Does the contract of carriage say the service they're selling is a guaranteed flight? Spoiler: No.
I hate the air travel experience as much as the next guy, but for the life of me I can't understand the derangement that seems to take hold of people when they start talking about. All else held equal, reducing airline costs (for example, by increasing utilization as with overbooked flights) brings prices down. It reminds me of when everyone I knew started complaining about airlines charging for luggage. When I'd ask them "I never fly with luggage, why should I bear the cost (fuel, opportunity cost, etc) of you packing too much", the most I got was some sputtering about how they didn't see why prices would be affected, even from people who I know knew much better.
> The boner people on HN have for objectivism really does get quite old.
Don't confuse your economic illiteracy with other people's support of objectivism. The perspective you're describing isn't even particularly libertarian, let alone Objectivist (and no, I'm not personally a fan of either of those philosophies).
I was specifically rebutting the claim that airlines are getting "special treatment" [by the government] by being allowed to sell services they don't fulfill. The service they're selling is not "a guaranteed flight".
Words have meaning and facts matter, beyond "Airlines bad, pick a side". It's possible to think that they're anti-competitive and shitty without making entirely false claims about them (as the gp comment did).
The way it eas handled can definitely be improved, but you can't argue that it is inherently bad.
> but you can't argue that it is inherently bad.
You're simplifying things a bit too much.
You can't go from:
- We want to make air travel more cost effective, and less damaging to the environment.
And arrive at:
- The only way to achieve this, is to sell more tickets than we have physical seats for, to ensure the plane is jam packed when it takes off.
There are always alternatives, Americans just seem to be fucking brilliant at ignoring any possible alternative than their first shitty attempt.
I think you don't understand the law as it currently exists, because what happened on that united flight was in clear violation of that law.
They didn't deny the man boarding, they deplaned him. This isn't something the airline is allowed to do for economic reasons, ever.
The boner people on HN have for objectivism really does get quite old.