噚日朝早見到 Facebook 有人 Post 咗 United 拖人落機嘅 Video, 跟住就聽到新聞報導，成朝個 Facebook 都係被呢件事洗咗版。一件唔應該發生嘅，要趕人走，用不著拖人落機。
因為 Facebook 已經洗咗版，於是用咗個 Lunch time 去刨晒佢，有朋友 Like 咗原片，其中一個
Comment 係咁寫:
I contacted my old coworkers at United and got a few more details. Originally the flight wasn't overbooked. It was at capacity. So people talking smack about overselling seats doesn't really apply this situation. They do oversell but not this case wasn't a true oversell.
The crew they put on was the operate a flight out of SDF this morning so it wouldn't cancel. Very important due to the weather effecting the ORD and EWR hubs this mornings.
(I had to space a ORD stream over Champaign, IL this morning and shoot a gap through weather, it was nuts)
So they couldn't get volunteers, blah blah, go to the involuntary list, get those passengers. Now when a passenger doesn't get off the plane easily with airline crew they call security. Not uncommon. USUALLY, after police/security talk to the passenger and explain to the passenger the consequences of not following the flight crews instructions, explains the contract of carriage and flashes their gun, they cooperate. This apparently didn't happen and the gate agent didn't realize the cops were going to be so rough on the guy. So in all fairness, even though no one is found of how United's contract of carriage works,...
問題就嚟喇，Oversell 係人所共知嘅事，因為 Oversell 而唔俾人登機亦時有所聞。但今次唔係 Oversell, 人亦已經坐响度，咁究竟航空公司有無權叫人落機? 唯一可以肯定嘅係，拖人落機唔關 United 事，係機場保安。佢哋無 flash their gun 係因為佢哋無配槍，本來已經檢討緊，但睇嚟之後都唔使諗了。就可能因為無槍，乘客唔賣賬，唯有用暴力。
反觀 United 嘅錯，呢一刻就只係錯在唔知點解第二朝班機會重要到一定要嗰四個 crew member 飛過去，由 ORD 揸車去 SDF 其實都只係4個幾鐘，一個機位 offer 800蚊美金，4個人都3千2, 可能租到架 Limo 了。
本來以為件事告一段落，點知 United 個 CEO 出咗封信話呢個係一個教訓，加埋個 Summary, 咁就出多次事，基本上佢認為員工跟足程序做事，係未出到聲話抵讚。
今日 Lunch time 再搵多少少資料，好多都係話有 Denied Boarding 嘅條款，但到最後都只係話 Apply 落 Oversell 嘅情況，直至搵到一位法學教授嘅
文章，提到:
As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.
United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.
即係話，United 跟本無權咁做。一來唔係 Oversell, 二來乘客已經上咗機:
Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “Rule 21, Refusal of Transport, UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT ANY POINT, any passenger for the following reasons.” [emphasis added]
The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.
[略]
In this case, the failure to include over booking, or the need for additional seats, in a long list of justifications for removing a passenger “from the aircraft at any point” means that passengers may not be removed for these non-listed reasons.
今次 GG 了，United 已經犯咗法，實俾人告到 PK.
