It is in violation of United's contract with the ticketed passengers (CofC). To say that they "can do what it likes" is silly. They "can," as having the ability, but "may" they?" No. United contracted with Dr. Dao and all of the other passengers, and United's actions are in conflict with that contract.

Just because airlines have been pulling this bovine scatology for decades doesn't make it legal or right.

I think that overbooking due to no-shows is easy. If you bought the ticket and never made it to the airport you eat the ticket. The issue comes when the no-shows are due to missed connections because of airline or weather delays that are not the PAX fault. There will always be a certain number of these, and the airlines can't just void the tickets in those cases. A no-show will result along with the need to accommodate the customer on a later flight. I believe this was the original justification for over-booking.

That remains to be seen.

And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).

Other than citing the basis of claims for injuries suffered, the lead lawyer on today's news conference (see above) was well spoken, speculative in his facts and self serving.

That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens

I think United's CEO, along with an overwhelming social media and the 24/7 news cycle, let that horse out of the barn days ago. :E

Agreed!

All the lawyers for the family have to do now is present the facts.

According to today's press conference, Dr Dao lost two front teeth, has a broken nose and a significant concussion and damage to his sinuses that will require reconstructive surgery.

United passenger dragged off flight will file lawsuit, lawyer says - CNN.com

You also file a complaint of blackmail against the airline employees just to annoy...Because they were demanding that you allow breach of contract under threat.

Sure there is. The business model (and therefore the low ticket prices that attract customers) is dependent upon selling at a load factor of, (say for example) 110%. If regulation forces this back to 100%, then that's (approximately, given different prices for different classes of service) a 10% gut punch to top-line revenue.

This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.

Had this passenger done as you suggest, then nobody would have heard of the incident, and, although he might personally have received adequate compensation in court, the underlying problems would never have been addressed.

Rosa Parks could have just complied and moved to the back of the bus, too.

Fixing pernicious institutional abuse often requires a considerable level of disobedience, often at considerable personal sacrifice to the individuals who are willing to stand up for everyone's rights.

Agree entirely.
This has the potential to rewrite the rules for passenger management by the US airline industry.
The deadline imho for United to settle this is April 20th, when their responses to the Senate committee are due. If the case is still dragging on at that point, politicians will make the rules different. It will take industry some time to adjust to whatever changes are required, so a period on uncertainty.
Wall Street does not reward uncertainty.

For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.

Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.

Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.

The attorney made it clear at the press conference that they were only going to be representing Dr Dao, and that there was no intention of initiating a class action.

That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.

I'm also Ok with the practice of over-booking and voluntary compensation. The customer can make a choice that is market driven. When a lottery is held for involuntary "re-accommodation" the amount IMHO needs to be much larger. It can easily cost me (or my employer) far more than the $800 voucher (I also contend the voucher is inadequate in any amount) if I don't make it to my destination on time. If I lose this money due to Force Majure that is one thing. To do so because of someone I've contracted with to provide me with transportation has reneged on their end of the contract is not the same. In that case the payment must be proportional to the damage.

Airlines must learn lessons from safety and commercial problems in their own and other airlines.

In this case clearly the problem of the airline. At the point of forced offloading that the airline allowed to become
violent, there was either a policy that allowed such serious actions, there was insufficient policy or none. Hard to
visualise a fault other than the airline.

The solutions include
Immediately compensate pax and not proceed with criminal prosecution
Publish overbooking and full offloading procedure including D/H crew

Of course all safety and commercial policies need review.

The class action will come after the courts decide that the practice of bumping paying passengers in favor of DH crew is in violation of the CoCs.

Good, that should help!

slats11,
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Since the early 90s, Bermuda-based insurance carriers have also offered policyholders a separate stand-alone policy to protect against awards for punitive damages where the domestic "wrapped" liability policy is otherwise prohibited from providing punitive damages coverage due to public policy, statutory, or regulatory considerations. The policy is offered on an indemnification basis and is triggered by a judgment in a court of law.

This coverage would come into play big time for an airline, lets say, where there is a major tragedy due to negligence by employees or management.

However, in this instance it isn't a loss resulting from a domestic crash resulting in the deaths of hundreds of victims.

It is this consideration as to why I believe United will do their very best to settle ASAP with all parties concerned and avoid going to court. They are a large corporation and should be able to reach an agreed upon settlement with the Doctor and or other passengers should there be a class action suit. United needs to get out of the limelight as quickly as possible, objective #1...

Nobody is obliged to accept a voucher in lieu of cash.