆大欢喜。
否则的话，
公司有权踢任何人下去。 这时被踢人的权利是
1. 公司要当场给你个书面说明，踢的为什么是你， 不是别人。
2. 这是所有琐男最关心的。你可以不要voucher， 要现金。但是最多是机票的4倍，但不能超过1350.公司必须当场结清, cash or check, no credit.
陶医生当时既没有书面说明，又没给钱。
被强制的能要求提高补偿吗
1350
如果被踢后，你的行程延误不超过2小时，公司不需要赔，延误2-4个小时是一个标准，延误超过4个小时，赔机票的4倍，最多不超过1350.
选择违法不从被踢下去啥都没有？
然后被赶的人，觉得不合理，也有权利控告航空公司违约。
但是绝对没有权利赖着不走，如果赖着，就应该被警察强行带走，这才是法制社会。
Dao粉才是缺乏做一个遵纪守法的文明人的基本素质。
来道歉。
面上来说，就是拒绝你登机这个动作。而一旦你已经完成登机动作，一般就是扫描登机牌，过了登机口，"denied boarding"就不能再发生。这时候只能以“refusal of
transport"为由把人赶下飞机。
老老实实没犯错因为overbook被赶，就是不下去会怎么样？
上了飞机赶人不是随意的，得是安全原因才能叫警察
飞机是航空公司的，但是允许丫飞某个航线这个公共资产是要求航空公司遵守一些规则的，不是什么理由都可以赶人的。类似的还有手机公司，deny service 不是随便能搞的
ua降价50, 客源就回来了，lol
闹必须下飞机，抽中他也是因为他以前volunteer 过。
http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/14/united-changes-policy-overbooking-removing-passengers/
United Airlines has just made a big change to its overbooking policy, in the wake of the disastrous removal of passenger Dr. David Dao.
Effective immediately, a passenger cannot be removed to accommodate a United crew member unless it's essential for the crew member to make the flight in order to work another flight, AND the crew member arrives at least 60
minutes before the doors close.
The idea is that the airline will make decisions on who to boot from a
flight at the gate or lobby area ... before the passengers board the jet.
Passengers will no longer be ordered off a plane if it’s overbooked —
because they won’t be allowed to board in the first place. They’ll be
given the bad news in a gate or lobby area.
And a United employee who needs to get to another airport to staff a
different flight will have to arrive at the departure airport at least an
hour before takeoff.
In the case of the doctor, booted Sunday from a flight to Louisville, the
airline at first said the plane was overbooked.
Then United changed its story, saying it needed the seat for an employee who was needed for another flight. The doctor refused an offer of $800 to give up his seat.
在国外生活过的人应该很清楚， 每家公司都会明文宣布自己有权拒绝为某个顾客提供
服务， 不需要任何理由。
大概只有生活在中国国内的人才会真以为自己是上帝，以为商家必须无条件为自己提供服务。
所以说， 强国人愚昧而土气啊。
不服不行。
更不要说整个过程中亚裔被歧视的问题
当时能决定的。
看cnn采访乘客，前面两人拒绝而没有被强制拖下去是个人就知道是歧视
但是也把他只为求财的目的表现得淋漓尽至。整个过程，我觉得UA最有问题的恐怕就是有歧视嫌疑。
Dao粉连这个也舔得下口，我真是服了。这个表现出Dao粉才是个人利益至上，没有基本做人底线的一群人。
这是人家的财产。
只有无赖才会去就地打滚找打。
不过空乘在走向目标的时候随口问问其他人也未必不可能。
所以我其实也倾向于真是抽签抽的，空乘犯不上真去惹歧视的骚，这种抽签本来规矩也不是完全随机，不是常飞的，买打折票的，都容易中签，华人不是经常出差的，一般很容易符合这两条。
商家不会无条件地提供服务，但是也不能“不需要任何理由”拒绝为某个顾客提供服务。
这事不是头一次发生，以前的乘客都配合了。
美国少机闹，华人来输出价值了，真长脸啊。
你这就是瞎猜，毫无证据
以后去老外的商家，好好读读他们的告示。
人已经公开宣布过自己的这一权力。你要闹，后果自负。
既然坐了，就要服从机组的指示。
既然上了俺的船，板刀面？馄饨汤？由你选。
到时候看官司谁输谁赢一目了然。整个事件UA不占理。为什么你们这些哗众取宠的家伙还是不
明白这道理呢？
都象你这样，永远就是一看客。那天人一改，你就又傻了。
你认为不对，怎么抗争，闹也是一手段。
警察既然已经决定不管了，航空公司想把乘客踢下去，但是乘客就是不走，他们怎么踢呢？莫非今后空姐都要接受训练，怎么把乘客架起来拖着走然后扔下飞机？
关键还是那个机票4倍不超过1350的规定是扯淡，尼玛很多国际航班1350根本就是个零
头，而且每年通货膨胀，过10年1350更是毫无意义了。
你们难道都是坐船来的？这类航空旅行常识都不知道？
比如那个现金赔偿，这个是针对“非自愿”的，你如果做了自愿者，就是接受了人家征志愿者的条款，那么人家给你代金券是你自己的选择。很多人叽哇这个，其实是自己不懂法。
但是你可以不去做志愿者，抽到你，你就可以理直气壮要cash，我就不信航空公司非不给，那么他们就违法了，你都不需要真去打官司，一个BBB投诉就够了，起码我用BBB投诉大公司，每次都能收到manager签名的道歉信，得到了满意的解决。
我遇到的超售，大家都是争抢志愿者的，Dao的航班有它的特殊性，第二班要等到第二
天，很多人就不乐意了，但这也是为啥UA必须用这班把4个机务人员送过去，因为没有
其他选择，不送过去，第二天的航班无法起飞，接下来的航班全部要取消或者晚点，损失是很厉害的。而且Dao是在其他3人都同意的基础上非要拒绝的，这种情况被强制也很正常，难道重新抽到满意为止？
我跟机场的工作人员聊过，有时的晚点，就是等预定航班飞过来，飞不过来就得继续等，或者干脆取消，很少能换架飞机飞的。Dao粉们缺乏这些知识，一门心思觉得UA存心
跟乘客过不去，才无法理解UA的安排。
绝下机。
现在不提歧视，是由于证据不够足和策略上的原因。
1. UA的4个内部人员不是有急务。即使他们在各个航班找不到空位，也是可以坐不到5
小时的专车去上班。
2. 乘客都已经上机。
3. 69岁（！！！）的医生第二天早上要见病人。
当时机上乘客们有抵触，表示过不应该，没有自愿者，跟头两条肯定是有一定关系的。
一样，就是个扯。
Jens David Ohlin
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_jens_ohlin.cfm
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for
carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a
flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then
receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the
airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of
Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes
situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or
violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is
absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The
contract defines an oversold flight as “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.” In
this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room
for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold
situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused
transport.
One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not
defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit
definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate
agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to
the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.
It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective
completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and
proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.
Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it
must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of
conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane. If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract.
Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because
Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or
causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)? Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own
business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he
was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was
caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.
Finally, Rule 21 includes a provision on force majeur and other unforeseen
circumstances such as weather, but there is no evidence that the airline had to specifically deplane Dao due to a force majeur that was impacting his
plane. Perhaps UA could make the argument that getting the airline employees to Louisville was a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances (weather-related flight delays and cancellations in another city that caused the
crew to be misplaced). The contract allows the airline to take actions that are “reasonable” or “advisable” in response to circumstances beyond its control.
UA might give “reasonable” a utilitarian gloss and argue that it was
reasonable (i.e. economical) for it to deplane four passengers to transport the misplaced crew and thus prevent cancellation of another flight that
would have impacted a far greater number of passengers. (I have no idea if
the facts support this contention or not.) The argument is vulnerable to
various questions about the reasonableness or advisability of the action.
Could the airline have arranged alternate transportation for the misplaced
crew, such as renting a car and driver, or used a larger aircraft, but
refused to do so because it was too cheap? Following this train of thought
might just make the public angrier. The utilitarian argument suggests that
the rights of individual passengers can be balanced away—which is precisely why so many people are furious about the airline’s conduct.
All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao from the aircraft. What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on
Refusal of Transport states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to
transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance
with this Rule” and that the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket. In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in
accordance with this Rule,” but probably acted contrary to the Rule. So,
the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply.
The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of
force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the
circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to
remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona
non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level
of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries
and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s
breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should
be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the
painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.
That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is
incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house. In contrast, the object and purpose of the
contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to
transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C.
Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it
specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a
ticketed customer. Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.
reasonable”者“advisable”这样有人性的文字。