Old Apr 16, 17, 5:02 pm
  #6008  
fastair
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,632
Originally Posted by prestonh View Post
Once legally boarded airlines have to remove 'with cause'. The Dr.'s conditions for removal did not fall under any of the conditions under "Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21) which were the only ones available that they could legally break the Dr.'s contract for the seat he possessed. The IDB order was illegal. The VDB was a negotiation but the pax held all of the cards since they were already legally boarded. Since we have not seen any force majeure declaration as you imply (pictures or it didn't happen) all we saw was force applied.
Funny how AA just changed their CoC this week to protect you from IDB once boarded. One would think posters have info different from how the DoT has enforced this in the past, how AA has defined the IDB rules before this change, how professors of aviation have stated that it falls under IDB, how the mainstream major media has qualified it as an IDB. Remember who the regulators are, they are NOT a group of lawyers practicing mock court, but are the DoT. And I'd look up the DoT refs, compare them to the airlines CoC, and look for differences. Pre-AA change this week, other than adding the name of the carriers to the individual CoCs, the wording has been the same, as they are all cut and pasted from the DoT. I can't guarantee I'm right anymore than you can. This thread reference a group of lawyers interpretation that has not been tested in an enforcement case yet. As such, my advice is to not rule out the historical use by both airlines and the DoT, that removal after seated for oversales, DOES fall under the IDB regs. If you think it doesn't, be open to the fact that this view has not been tested yet. Remember, JDs argue on both sides of just about every court case. 50% of them are ruled against. I think dao's atty is considered at the top of his field, yet he didn't question this at all in his appearance, let alone state it as a fact. Do you think his team believes with 100% certainty that you are correct?

Last edited by fastair; Apr 16, 17 at 6:02 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster
fastair is offline