14 C.F.R. § 250.6

Exceptions to eligibility for denied boarding compensation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:

(a) The passenger does not comply fully with the carrier's contract of carriage or tariff provisions regarding ticketing, reconfirmation, check-in, and acceptability for transportation;

(b) The flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons; or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;

(c) The passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on the ticket at no extra charge, except that a passenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged shall be entitled to an appropriate refund; or

(d) The carrier arranges comparable air transportation, or other transportation used by the passenger at no extra cost to the passenger, that at the time such arrangements are made is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's next stopover or, if none, at the airport of the final destination not later than 1 hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight or flights.

[ER-1337, 48 FR 29680, June 28, 1983, as amended at Doc. No. OST-01-9325, 73 FR 21034, Apr. 18, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1969–2007 · leading case: Edna Christensen v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1980).
Edna Christensen v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “; that Northwest Airlines was liable on a common law fraud and deceit claim stemming from their deliberate overbooking policies; and that she was further damaged as a result of rude and discourteous conduct by an agent of Northwest Airlines.”
Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. 2007). “3d at 755-56 ; see also 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (c). The court noted that the specific federal *372 regulations had a national purpose in that they provided a uniform system of compensation to passengers.”
Ralph Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 512 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (b) (1974). Section 250.”
Black v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Addressing Delta's claim that Black was entitled to only $60 because she was offered seating in coach, we note that 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 does not specifically preempt Black's claim.”
Mortimer v. Delta Air Lines, 302 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Ill. 1969). “If, for example, a flight is inadvertently oversold the passenger with the least priority, who is barred from the flight, is entitled to denied boarding compensation, if no substitute passage can be arranged within the limits of the regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (b), even…”
Gary Wasserman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., a New York Corp., 632 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “The district court found that both claims were barred by Wasserman’s acceptance of alternative transportation under 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (1976) and other applicable regulations.”
Wasserman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 194 (W.D. Mo. 1980). · cites it 2× “6) concerns the legal impact of plaintiff’s acceptance of alternative transportation pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (1976). The question presented is whether 14 C.”
Stone v. Cont'l Airlines, 10 Misc. 3d 811 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2005). “5 (a), a “bumped” passenger is entitled to compensation of $400 per passenger or a lower amount computed “at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final…”
Eric Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., Raytheon Travel Air, & Flight Options, L.L.C. (Tex. App. 2007). “3d at 755–56; see also 14 C.F.R. § 250.6 (c). The court noted that the specific federal regulations had a national purpose in that they provided a uniform system of compensation to passengers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.