>...Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft.
Yes, the airlines reserve the right to not let you board due to their overbooking. In the case of the United passenger (and many others that came to light after this assault) the person had already boarded. At that point, the reasons for not transporting (Rule 21) are spelled out and they don't include reasons like ("we decided to use the seat for our employee" or "a gold member wants the seat"), etc.
The idea of involuntary bumping itself should probably be viewed as regulatory capture. We don't allow that in other industries. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of overbooking as it allows for more efficient use of planes. Whether that results in lower ticket prices or leads to more profit for the airline will actually vary, but it is ultimately immaterial - making more productive use of airplanes is good for everybody. The issue is involuntary bumping and people treating this as somehow acceptable. If the airlines screw up and have too many passengers for too few seats, it is up to them to solve the problem through voluntary means and not assault. Just about everyone has a price they would be willing to give up their seat and it will be different than the person next to them. If you are traveling on a last minute ticket to visit a family member in the hospital, you might not be willing to delay your travel for any amount of money. If you are traveling on a vacation, the amount might be relatively little. Also some passengers will value some things more than others - offering a year of platinum level membership might entice a business traveller, offering money might entice a college student, upgrades to first class might entice others, etc.
I'll take the CEO's word on this one:
>...Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft.
Yes, the airlines reserve the right to not let you board due to their overbooking. In the case of the United passenger (and many others that came to light after this assault) the person had already boarded. At that point, the reasons for not transporting (Rule 21) are spelled out and they don't include reasons like ("we decided to use the seat for our employee" or "a gold member wants the seat"), etc.
The idea of involuntary bumping itself should probably be viewed as regulatory capture. We don't allow that in other industries. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of overbooking as it allows for more efficient use of planes. Whether that results in lower ticket prices or leads to more profit for the airline will actually vary, but it is ultimately immaterial - making more productive use of airplanes is good for everybody. The issue is involuntary bumping and people treating this as somehow acceptable. If the airlines screw up and have too many passengers for too few seats, it is up to them to solve the problem through voluntary means and not assault. Just about everyone has a price they would be willing to give up their seat and it will be different than the person next to them. If you are traveling on a last minute ticket to visit a family member in the hospital, you might not be willing to delay your travel for any amount of money. If you are traveling on a vacation, the amount might be relatively little. Also some passengers will value some things more than others - offering a year of platinum level membership might entice a business traveller, offering money might entice a college student, upgrades to first class might entice others, etc.