[blueash]

Originally Posted by biker1

This has already been addressed. See post #128 and #130. No need to repeat the information.

Perhaps I am having a problem with reading comprehension but both post 128

it could be as high as $1350

and 130

The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival.

say that the limit, or maximum, compensation is 1350.

That is wrong, the 1350 is the minimum required for tickets that cost 337.50 or more. There is no maximum. So statements saying or suggesting that the DOT rules limit the amount the airline can offer to 1350 are incorrect. So I believe I am not repeating information already presented, rather I am attempting, apparently poorly, to correct misinformation on the regulations for involuntary bumping compensation.

[GatorFan]

These were not stand by employers. They were a working crew that needed to be flown to destination to work a flight.

[biker1]

You are incorrect to say that there is no maximum. Also, please note that I was misquoted in post #129 and tried to correct the misquote in post #130. I will try again to state the facts.

I find the wording in the Contract of Carriage to be misleading and can possibly be interpreted two ways. For a two hour or greater delay, the compensation is 400% of the one-way fare with a maximum of $1350. That could be interpreted as 400% of a maximum fare of $1350 (in which case the maximum compensation would be $5400 or 4 x $1350) or the maximum compensation is $1350 (regardless of how expensive the one-way fare is). I believe the latter applies and the maximum compensation is $1350. Regardless, there is a maximum. This applies to involuntary bumping only.

Go back at reread the United Contract of Carriage.

Here is summary from my travel folks at work, bold type added by me:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Originally Posted by blueash

Perhaps I am having a problem with reading comprehension but both post 128 and 130 say that the limit, or maximum, compensation is 1350.

That is wrong, the 1350 is the minimum required for tickets that cost 337.50 or more. There is no maximum. So statements saying or suggesting that the DOT rules limit the amount the airline can offer to 1350 are incorrect. So I believe I am not repeating information already presented, rather I am attempting, apparently poorly, to correct misinformation on the regulations for involuntary bumping compensation.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by biker1

You are incorrect to say that there is no maximum. Also, please note that I was misquoted in post #129 and tried to correct the misquote in post #130. I will try again to state the facts.

I find the wording in the Contract of Carriage to be misleading and can possibly be interpreted two ways. For a two hour or greater delay, the compensation is 400% of the one-way fare with a maximum of $1350. That could be interpreted as 400% of a maximum fare of $1350 (in which case the maximum compensation would be $5400 or 4 x $1350) or the maximum compensation is $1350 (regardless of how expensive the one-way fare is). I believe the latter applies and the maximum compensation is $1350. Regardless, there is a maximum. This applies to involuntary bumping only.

Go back at reread the United Contract of Carriage.

Here is summary from my travel folks at work, bold type added by me:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Sorry, but this is why I am correcting you. There is no confusion at all in what the DOT regulations mean. My interpretation is correct. Unless the passenger accepts a lowball offer, the airline is required to pay 400% of the ticket price to an involuntarily bumped passenger who is delayed 2 hours. This 400% rule is capped at 1350 [4 x 337.50]. For tickets priced higher than 337.50 the airline is not required to offer 400% of the ticket price, only REQUIRED to pay the 1350. In other words 1350 is the minimum they must pay, again absent the passenger accepting a lower lowball offer.

See the language you have correctly included which is from the DOT website in your post which I enlarged. "the airline must pay you". It is the critical phrase and sets the lowest amount you should expect to receive. For a >2 hour delay the airline MUST compensate you 400% of your ticket price. If that were the stand alone rule and your ticket cost $500, you would be entitled to a minimum of $2000. Clear so far? To limit the airline's penalty required the DOT capped that required penalty instead at 1350.

That means that the airline is not required to offer more than 1350. It does not mean the airline is not allowed to offer more than 1350. If United wishes to say, well the government will not force us to offer more so we never will, that is a corporate choice. The government sets the minimum the consumer is entitled to receive.


Now I see you have cited a friend who works in the business as your source. I will cite the DOT regulation which is very clear.

Oversales
• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
 
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
 
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.

***********
Lastly, Delta has recently announced they are authorizing their personnel to offer higher compensation to induce passengers to be bumped,

A customer-service agent will be able to offer $2,000 per change from the previous $800. A higher-ranking worker such as an operations service manager could offer up to $9,950, from the previous cap of $1,350.

If the DOT regulated the maximum that could be offered, this change would be a violation.

and United has changed its policy on when dead head crew members must be at the gate to be accommodated

The airline, owned by United Continental Holdings Inc. said it would make sure crews traveling on their aircraft are booked into seats at least 60 minutes before departure.

[biker1]

As I already started, and as is written in the Contract of Carriage, there is a maximum compensation. You will be compensated, for a 2 hour delay, 4x the one-way fare up to a maximum of $1350. If your one-way fare is $100, they will compensate you $400. If your one-way fare is $500, you will be compensated $1350 and not $2000 because the compensation maximum is $1350. The involuntarily bumped passenger cannot accept a lowball offer, as you stated, because the compensation is mandated by the DOT. For some reason, you choose to inject the word "minimum" into the conversation when the language "the compensation is 4x the one-way fare and is capped at a maximum of $1350" is crystal clear. While you could make the argument that "the minimum you will receive is the maximum the airline will pay if your one-way fare is over certain value", but that is warped way of stating things. Again, you previously stated that there was no maximum and that is clearly wrong. Also, don't confuse involuntary with voluntary bumping. There are no DOT limits to compensation for voluntary bumping. Hopefully I have explained the situation to you.

For the technically astute:

compensation = 4 * one_way_ticket_price
if ( compensation > 1350) compensation = 1350

Originally Posted by blueash

Sorry, but this is why I am correcting you. There is no confusion at all in what the DOT regulations mean. My interpretation is correct. Unless the passenger accepts a lowball offer, the airline is required to pay 400% of the ticket price to an involuntarily bumped passenger who is delayed 2 hours. This 400% rule is capped at 1350 [4 x 337.50]. For tickets priced higher than 337.50 the airline is not required to offer 400% of the ticket price, only REQUIRED to pay the 1350. In other words 1350 is the minimum they must pay, again absent the passenger accepting a lower lowball offer.

See the language you have correctly included which is from the DOT website in your post which I enlarged. "the airline must pay you". It is the critical phrase and sets the lowest amount you should expect to receive. For a >2 hour delay the airline MUST compensate you 400% of your ticket price. If that were the stand alone rule and your ticket cost $500, you would be entitled to a minimum of $2000. Clear so far? To limit the airline's penalty required the DOT capped that required penalty instead at 1350.

That means that the airline is not required to offer more than 1350. It does not mean the airline is not allowed to offer more than 1350. If United wishes to say, well the government will not force us to offer more so we never will, that is a corporate choice. The government sets the minimum the consumer is entitled to receive.


Now I see you have cited a friend who works in the business as your source. I will cite the DOT regulation which is very clear.

Oversales
• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
 
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
 
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.

***********
Lastly, Delta has recently announced they are authorizing their personnel to offer higher compensation to induce passengers to be bumped,

If the DOT regulated the maximum that could be offered, this change would be a violation.

and United has changed its policy on when dead head crew members must be at the gate to be accommodated

[John_W]

Delta Airlines trumps them all. This morning on Today and HLN they said they will now offer up to $10,000 to bumped passengers.

[biker1]

More specifically, it looks like they will offer up to $10,000 to be voluntarily bumped (you volunteer to give up your seat). If you are involuntarily bumped, the maximum you will be compensated is $1350. Good marketing move since it gets headlines and the chances they will ever have to offer that high of a number is very slim indeed.

Originally Posted by John_W

Delta Airlines trumps them all. This morning on Today and HLN they said they will now offer up to $10,000 to bumped passengers.

[dillywho]

This guy was so concerned that he HAD to get back to see patients the next day. My questions are: What about those patients now? Would it not have been much simpler for him to just reschedule instead? Now, they have probably had to seek treatment elsewhere. With his apparent background, they might just be better off. (Just speculating, understand.)

Except for his big lawsuit, what did he accomplish? Whatever he comes out of the lawsuit with, is he going to share with those patients he just had to get back for? My GUESS would be NOT.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by biker1

As I already started, and as is written in the Contract of Carriage, there is a maximum compensation.

We can agree that United's contract only offers the ticketed passenger a maximum of 1350 for being involuntarily denied boarding. That is their corporate choice and a business decision. They are in compliance with DOT rules which state that United must pay at least that amount for a ticket priced at 1/4 that amount.

Where we are having an issue is your suggestion that DOT sets the maximum that United or any other carrier can offer to induce a passenger to give up their seat.

I am not the only one who reads your comment as saying the DOT only allows 1350 as the maximum United could give.

As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

. And it was that comment about a federal law setting an "up to" that began this exchange when I wrote a post saying that is an incorrect understanding.

Again here is post 130 from you

There is a difference between DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping and the fact that there is no DOT mandated compensation for voluntary bumping. The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival.

The first sentence is true. The airline can offer as little as nothing to induce people to volunteer to give up their seat. The second sentence is wrong in that you claim there is a mandated limit of 1350 for involuntary bumping. You suggest the 1350 is the MOST the airline can offer because that number is DOT mandated. The limit is a bottom limit. It is the minimum United and all other carriers must pay to involuntary denied passengers. Again see the actual DOT language, it includes the word minimum. So United is not bound by regulation to only offer 1350. It can have in its contract any language but the language they chose equates to:

If you are involuntarily bumped the government forces us to pay you 1350 and we will not offer one penny more as that complies with the minimum we get away with.

Once a passenger agrees to any lower [or higher] amount they are no longer being involuntarily bumped so the DOT rules no longer apply. As long as you will agree that the DOT sets the minimum amount due the involuntary bumpee and the airline picks any number which can be any number equal or greater than required, we are done. And this is an issue when people say, well United was only allowed to offer 1350 to try to get people to give up seats. No, United was allowed to offer whatever it needed to offer to get someone to give up its seats. Even in a contract, one side can give more than the contract language stipulates, just not less. It never even offered the 1350 which its own contract says was the amount it would owe for involuntary denial of boarding.

As to what did this accomplish? Airlines now will never force a passenger off a flight for their own convenience. Passengers will be more aware of their rights. Airport security will perhaps train their people better. There may be greater understanding of the need for a functioning Consumer Protection Agency. These are some positive outcomes of a very unfortunate event.

Time for nine and dine

[biker1]

I think we essentially agree. I will summarize:

1) For involuntarily bumped passengers, they will receive up to $1350 as compensation. DOT does not require the airlines to pay anything above that. I suppose an airline could offer to pay more but I don't ever see that happening.

2) For passengers volunteering to give up there seat, there are no DOT mandates. The airlines can offer any amount. I have never made any statements about maximums for passengers to give up their seat voluntarily. I was misquoted in this regard in posting #129.

These are the only two positions I have taken.

Originally Posted by blueash

We can agree that United's contract only offers the ticketed passenger a maximum of 1350 for being involuntarily denied boarding. That is their corporate choice and a business decision. They are in compliance with DOT rules which state that United must pay at least that amount for a ticket priced at 1/4 that amount.

Where we are having an issue is your suggestion that DOT sets the maximum that United or any other carrier can offer to induce a passenger to give up their seat.

I am not the only one who reads your comment as saying the DOT only allows 1350 as the maximum United could give.
. And it was that comment about a federal law setting an "up to" that began this exchange when I wrote a post saying that is an incorrect understanding.

Again here is post 130 from you



The first sentence is true. The airline can offer as little as nothing to induce people to volunteer to give up their seat. The second sentence is wrong in that you claim there is a mandated limit of 1350 for involuntary bumping. You suggest the 1350 is the MOST the airline can offer because that number is DOT mandated. The limit is a bottom limit. It is the minimum United and all other carriers must pay to involuntary denied passengers. Again see the actual DOT language, it includes the word minimum. So United is not bound by regulation to only offer 1350. It can have in its contract any language but the language they chose equates to:

If you are involuntarily bumped the government forces us to pay you 1350 and we will not offer one penny more as that complies with the minimum we get away with.

Once a passenger agrees to any lower [or higher] amount they are no longer being involuntarily bumped so the DOT rules no longer apply. As long as you will agree that the DOT sets the minimum amount due the involuntary bumpee and the airline picks any number which can be any number equal or greater than required, we are done. And this is an issue when people say, well United was only allowed to offer 1350 to try to get people to give up seats. No, United was allowed to offer whatever it needed to offer to get someone to give up its seats. Even in a contract, one side can give more than the contract language stipulates, just not less. It never even offered the 1350 which its own contract says was the amount it would owe for involuntary denial of boarding.

As to what did this accomplish? Airlines now will never force a passenger off a flight for their own convenience. Passengers will be more aware of their rights. Airport security will perhaps train their people better. There may be greater understanding of the need for a functioning Consumer Protection Agency. These are some positive outcomes of a very unfortunate event.

Time for nine and dine

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by GatorFan

These were not stand by employers. They were a working crew that needed to be flown to destination to work a flight.

Gee, I may be upset if my flight in Louisville were canceled because no one in Chicago would give up seats for these 4 employees.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dillywho

This guy was so concerned that he HAD to get back to see patients the next day. My questions are: What about those patients now? Would it not have been much simpler for him to just reschedule instead? Now, they have probably had to seek treatment elsewhere. With his apparent background, they might just be better off. (Just speculating, understand.)

Except for his big lawsuit, what did he accomplish? Whatever he comes out of the lawsuit with, is he going to share with those patients he just had to get back for? My GUESS would be NOT.

But you forget the best part---if you look up this "doctor", his office address is a PO Box!!!!!

[ColdNoMore]

Wow, some of these responses are analogous to blaming the rape victim...because her dress was too short.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Wow, some of these responses are analogous to blaming the rape victim...because her dress was too short.

No, there's no excuse for what UAL and the Chicago PD did. However, unlike a rape victim, I think this guy's behavior was contributory to the problem.

[GatorFan]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

Gee, I may be upset if my flight in Louisville were canceled because no one in Chicago would give up seats for these 4 employees.

Don't forget the passengers waiting on the flight from Louisville and so on.