Man Dragged off United Flight

Hacker15e said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I was saying earlier, one way or another. Few things are more infuriating than a politician running about with a " bill of rights" for passengers while touting the benefits of deregulation.

It's either deregulated, where people are free to take or leave the product, market forces etc. or it's not. You can't beat the industry with a bat when it attempts to find profit through limiting service, and then expect to see it thrive when you throw it in the dog fighting pit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I think there is little debate that airlines routinely misuse contract law to hide behind intentionally long-winded "contracts" that are made difficult to access and overly burdensome to read in order to indemnify themselves from any and all failures to deliver on the service or product they are paid to provide, even when such failures are clearly the fault of the airline. Indeed, I'd wager that not five passengers out of a thousand has ever read that contract for those very reasons alone — because they're deliberately engineered to preclude anyone reading them.

That being the case then, yes, the "government" should step in and put a stop to these abuses of contract law, whether governmental entity doing this is a judge at a trial or Congress legisslating that such abuses of contract law are invalid, and that any "protections" mandated by them are null and void.
 
RDoug said:
not five passengers out of a thousand has ever read that contract for those very reasons alone — because they're deliberately engineered to preclude anyone reading them.
Click to expand...

So why is it again that the government has any business in individuals' personal irresponsibility and failure to exercise due diligence in willingly entering into contracts they did not read or did not understand?
 
Hacker15e said:
I heard the folks in the work camps in North Korea are wearing little "we support United passengers" ribbons to show their solidarity.
Click to expand...
It's a great example, but even if the idea of NK is too much to wrap your head around, there are real examples of it here.

Getting security screened and having to follow rules to partake in one of the greatest privileges of modern times isn't one though.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Hacker15e said:
So why is it again that the government has any business in individuals' personal irresponsibility and failure to exercise due diligence in willingly entering into contracts they did not read or did not understand?
Click to expand...
Did you even read the Wikipedia link I listed above? It's not a two sided arrangement in these sorts of cases.

You're a smart dude - wrong, but you're a smart dude ;-) - do you really think that a contract based Randian wet-dream is remotely ok when the average person in America reads at an 8th grade level? I don't think it is, and I don't think "well, no big deal, a sucker is born every minute" is a good enough excuse for having crappy and exploitative contracts.

that said, have you read every contract you've ever been subject to? Even the EULA you agreed to when you updated your iPhone, every time? I doubt it.


If you really want to get philosophical you could argue that the only reason that United can call that seat property is because the police have a monopoly on violence in our system. Since we (the electorate) ostensibly control what property rights are enforceable by the police, we have every right to curtail the use of police on the removal of cooperative seated passengers on airlines. You forget that, even though it is indirect, we ARE the government, we have every right.
 
Hacker15e said:
So why is it again that the government has any business in individuals' personal irresponsibility and failure to exercise due diligence in willingly entering into contracts they did not read or did not understand?
Click to expand...

To answer your question, read my entire post, including "because they're deliberately engineered to preclude anyone reading them."

That would be like me telling clients in my restaurant that there's a contract, only available online, that they should probably read before dining, and stuffed deep inside that 50-page contract that isn't even available in the restaurant is this little item: "By ordering off the menu, the diner assumes all responsibility for any food poisoning resulting from consumption of the meat, chicken, or fish served on premises. Doug's Diner is absolved of all responsibility for said consumption, but may at the discretion of the on-duty manager and subject to further review from the owner, give the affected diner/diners a voucher for 50% off on their next meal."

Would that "contract" stand up at the trial in which I'm being sued? No way. So, the real question is, why do you insist upon granting to airlines protections in contract law that no other business would ever get away with?
 
trafficinsight said:
I giggle a little bit anytime someone calls the process of flying dehumanizing.... Just saying.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Flying is uncomfortable- going through security is certainly dehumanizing. Since I have to do one to do the other the whole process sure is.

You're treated as cattle at worst and as a criminal at best. If you've ever been involved in charter, small time 135 (where everyone knows your name -cue cheers) you'd know the difference. Charters and small airports and airlines have a much more "wholesome" feeling. Try it some time!
 
RDoug said:
Would that "contract" stand up at the trial in which I'm being sued? No way. So, the real question is, why do you insist upon granting to airlines protections in contract law that no other business would ever get away with?
Click to expand...

Probably because he wants to go to united? I would gladly go to United too - it's an awesome job for pilots, but their customer service model needs fixing. I'd say that at the interview too. Being an apologist for a company is great if they're great - but the real strength comes in recognizing when you screw up then trying to do better next time.

United needs to do this or it will haunt their already shaky reputation. How hard is it to treat your customers ethically?
 
RDoug said:
To answer your question, read my entire post, including "because they're deliberately engineered to preclude anyone reading them."

That would be like me telling clients in my restaurant that there's a contract, only available online, that they should probably read before dining, and stuffed deep inside that 50-page contract that isn't even available in the restaurant is this little item: "By ordering off the menu, the diner assumes all responsibility for any food poisoning resulting from consumption of the meat, chicken, or fish served on premises. Doug's Diner is absolved of all responsibility for said consumption, but may at the discretion of the on-duty manager and subject to further review from the owner, give the affected diner/diners a voucher for 50% off on their next meal."

Would that "contract" stand up at the trial in which I'm being sued? No way. So, the real question is, why do you insist upon granting to airlines protections in contract law that no other business would ever get away with?
Click to expand...

Because he has to. Otherwise his already incredibly weak argument would disappear like a fart in the wind.
 
ppragman said:
Flying is uncomfortable- going through security is certainly dehumanizing. Since I have to do one to do the other the whole process sure is.

You're treated as cattle at worst and as a criminal at best. If you've ever been involved in charter, small time 135 (where everyone knows your name -cue cheers) you'd know the difference. Charters and small airports and airlines have a much more "wholesome" feeling. Try it some time!
Click to expand...
Exhibit A... ;)

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
srn121 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding the DOTs regulation regarding compensation for denied boarding. The regulation states a MAXIMUM of $1350.

Here is the reg: "(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight."

Should they have offered more then the $800 or $1000 that they did offer? Of course. It sounds like the agents will now have the leeway to offer more compensation in the future, regardless of what the DOT says is maximum under the law.
 
ppragman said:
Probably because he wants to go to united? I would gladly go to United too - it's an awesome job for pilots, but their customer service model needs fixing. I'd say that at the interview too. Being an apologist for a company is great if they're great - but the real strength comes in recognizing when you screw up then trying to do better next time.

United needs to do this or it will haunt their already shaky reputation. How hard is it to treat your customers ethically?
Click to expand...
I'd be shocked if @Hacker15e had any desire to leave his current shop. Going to any of the "big 3" would be a down grade
 
Since some of us are such sticklers for contracts: Aviation Attorney Believes United Airlines Violated Its Own Contract

Relevant quotes:

"Aviation attorney Arthur Wolk says he read all 45 pages of United’s Contract of Carriage and he believes the airline violated its own contract."

“'I want to assure United Airlines they had absolutely no right to remove that man from the airplane. Absolutely no right to forcibly remove him from an airplane. They’re in trouble.'”

"According to Wolk, airlines can deny you a seat, but once you’re on board that’s a different story."
 
norcalpilot25 said:
I think you are misunderstanding the DOTs regulation regarding compensation for denied boarding. The regulation states a MAXIMUM of $1350.

Here is the reg: "(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight."
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I was quoting and what I've been statting the whole time. According to multiple witnesses the only thing they were offered is $800 VOUCHERs and never cash. The airline claims they later offered 1000 in compensation, but they were never clear on whether that was in vouchers or cash and who knows whether they actually did or not as the witnesses on board weren't saying that.
 
srn121 said:
Which is exactly what I was quoting and what I've been statting the whole time. According to multiple witnesses the only thing they were offered is $800 VOUCHERs and never cash. The airline claims they later offered 1000 in compensation, but they were never clear on whether that was in vouchers or cash and who knows whether they actually did or not as the witnesses on board weren't saying that.
Click to expand...
The Agent tried to make it cheap. Looks like that didn't work out..... BTW Delta offers sometimes more then the maximum :D
 
Der rote Baron said:
The Agent tried to make it cheap. Looks like that didn't work out..... BTW Delta offers sometimes more then the maximum :D
Click to expand...

Delta's my favorite of the big three by far. They're trying to make flying better and I appreciate them offering meals on long national flights, meanwhile United's offering an even cheaper ticket ("Basic Economy, no full size carry on allowed) and American's not sure whether it should follow United or Delta's lead (hopefully Delta's). If I'm traveling by myself I'll almost always book Southwest for the flexibility they offer in case I decided to extend or shorten my stay or travel at a different date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top