来客网

UA完全不把乘客当人,在律师眼里是躺赢的案子

声明:本文转载自 「helloterran博客」, 或因排版与篇幅原因进行过编辑,内容未经本站独立核实,不代表本站立场、观点或建议。 如涉及版权问题,请联系我们,核实后立即删除。 [ 免责声明 ]

现在还在扯jb蛋“超售”的都是他妈的UA枪手。

专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case。

FW: Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don''t have rights needs to goaway, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked himoff the plane.

法律上,航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机。

1. First of all, it''s airline spin to call this anoverbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to denyboarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reservedconfirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. Theydid not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not onlydid everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sittingin them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of anoversale does not apply.

法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客。

2. Even if it did apply, the law isunambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone withreserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. Theyhave to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount ofreserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makesvery clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own orof other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because theydo not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it''s clear that what theydid was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people whohad reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力。

评论 (0)