Man Dragged off United Flight

srn121 said:
So your argument is that it's ok that they're very bad at their jobs to the point of acting illegally, because of a shared ignorance?
Click to expand...

Wow, daft.

Even if your statement was accurate, the converse of it would be "so you think it's ok when you feel wronged by a company and or its employees to extort said company through tantrums requiring police intervention, diminishing and potentially canceling the value of other innocent customers investment?"



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Cazadores said:
Wow, daft.

Even if your statement was accurate, the converse of it would be "so you think it's ok when you feel wronged by a company and or its employees to extort said company through tantrums requiring police intervention, diminishing and potentially canceling the value of other innocent customers investment?"
Click to expand...

Can you point out where this passenger was in violation of the United contract of carriage as he was already on board?

I've quoted the law numerous times about legally required compensation on the flight. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5 I've also posted numerous stories in which witnesses claimed they were only offered $800 vouchers. United was skirting the law in terms of legally required compensation. Please show me where United was offering to pay what they were legally required to.
 
srn121 said:
Can you point out where this passenger was in violation of the United contract of carriage as he was already on board?

I've quoted the law numerous times about legally required compensation on the flight. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5 I've also posted numerous stories in which witnesses claimed they were only offered $800 vouchers. United was skirting the law in terms of legally required compensation. Please show me where United was offering to pay what they were legally required to.
Click to expand...

You failed to produce the portion on how to handle it if its the last flight to that destination for the day, which it was. Their offer was sufficient enough in this case.
 
srn121 said:
He wasn't denied boarding as you can see he was already on the plane as were the other 3 pax.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that physically being on an aircraft that is privately owned by a company suddenly gives someone a special or protected legal status?
 
SeanD said:
You failed to produce the portion on how to handle it if its the last flight to that destination for the day, which it was.
Click to expand...

That changes nothing. It refers to the time after arrival if you're involuntarily bumped and how much you're owed. Since it was the last flight of they day the passengers would be owed under the law 1350 or 4 times the price of their ticket whichever was less. That's the LAW.
 
NovemberEcho said:
And my point is if the US is going to take over their lands then we will have to accomadate them, unless you prefer just booting them off.
Click to expand...

No, the point was made that there is somehow a basic life need for airline travel to live in certain locations, and I was countering that assertion.

If they were there before there was a US, then clearly they were able to live there without 121 airline travel.
 
Hacker15e said:
No, the point was made that there is somehow a basic life need for airline travel to live in certain locations, and I was countering that assertion.

If they were there before there was a US, then clearly they were able to live there without 121 airline travel.
Click to expand...

If we were still a nation of hunter/gatherers I would agree with you. Alas, we are not.
 
srn121 said:
That changes nothing. It refers to the time after arrival if you're involuntarily bumped and how much you're owed. Since it was the last flight of they day the passengers would be owed under the law 1350 or 4 times the price of their ticket whichever was less. That's the LAW.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I watched the part where he explained this calmly to the agent and asked for the supervisor as he gathered his things so as to not potentially cancel a flight full of other passengers.

Of course the law is pretty clear on obeying the lawful direction of a police officer, too. So, you know, there's that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Hacker15e said:
How does it assume a "perfect" anything?

Don't like airline contracts? Then don't fly on airlines. There are lots of other ways to travel, even by air.
Click to expand...

Better watch what you wish for. If everyone read that thing and registered their displeasure by finding another mode of transport, every airliner in the country would be flying pretty much empty by this evening. And, as I already noted, in any other business no judge would allow that "contract" to stand as a defense in court.
 
RDoug said:
Better watch what you wish for. If everyone read that thing and registered their displeasure by finding another mode of transport, every airliner in the country would be flying pretty much empty by this evening. And, as I already noted, in any other business no judge would allow that "contract" to stand as a defense in court.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how the free market works. That is precisely what I wish for.

Such "voting with your dollars" is what drives businesses to change their business practices.

People have freewill to enter or not enter into contracts they don't like.
 
NovemberEcho said:
If we were still a nation of hunter/gatherers I would agree with you. Alas, we are not.
Click to expand...

I'm stretching to see how this somehow supports the original assertion that there is some sort of problem with the contract of carriage -- the agreement that a provider of a service and a purchaser of that service agree on -- that the Federal government has some business either having on opinion on or making a law to impact.

People still have free choice to fly or not to fly, to live remotely or not live remotely. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
 
Cazadores said:
Yeah, and I watched the part where he explained this calmly to the agent and asked for the supervisor as he gathered his things so as to not potentially cancel a flight full of other passengers.

Of course the law is pretty clear on the obeying the lawful direction of a police officer, too. So, you know, there's that.
Click to expand...

United didn't offer up what they were legally required to and had they did this passenger or others would've easily taken it and you'd have had volunteers beyond the 4 seats that the employees needed. Why the gate agent is trained to offer near worthless vouchers and only up to a certain extent is the problem here. Had they been trained and empowered to follow the law I guarantee this situation wouldn't have occurred. I'm not thrilled with how the passenger acted, but I don't care a great deal because it was 100% on United to make sure it never came to it in this circumstance by offering the compensation they were legally required to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top