dilanesp

I just saw this thread, but if you really want to punish the person who did this, and have some time on your hands, file a lawsuit for fraud and conversion naming the usurper and the flight attendant as Doe defendants, and then subpoena UA for their names. This is how the recording industry went after file sharers, and it's quite lawful and would make everyone involved freak out.

garykung

Unfortunately, the lawsuit will get tossed out even before a subpoena can be issued.

Because this incident is related to airline services, so it is preempted by ADA.

dilanesp

100 percent wrong. Contractual fraud and/or conversion by an airline employee is not preempted.

And even if you were right, no motion to dismiss could be made until after the culprits were identified and named. The subpoena is entirely enforceable.

LarryJ

Also, the ADA does not apply to air travel. Air travel is covered by the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA, 14 CFR 382).

There are some similarities in the two regulations but there are many significant differences.

warakorn

Unless I am mistaken with a HKG-EWR flight;
If someone on HK soil asks me that a seat is needed for military - I'd automatically it is the military that has jurisdiction/power over the place I am at the moment;
For HKG it is the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Would you give up your seat freely for a PLA officer?

garykung

ADA specifies that all state claims related to price, route, and/or service are preempted. The alleged conducts were done during the course of the airline service. I simply don't see how contractual fraud and/or conversion can survive ADA.

Here, ADA does not usually refer as Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but Airline Deregulation Act.

MSPeconomist

bocastephen

On a US air carrier? Not a chance, especially if I'm in Hong Kong.

A lawsuit might get tossed, although not before costing United enough money in legal fees while responding to it, that they might want to take a deeper look into what happened and A) properly compensate the customer, and B) go after all of the employees involved. They can't toss the suit without showing up in court and making a motion, and unless the OP lives in an area where UA has employed legal staff, the airline will need to hire a local firm to represent them, and that will cost them a few thousand.

If the OP lives in one of the states with a low cost small claims filing fee, it's a few hours of their time and $50 to ring United's bell pretty loud and get a better outcome that should be a decent return on the investment of time and money, and the potential for a little comfort knowing the employees involved probably got their bell rung pretty badly.

dilanesp

It survives because it isn't a claim against the airline based on denial of service. It's a claim against two individuals for fraud.

If I promise you a better seat on a United flight if you do something for me personally, that's a contractual fraud claim. If I worked for United, but I am acting on my own accord, the analysis is the same.

WineCountryUA

Before we get too far off track
The OP was asked to move to a seat in the back, not a better seat.
The OP was asked, without a threat if refused, but agreed because "Being dumb and a somewhat nice guy, I complied. "
The OP feels they were given a bogus reason for the request and that is the issue the OP is upset about.

So the issues in question are: if the OP's suspicion is correct (not a known fact) would that be sufficient for ligation?
Also, some have raised the "color of authority" issue, was the request, not a request but an implied demand. Would that be sufficient for an action?

The OP received what was promised but felt the reason provided may have been false (although it could have been true even in the case of being an employee) or at least incomplete in neglecting to mention (if true) it was an employee -- not clear if the OP would have acted differently knowing that fact.

Beleive the above is an accurate summary, and for the record IMNAL and have no intention of providing legal advice -- but do like to see the discussion stick close to the given information.

garykung

The alleged FA was working in her official capacity as an UA employee. So UA is the ultimate responsible party.

In term of the NRSA pax, UA could arguably claim because the pax was traveling by using employee benefit and needed to follow company policy. The same employee argument could apply to the pax as well.

Not sufficient.

With ADA, all uncertainties are deferred to ADA preemption over state law claims. So as I said again, any state law claims won't survive as they are preempted.

OP (or anyone) could argue that was a misleading practice under DOT statutes. Sure, but the statutes do not provide a private cause of action. OP could complain to the DOT. But I seriously doubt that DOT would do anything other than sending the complaint to UA for informal resolution.

Even in the slimiest chance that OP does have a private cause of action, it is not worth the effort. UA won't provide a full refund for sure and has coughed up some miles (equivalent to ETC). The E+ exit row is, at best, worth $300. So why not simply write to UA for more instead of the whole fuzz?

IMHO - It would be impossible to land thousands in this case.

IANAL.

arcticflier

e24mpwr

A few thoughts on this thread:

• I have accommodated switches before, but on a long/international flight I would have declined. I work very hard to get the seat I'm looking for, and it's as much about my sanity and health as it is any luxury or comfort. I'm 6'1", so a big enough guy that the leg-room, etc. matters a lot. No chance in hell I'm going to go to the back in a middle seat unless the need is great. I haven't been asked in a while, and I've flown 800K miles in the last 8 years or so.
• Assuming the language of the request was accurately described, the FA was absolutely deceptive (elderly, etc.). That and the resulting discomfort are the important details here.
• I agree with the sentiment that whether it's a non-rev flyer or just a pal, FA's have no business asking passengers to move. It's leveraging their position for a more-likely acquiescence.
• All the non-rev people I've flown with have either been awesome or nearly invisible. No issues ever with a non-rev.
• If I decline and get bad service, I'm going to make a big issue of it. I'm generally pretty easy-going. Until I'm not.
• I wouldn't find 6000 miles good compensation here. I'd want a GPU or something substantial for being in a crappy seat for 13 hours by being deceived by an airline employee.
• The UA vs. former Continental thing is a poison to UA's culture and product. They should address it.

TheFlyingBrick

The answer is simple - UA (and any other airline) that is informed of this problem should sack these bludgers and be rid of them.

Better for the company - and better for the passenger.

knownothing

I would have demanded my seat back and said andn shown them my ticket and if they said no to bring it the attention of the Captain. First I would have taken a video of them