Originally Posted by
fastair
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?
[looking at his ID card--yup--I see a triskelion on it--but not aviation] Government regulators are indeed not always lawyers. But they are political--they can't help it. When Senators start throwing questions at them through the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, they will be extremely cautious about expressing a truly unpopular view. As they should be, unless it is related to safety and security. Also, they are subject to having their interpretations of their own regulations revised by the courts and also by the Administration. Only Congress can change the United States Code (or the Supreme Court), but the Code of Federal Regulations, which derives its authority from the USC, can be reinterpreted much more easily.
The labeling of this situation as an involuntary denied boarding has not been tested in court. But Munoz (correctly) stated that the flight had already boarded when the incident took place. I think he'll have a hard time backing off on that description.
One outcome of this incident may be that "boarding" gets a more careful definition, defined in the CofC and possibly codified in the CFR.
But even if it does pass muster as an IDB, the provisions in the CofC for an IDB do not state that a passenger can be removed once seated, and certainly not by force. It only says they can be denied boarding; it does not say that they can be denied continued seating. That's the main issue here: Does the CofC, even in an IDB situation that is found to apply to someone already in his seat, allow the use of force to enforce it? That would open a door to all manner of force being applied inappropriately, it seems to me.