Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
These are contractual matters between the passenger and the airline. If the airline refuses to transport a passenger, such passenger may file a lawsuit. It will then be up to a judge and/or jury to make a determination if the airline breached the contract and if so, what compensation it must pay.
It might be worth noting that if the airline "bumps" somebody because of overbooking, it MUST pay compensation. The passenger, however, has a right to sue for damages instead of accepting this compensation.
Furthermore, any provision of the contract of carriage can be challenged in Court as unconscionable.
My point was that we have a right to travel aboard any means of public transportation without government interference.
Perhaps, PatrickHenry can shed some further light on this, since he is an attorney, and I am not.
PoliceStateSurvivor,
Are you sure you are not an attorney? You have exhibited more knowledge of the law than many on this site.
Just because a term is in a contract does not mean it is enforceable, or that it is legal. Several of the terms in the Alaska Airlines contract of carriage appear problematic in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I have not handled any matters regarding transportation law, including contract of carriage, but my understanding of a common carrier is that one is very limited in its ability to reject a passenger who pays the prescribed fare.
A synonym for "unconscionability" is "contract of adhesion". This concept is that a company cannot foist unfair terms on a consumer. This approach could also work in challenging terms of a contract of carriage.
Regarding the right to travel, U.S. Supreme Court case law has found a right to travel in the U.S. Constitution. It is fairly easy to imagine a scenario in which the need to quickly travel a long distance would result in a finding that travel by air is a right.