United going after 22-yr old

Why don't airlines stop ripping people off? Smf to Slc is double on Delta if you buy the direct flight compared to Smf to Sea with a stopover in Slc. This is just smart shopping.

Because markets aren't linear.

I just bought a combo burrito and a bean and cheese from Taco Bell with a small drink and paid $6. If there is actually $2 in material, labor and overhead costs, I'd be surprised.

Business isn't in business to give you a product as near as possible to the cost of goods sold.
 
Because markets aren't linear.

I just bought a combo burrito and a bean and cheese from Taco Bell with a small drink and paid $6. If there is actually $2 in material, labor and overhead costs, I'd be surprised.

Business isn't in business to give you a product as near as possible to the cost of goods sold.
I think that's a pretty poor example, personally.

In Taco Bell world, you pay more for getting more. If you wanted two combo burritos and bean and cheeses with two drinks, you'd have been charged $12. It's a simple, straight forward business model.

In the airline world, it's quite possible that the guy who ordered after you got double what you got for half of what you paid.

It's a slimy way of doing business and it irks consumers to no end. It's why SWA is now the largest domestic airline in the US. Simple pricing structures that people trust deliver a good value for what they pay.

I'd much rather work for an airline people WANT to fly on vs. folks HAVING to fly on. SWA, jetBlue, etc. understand that fact and it's why they grew like wildfire when everyone else was shrinking in the post-9/11 world.
 
Because markets aren't linear.

I just bought a combo burrito and a bean and cheese from Taco Bell with a small drink and paid $6. If there is actually $2 in material, labor and overhead costs, I'd be surprised.

Business isn't in business to give you a product as near as possible to the cost of goods sold.

What if I only wanted a bean burrito, but for some reason, Taco bell makes it cheaper for me to buy the meal deal? Will Taco Bell sue me if I decide to buy the combo, throw away the taco and drink, then make that public to the world?

In the airline world, it's quite possible that the guy who ordered after you got double what you got for half of what you paid.

Also happens in the health care world. It turns out the same procedure is not the same price for everyone. At least the airlines are required to make their prices publicly available.
 
In Taco Bell world, you pay more for getting more. If you wanted two combo burritos and bean and cheeses with two drinks, you'd have been charged $12. It's a simple, straight forward business model.

In the airline world, it's quite possible that the guy who ordered after you got double what you got for half of what you paid.

I used to hold an American Airlines Business AirPass. Every year I'd get 25,000 seat miles pre purchased as part of the package (not FF miles). If I took a 2407 mile trip the miles were simply deducted from my card.

The card also come with a bunch of upgrades, Admirals Club membership and such. Also a real life saver for the frequent flyer; If you got to the gate before the flight boarded you were guaranteed a seat even if the flight was sold out. Unfortunately someone would get bumped.
 
What if I only wanted a bean burrito, but for some reason, Taco bell makes it cheaper for me to buy the meal deal? Will Taco Bell sue me if I decide to buy the combo, throw away the taco and drink, then make that public to the world?

Taco Bell would sue if you had a web site about it.
 
What if I only wanted a bean burrito, but for some reason, Taco bell makes it cheaper for me to buy the meal deal? Will Taco Bell sue me if I decide to buy the combo, throw away the taco and drink, then make that public to the world?

I think I'd probably honor the "cease and desist"! :)
 
I think I'd probably honor the "cease and desist"! :)

Now that's funny.

In all seriousness though, this is what concerns me most about this type of corporate bullying known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), because this is just a small step toward a much larger attempt to control everything you say about services or products you receive:
Those are pretty scary precedents that go to the very heart of what freedom of speech is all about. And what United is attempting to do is really no different than the above cited examples.
 
I honestly wonder how many newb travelers that would use this site would get burned with their carry on luggage. They would board in group 4 or 5 and if the pl
Oh, I don't think I'm missing anything here. What this kid is doing is no different than if he posted advertised Sunday supplement specials from the local newspaper of differing prices for an X-Box. And it would be no different than Target going after him because he pointed out that Best Buy had a better deal.
Again this has nothing at all to to with the first amendment. You can blame a jacked up judicial system for this but freedom of speech is only a government restriction. Freedom of Speech is not applicable to this scenario.
 
We've got some guys on the Southernjets forum talking about illegal work actions thinking the constitution will protect them.

Probably be the first people to scream "THANKS OBAMA!" when they get some time off.
 
Because markets aren't linear.

I just bought a combo burrito and a bean and cheese from Taco Bell with a small drink and paid $6. If there is actually $2 in material, labor and overhead costs, I'd be surprised.

Business isn't in business to give you a product as near as possible to the cost of goods sold.

If you want to talk overhead how is a longer flight cheaper?
 
If you want to talk overhead how is a longer flight cheaper?

Because the airline wanted it that way. :)

I'm totally serious!

Honestly, if I see any of y'all complaining about making low wages and having crap working conditions on one hand, and supporting a method of trick-screwing an airline for lower airfares, I am going to purse my lips disapprovingly and shake my head.
 
I honestly wonder how many newb travelers that would use this site would get burned with their carry on luggage. They would board in group 4 or 5 and if the pl

Again this has nothing at all to to with the first amendment. You can blame a jacked up judicial system for this but freedom of speech is only a government restriction. Freedom of Speech is not applicable to this scenario.

I disagree, Maurus. And so does the U.S. Supreme Court. There are indeed limits on speech as you say, but not in this case because none of the adjudicated restrictions apply. Limits do not extend to discussions of non-governmental entities and private citizens solely because said discussions do not involve the government. Limits on speech directed toward non-governmental agencies and private citizens are very narrowly defined with limitations including:
Other restrictions include:
  • Invasion of privacy
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Absent the above and a few other examples I probably missed, speech concerning non-governmental entities and private citizens is most definitely protected by a whole slew of decisions that protect that speech. So, boiled down, all speech involving corporations, private individuals, and other non-governmental agencies is protected except in instances involving defamation, falsehoods, intentional infliction of emotional distress, threats, invasion of privacy, obscenity, child pornography, incitement (the old "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" doctrine — almost forgot that one), and copyright infringement.

Trust me on this. I deal with free speech issues on an almost daily basis. I'm a writer, a blogger, a published author, and I am very well versed in First Amendment and Copyright issues. Have been for years. What this kid did is most definitely protected because nothing he did meets any prior Supreme Court test saying otherwise . . . and United and their lawyers know that just as well as do I, but they're counting on SLAPP to make the point moot before it gets to the courts.
 
By the way, Maurus, I want to publicly thank you for keeping this discussion civil even though we disagree. Concerning the earlier childishness that's a refreshing change.
 
Wow, you really don't understand the First Amendment, do you. If the person writing the blog were an employee of United, United could fire him but they cannot force him take down the information. That's because employment is not covered under First Amendment protections. You can look up the loads of case law on that yourself. If the person were an employee who disclosed confidential information then United could force the information be taken down. He wasn't, and he didn't. You can look up the loads of case law on that as well. If the information were copyrighted then United could file for copyright infringement. It isn't, and they didn't. You can look up the loads of case law on that yourself as well. If the story were false United could potentially sue if it was defamatory. United isn't claiming that. You can look up the loads of case law on that yourself as well, because I'm not here to do your research for you and you are the one who is demonstrably ignorant on the subject. In other words, there is nothing this kid did that any news organization couldn't have done and United would have been powerless to stop because of . . . you guessed it . . . the First Amendment. And he's as protected as the news division at CBS. The only reason United is going after him is because they know he won't have the financial means to fight them. That is what they are counting on — not case law because there is no case law on their side in this and they know it.

In your interpretation 60 Minutes and other investigative reporting targeting companies or individuals would never come to light because, according to you, the private entities being exposed could merely demand the story not air or be printed. The mere fact that they are routinely on television and in print (including even "confidential" emails and intra-corporate memorandum) pretty much makes of mockery of what you think you know. Perhaps you'd care to pass along your theory of First Amendment protections only applying to those reporting on the government to the lawyers for Trinity Industries, Ford (Pinto), Greg Mortensen, those exposed in CBS's report on High Frequency Trading, pharmacy giants Sanofi and Novartis, and the hundreds to thousands of exposés run every year in the press and in blogs.

Finally, I'm not the one who needs to grow up. I actually passed my civics classes. And since you obviously did not, and since you do not know how to properly conduct yourself in discussions on the web in a polite and civilized manner, we're done here.

Good day.

All that, and none of it applies to the first amendment.

United is entitled to take legal action as they did, and they are entitled to use the courts to shut the guy down.

The first amendment does not apply. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS.

And don't try to impress me with the civics class certificate. Whatever school issued it to you should be shut the hell down because you don't understand that the first amendment does not apply to private organizations.

Or prove me wrong, Mr. I Know Everything. Show me ONE case where the first amendment was applied to a private company, forcing them to allow someone to publish information that was their proprietary information. Go on. The Constitution's been around for around 230 years, so it should be easy for you.

One case, pal, or you fail.

Don't even try to drag out the ones you cited. They apply to state standards for libel and such.

Oh, screw it. You ain't worth my time, son. You just ain't worth my time.

Congratulations. You go to the block list! First one of the year.
 
What if I only wanted a bean burrito, but for some reason, Taco bell makes it cheaper for me to buy the meal deal? Will Taco Bell sue me if I decide to buy the combo, throw away the taco and drink, then make that public to the world?
Actually part of the combo deal should include half a roll of toilet paper.
 
Oh, to take a snapshot of the current state, jump in my time machine, and go back to 1977. Problem solved...

Just a nice daydream.

Edit: And I'd take a BUNCH of Birth Control with me!!!
 
*shrugs* Capitalism. I am pretty sure as this loop hole is closed, more will open. Maybe this will increase more direct flights? Less layovers? Sure.

Eh, really no way it is going away, as long as airlines operate hubs anyway. Back when my employers still paid travel agents, they would book things this way ALL THE TIME. The only reason they don't anymore, they decided that actual travel agents were too expensive, so we have to book our own flights.
 
Travel guru Peter Greenberg exposed hidden city fares years ago. Being an AAL fan, Peter did a follow up story some years later on how AAL caught these fares. He explained that by not completing the second segment, Sabre would automatically cancel their return trip. It's probably an easy trigger to set up in any res. system.
 
Back
Top