Y'all are boring today

[PaPaD]

If the owner of the vehicle I'm riding in says GTFO, well, I'm getting out. I'll handle it with my lawyer if I need to. I'm not going to throw a tantrum and get my ass dragged off of a plane. That's what he did and the fact that he's probably going to be rewarded for that behavior is sickening.

You might be a little upset if the owner of the car offered you a ride at a cost and you paid that cost, thereby entering an agreement to get a service in exchange for a fee.......and then the owner says - "GTFO, I'm letting someone else ride - you go get in another car, and I'm keeping your money"

 

[azgreg]

 

[TheTrueReview]

With all the so called outrage by people about the treatment of the not-so-good doctor and the threats "never to fly United" (given I'm not in the US) I'm jealous of not having the opportunity to fly on planes that will have more vacant seats either side and are likely to be d!ckhead free.

 

[eclark53520]

You might be a little upset if the owner of the car offered you a ride at a cost and you paid that cost, thereby entering an agreement to get a service in exchange for a fee.......and then the owner says - "GTFO, I'm letting someone else ride - you go get in another car, and I'm keeping your money"

The only difference is, they were offered a free flight, a free night in a hotel, and $1000 cash(from the last report I heard). So....

Yeah, if I entered into a contract with someone for use of their private property, and they denied me that use, I wouldn't be happy. However, I would NOT disobey orders from a federal employee whose job it is to enforce federal laws that pertain to the private property I'm riding on. I will leave as requested and take it up with them in a dispute legally. That's how adults handle things. That's how you don't get your ass kicked.

 

[limpalong]

First offer from United was $400 in travel vouchers. No takers. Offer was doubled to $800. Still no takers. That is when they pulled four names at random and forcibly "reaccomodated" those passengers. Three of the passengers left and rec'd the $800 in travel vouchers. The fourth did not.

Certainly, United has the right as owners of the airline to boot any passenger they desire for any reason they wish. The law that governs overbooking and reaccomodation of passengers limits the airlines offer at $1,350 per passenger... plus hotel accommodations. Perhaps if they would have offered the maximum, some others would have accepted. For the benefit of public image and customer retention, the maximum should have been offered before the random drawing.

The passenger, when told he would have to leave the plane undoubtedly was not aware of legislation which would require him to give up a seat he had paid for. A doctor who apparently is attempting to reestablish his practice and has patients scheduled for the next day would not see $800 as fair exchange. The Chicago Airport Police are NOT Federal employees. They are employees of the Chicago Police Department, employed to assist in enforcement of local and Federal laws and to protect the health and welfare of those in the airport and coming and going from the airport. Still, they had jurisdiction and their lawful order for the passenger to disembark should have been obeyed.

Both the airline and the passenger made errors in judgement. The passenger will undoubtedly reap financial benefits far exceeding any lost revenue as he litigates the airline. His attorney has already filed paperwork that will require the Chicago Police Department to retain all video evidence, plane manifests, witness statements, etc. And, United Airline stock lost big time as a result of the incident.

The publicity surrounding the incident has now brought to light numerous other situations that have been handled questionably by United. A passenger who had paid for his First Class seat and was boarded and seated was told he would need to leave the aircraft, giving up his seat for a "more important" passenger. After some negotiation, he was move to business class. He has asked that his airfare be refunded and Untied has only agreed to refund the difference between what he paid for First Class and the cost of business class. A lady has also come forward who was forcibly removed from a United flight in an overbook situation where the seats were "needed" for airline employees flying free.

These are all cases where we find common sense no longer seems to prevail. The attorneys will all get rich fighting these type cases out where some customer retention training could have possibly averted the issue from ever happening.

 

[WWBDD]

A good commentary on the UA thing imo.

Experts say police who dragged passenger had other options

But police officers should try to find out what they are going into and to defuse the situation, if possible, experts said.

Officers with the Los Angeles Airport Police do not get involved in civil matters such as business disputes between airlines and passengers. They have sometimes refused airlines' requests to board planes, said spokesman and police officer Rob Pedregon.

"We don't just fly into action when someone calls us," he said. Officers will "basically find out the whole situation, why we're here, get the background and then decide if it's within our legal authority. We wouldn't get (someone) off just because the airline wants them off. If a law is broken, then we will take action."

 

[eclark53520]

From that 'expert' article:
At the same time, police frequently overreact when someone defies an order, Bueermann said.

I'd like to see her cite for that.

Also, they lawfully ordered him to deboard the plane. Him refusing to leave the plane was breaking the law. Right?

 

[SiberianDVM]

From that 'expert' article:
At the same time, police frequently overreact when someone defies an order, Bueermann said.

I'd like to see her cite for that.

Also, they lawfully ordered him to deboard the plane. Him refusing to leave the plane was breaking the law. Right?

That is the subject of much debate. I see this going to the Supremes, eventually.

 

[azgreg]

That is the subject of much debate. I see this going to the Supremes, eventually.

It will be settled out of court.

 

[SiberianDVM]

It will be settled out of court.

Yes, this one guys damages case will settle out of court, but the yet un-filed class action suit to prevent airline overbooking will go to the Supremes.

 

[ualtim]

Yes, this one guys damages case will settle out of court, but the yet un-filed class action suit to prevent airline overbooking will go to the Supremes.

If airlines are no longer allowed to overbook, folks are not going to like the next round of airfare hikes. If you go back into the deregulated era, prior to 1978, where the C.A.B. controlled such things, airfare was twice as expensive as it is today. If airlines can not fill empty using current practices, airfares will rise dramatically. Worse yet, some additional airlines could fail under economic pressure which would reduce overall capacity/competition raising fares even higher.

You can vote on airline practices with your checkbook, but with the consolidation of the airline industry that has occurred over the last 7 years, good luck trying to find a convenient flight to certain destinations as at an airfare your willing to pay while avoiding a certain air carrier.

The last big "win" for the consumer vs the airlines was the tarmac time rule. Since the DOT has implemented the rule, it has reduced the number of occurrences where folks have had to sit on the ramp for 3 plus hours. The other side of that coin is that the number of canceled flights has increased dramatically. So instead of having to endure a long taxi delay and getting to your destination late, you are less likely to get where you want to go which could take you several days to get to your intended destination depending on time of year and how many other flights were canceled on the same day/days.

Besides, the Donald said no new federal regulations unless you get rid of two others.

 

[limpalong]

Best solution: Retire, play golf every day, don't fly anywhere!!!! That's my way of getting back at the airlines!!!

 

[azgreg]

Yes, this one guys damages case will settle out of court, but the yet un-filed class action suit to prevent airline overbooking will go to the Supremes.

This won't get to the SC. What exactly in the constitution are the violating?

 

[PaPaD]

If airlines are no longer allowed to overbook, folks are not going to like the next round of airfare hikes. If you go back into the deregulated era, prior to 1978, where the C.A.B. controlled such things, airfare was twice as expensive as it is today. If airlines can not fill empty using current practices, airfares will rise dramatically. Worse yet, some additional airlines could fail under economic pressure which would reduce overall capacity/competition raising fares even higher.

You can vote on airline practices with your checkbook, but with the consolidation of the airline industry that has occurred over the last 7 years, good luck trying to find a convenient flight to certain destinations as at an airfare your willing to pay while avoiding a certain air carrier.

The last big "win" for the consumer vs the airlines was the tarmac time rule. Since the DOT has implemented the rule, it has reduced the number of occurrences where folks have had to sit on the ramp for 3 plus hours. The other side of that coin is that the number of canceled flights has increased dramatically. So instead of having to endure a long taxi delay and getting to your destination late, you are less likely to get where you want to go which could take you several days to get to your intended destination depending on time of year and how many other flights were canceled on the same day/days.

Besides, the Donald said no new federal regulations unless you get rid of two others.

WTF do you know? It's not like you are an airline industry employee..........oh, wait.......

 

[SiberianDVM]

This won't get to the SC. What exactly in the constitution are the violating?

There has to be a reason? But what about the poor lawyers?