San Diego Man Alleges AA Barred Him From Future Flights Over Seat Issue
 

Sort of an interesting story (with undoubtedly incomplete facts) --

This passenger claims he showed up at LAX for an AA itinerary to St. Maarten in 2020 and, upon checking in, was advised that he had been previously banned from flying AA, which was news to him.

He says AA won't inform him why is banned, although he believes it may be the result of an incident in 2019 when he was flying from Tokyo to LAX on AA, and he had an altercation with a flight attendant before departure about ensuring his seat was in the upright position. The story mentions some physical contact between him and the flight attendant while she was attempting to reach over him to adjust the seat herself.

While the story itself is strange, I also find it odd that one would only find out about such a ban the following year while checking in at the airport after already having successfully made a reservation.

Here is a link to the story.

From the story:

”By being barred from AA flights, Klein cannot fly to certain destinations with family members and will incur higher costs and a loss of time by having to take flights on other airlines, according to the suit.”

Higher costs maybe, but loss of time should be easy to dispute. Considering crAApy on time performance, he may actually end up at his destination faster on a different airline!

Also, are there that many destinations where AA is the only option? Except for some small airports outside of DFW, CLT, and PHL I suspect it is still entirely possible for him to fly with his family.

Not to mention the fact that he’s from San Diego but decided to fly from LAX, driving 100+ miles when there are airports much closer to him.

This case will go nowhere. Under the terms of carriage, did he even file in the right court?

Also, if the denial of boarding was in 2020, why wait 2 years to file a lawsuit? Did it take that long to find an ambulance-chaser?

/s

Most EXP weren't even worried about traveling in 2020.

Sounds well deserved. What kind of idiot gets in an altercation w/FA over seat recline prior to take-off?

Key to this lawsuit is if this person was allowed to buy a ticket after being allegedly banned. A ticket is a contract to fly the passenger. If AA sold him the ticket *knowing* he previously behaved badly, they can’t wait until he’s at the gate N months later to deny boarding. They should’ve done it before.

Perhaps, although he seems to be claiming he was in the process of complying when the FA made physical contact with him, which he says he found upsetting.

This is indeed the strangest part of the claim to me -- that the passenger was supposedly never notified of the ban, the precise reason for it, exactly when it took effect, and that he was still able to book a ticket on AA at a later date. He then allegedly only learned at the airport on the day of departure the following calendar year that there was an issue.

Maybe it was a mistake or even some other incident that led to the ban. The entire thing seems very odd to me based on the facts claimed so far. It would be interesting to see AA's response (if there ever is one).

The incident of his denial happened back in March of last year. At the time IIRC, AA operated only a single SAN-MIA nonstop - on a 738. Perhaps he wanted to fly out of LAX so as to be able to fly the 787 or 777?

Right. Hard to believe there was a pre-departure physical altercation but the plane didn't remain at or return to the gate for the pax to be removed at LAX nor were police summoned in Tokyo.

The above seems the most relevant detail we have, alas.

Claims presented do not appear to add up, or be consistent with our knowledge of how reality normally works. :)

Should be banned from flying in general..

While I'm sure there is more to the story, IF the part of AA not notifying him he is banned until after showing up to the airport a month after booking a ticket is true, I would say he's entitled to any costs of rebooking that ticket in a similar cabin at a bare minimum.

I'm not getting into the right court aspect, but if there isn't considerably more to this story (there probably is more), AA may be in for more damages as there are only a few reasons for banning a passenger from flying the airline. Safety is one qualifying measure, but there will need to be considerably more to the story than what the pax provided to warrant a ban (again, wouldn't surprise me if there is much more, but how much is going to be the question).

That's an error on OP's part - the denial happened in March 2022 according to the actual article.

AA were right to ban him, but taking his money for a ticket they had no intention of letting him use seems unfair, even to that guy.