This should be a bipartisan issue. It should be illegal for airlines to overbook

[miketx]

We got enough laws and gov regulation.

Apparently we do not.

Yeah, we do. We don't need any more laws.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have been the lucky recipient of those offers to take a later flight. I got to fly later on to Colorado on them. Let them pay for overbooking. We don't need more federal laws and regulations.

I suspect this guy will have a good lawsuit.

No, he won't.

He didn't read the fine print. That's his problem, not United's.

Courts have ruled many times that we are not responsible for reading all that fine print and that common sense reigns when it comes to contracts.

Fine print - Wikipedia

US FTC regulations state that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. (15 USC § 45 (a))[6] In relevant part, they state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer, and that disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. (16 CFR 251.1)[5]​

Fine print is controversial because of its deceptive nature. Its purpose is to make the consumer believe that the offer is really great. Though the real truth about the offer is technically available to the consumer in the smaller print of the advertisement—thus virtually ensuring plausible deniability from claims of fraud—it is often designed to be overlooked. The unsuspecting customer, who can instantly see all the attractive aspects of the offer, will, due to natural impulsive behavior, time constraints, and/or personal need, generally not bother to learn the caveats, instead focusing on the positives of the deal.[3]
Many offers, advertised in large print, only apply when certain conditions are met. In many cases, these conditions are difficult or nearly impossible to meet.

In many cases, the business states in fine print that it reserves the right to modify the terms of the contract at any time with little to no advance notice. This controversial practice is often seen in the banking and insurance industries.[citation needed] It is also widely abused in terms of use statements and privacy policies. However, in early 2009, the federal case of Harris v. Blockbuster Inc. ruled that these "unilateral modification clauses" were illusory and, thus, unenforceable.​

If businesses continue to abuse the use of 'fine print', all contracts will become standardized and any modifications to them put by hand writing onto an addendum sheet.

This is simply another form of deception in business practices and should not be supported in our courts of law.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see that anything a company does is excused.

That attitude will ensure that situations like this won't happen again! And if it does happen it's the victims fault

 

[JimBowie1958]

When You Can't Find the Fine Print (Or Read It)

When was the last time you actually read the terms of service before clicking “I agree” on a website? Unless your answer is “never,” I don’t believe you -- and I don’t think it’s your fault, either. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has a subtler view than mine. On March 25, it held that you’re not bound by a contract if it wasn’t made clear that you were supposed to read it. But if it is made clear, the contract binds you, whether you read it or not.

The facts of the case were pretty outrageous, as these things go. Gary Sgouros signed up online to get his credit score with TransUnion Corp. When he went to a car dealership armed with his good credit score, they laughed him off. His actual score was 100 points lower than TransUnion had claimed.

Sgouros sued, claiming to represent a class of similarly misled clients. TransUnion said that he couldn’t sue because he’d agreed to submit any disagreement to binding arbitration as part of the terms of service on its site.

The district court rejected TransUnion’s argument, and the 7th Circuit agreed. The basis for the appeals court’s holding was that TransUnion's site never actually made Sgouros look at or agree to the arbitration agreement. Instead, the website referred to a “service agreement” and accompanied the reference with a paragraph that said nothing about arbitration. Next to the service agreement box, the words “Printable Version” appeared. If you clicked that, you got a 10-page document that included the arbitration promise -- on page 8.

Given the borderline deceptive nature of the website, the 7th Circuit had no trouble concluding that Sgouros hadn’t signed a contract.

 

[JimBowie1958]

unconscionable

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has thesuperior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into andthat no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation ofconsumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitivemarketplace.

Contractual provisions that indicate gross one-sidedness in favor of the seller include provisions that limit damages againstthe seller, limit the rights of the purchaser to seek court relief against the seller, or disclaim a Warranty. State and federalConsumer Protection and Consumer Credit laws were enacted to prevent many of these unconscionable contractprovisions from being included in sales contracts.

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; thesecircumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is appliedonly where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprivessomeone of a valuable possession. Whenever someone takes unconscionable advantage of another person, the action maybe treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action isunconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjectivejudgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. california, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search ofdrugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." TheCourt relied on these general historical and moral traditions as the basis for ruling unconstitutional an unconscionable act.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We got enough laws and gov regulation.

Apparently we do not.

Yeah, we do. We don't need any more laws.

When corporations can sell the same commodity to two different people, yes, we obviously need more laws, dude.

 

[Tom Horn]

One time it took me an entire day and 4 different flights to get from Vancouver, B.C. to Phoenix flying stand-by. This is why most credit card vendors won't take travel agencies as clients.....too many cancellations and charge-backs to make a profit. What was on the United Airlines video were black cops violently rousting an oriental. Blacks as a rule despise orientals as much as they hate Jews....it all goes back to inner-city commerce and who charged high prices because they couldn't get insurance against robberies.

 

[paperview]

 

[miketx]

 

[Tom Horn]

 

[Jarlaxle]

While I agree that overbooking is a terrible practice, realize that if it were to go away, so would refundable fares and change fees will skyrocket.

They overbook because their systems tell them that 5-10% of passengers never show up and expect refunds or revised travel arrangements.

Dude...refundable fares are mostly a memory now!

 

[Doc1]

If you pay for the service, you should get the service.

One should not have to get off an airplane because the AIRLINE sold your seat twice.

UTTER NONSENSE!

THE GUY SHOULD HAVE LEFT PEACEFULLY, but overbooking is bullshit.

United is Asiaphobic.

United Struggles to Extinguish Social Media Firestorm

Video shows man getting dragged off overbooked United flight

Agreed. I do however fly free a lot because of the policy.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Make no mistake...the guy is a TOTAL JACKASS for not just leaving the flight.

I mean a fvcking retarded tumbling dickweed....but it's still lame that airlines sell the same seat on the same flight more than once.

 

[PredFan]

I have been the lucky recipient of those offers to take a later flight. I got to fly later on to Colorado on them. Let them pay for overbooking. We don't need more federal laws and regulations.

Why should a company be allowed to sell the same product of value to 2 people?

We don't need more regulation. As long as they make amends, like offering $800. They can't do that a lot, they won't stay in business, they will be forced to self regulate. As it should be.

 

[PredFan]

I have been the lucky recipient of those offers to take a later flight. I got to fly later on to Colorado on them. Let them pay for overbooking. We don't need more federal laws and regulations.

On one hand I agree, on the other hand dragging people off the flight they booked fair and square should be illegal. Once in the plane the seat is yours, period.

Let them settle these things before boarding.

Oh, you know that United is going to pay heavily for that mistake.

 

[PredFan]

I have been the lucky recipient of those offers to take a later flight. I got to fly later on to Colorado on them. Let them pay for overbooking. We don't need more federal laws and regulations.

That might be OK for you, but it might not be for someone trying to get to a very important meeting,a funeral, to see s dying loved one or to meet with a government agent for the sake of a dear relative.

Not everyone has the freedom to waste time.

A business nor anyone else should be able to sell what they do not have.

let the free market control that. We do not need more regulation.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It's interesting how airline are allowed to fuck over passengers who paid less for their tickets or who are not frequent fliers.

Plus, those who do take the money to deplane are often screwed out of what they are owed.

Here are the official DOT laws with regards to bumping passengers.

Fly Rights


Involuntary Bumping

DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash. The amount depends on the price of their ticket and the length of the delay:

• If you are bumped involuntarily and the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to get you to your final destination (including later connections) within one hour of your original scheduled arrival time, there is no compensation.
• If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
• If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).
• If your ticket does not show a fare (for example, a frequent-flyer award ticket or a ticket issued by a consolidator), your denied boarding compensation is based on the lowest cash, check or credit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service (e.g., coach, first class) on that flight.
• You always get to keep your original ticket and use it on another flight. If you choose to make your own arrangements, you can request an "involuntary refund" for the ticket for the flight you were bumped from. The denied boarding compensation is essentially a payment for your inconvenience.
• If you paid for optional services on your original flight (e.g., seat selection, checked baggage) and you did not receive those services on your substitute flight or were required to pay a second time, the airline that bumped you must refund those payments to you.

 

[danielpalos]

Why are there limits on the maximum amount of compensation?

It should only apply if there are limits on the maximum amount of "coercive use of force" under our form of Capitalism, which involves voluntary and mutually beneficial trade.

 

[Seawytch]

If you pay for the service, you should get the service.

One should not have to get off an airplane because the AIRLINE sold your seat twice.

UTTER NONSENSE!

THE GUY SHOULD HAVE LEFT PEACEFULLY, but overbooking is bullshit.

United is Asiaphobic.

United Struggles to Extinguish Social Media Firestorm

Video shows man getting dragged off overbooked United flight

Some "free market, small government" conservative YOU are.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A business nor anyone else should be able to sell what they do not have.

let the free market control that. We do not need more regulation.

Right now the free market allows companies to sell what they do not have.

That is not a free market practice, but a corrupt market practice which is not a free market.

A free market is by definition a trustworthy market so one can freely engage in buying and selling without worry.