Originally Posted by
Dragon69
Show me where exactly it says that they have the right to remove you for operational reasons. You don't seem to understand that when you purchase a ticket you enter into an agreement or contract with the airline, and they are legally bound (with certain clauses) to get you to your destination.
This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.
Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.
You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.
Thank you for looking that up.
I agree it's a stretch, but it could be force majeure, for disturbance, the catch-all clause similar to what CX likes to use with us: 'unforeseen circumstances'.
Note also that it also says; 'but not limited to', leaving them a lot of leeway, which is what you want as an airline.
It may be a
pr disaster, but they were within their rights to deplane the pax.