Originally Posted by
beachfan
It certainly isn't clear that the situation described is an operational, safety or security reason. Unless the assertion is that "operational" gives them carte blanche, and in that case, most definitely isn't unambiguous.
It is unambiguous. Seat assignments are not guaranteed. Operational is not in the definitions section and is not defined anywhere else in the document to my knowledge... the common definition does in fact give them carte blanche.
Valid reasons are broken seat, weights and balances, FAM. Or inadvertent issue of duplicate boarding passes. Not intentionally forcing an oversold situation at the gate after boarding.
Unfortunately your opinion doesn’t match up with the agreement. You’re certainly right that we, as flyers, should be pressing carriers to shift more restrictions to them instead of accepting all the risk ourselves. But as you probably know, an overwhelming majority of people don’t even bother reading what they agreed to, let alone have the wherewithal to effect change.
Certainly, the rules cited don't make any distinction about award ticket, upgrade, or paid fare, so I don't see how the CoC could allow this and not allow the booting of passengers to middle seats in the back on paid F when someone with more $$ comes along.
They don’t make a distinction because they don’t have to. The applicability section (my words, not theirs) states these rules apply to anyone holding a ticket period. See below:
Your ticket and the following Conditions of Carriage constitute the contract between you, the passenger, and American Airlines, Inc. ("American") and apply to all transportation provided by American (including transportation on codeshare partners*) between points in the United States (including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
Foreign air transportation is governed by applicable tariffs on file with the Department of Transportation.