- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:35 am to NYNolaguy1
lets juust say it is cheaper to pay the con man admit wrong doing and let it fizzle out.
This is the reason there are Con's everywhere going through this with corporations cause they get a pay day.
If the law would take more self responsibility into account the world would be a better place.
This is the reason there are Con's everywhere going through this with corporations cause they get a pay day.
If the law would take more self responsibility into account the world would be a better place.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:43 am to CarRamrod
quote:
lets juust say it is cheaper to pay the con man admit wrong doing and let it fizzle out.
I agree with that.
But I think the bigger problem was the continued missteps, public backlash, and negative name recognition. The best way to end that quickly was to pay him quickly.
If they had gone to court they would have lost in the court of public opinion every day it was in the news. Plus they probably dont like the fact that their contract of carriage would be publicly picked apart for all to see. United likes the fact the majority of passengers dont know what their rights are.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:44 am to CarRamrod
quote:
He was a con man.
Because he sat in the seat that he paid for, after he was allowed to board the plane that held the seat that he paid for?
quote:
And look if the airline tells you get get off the plane, get off the damn plane.
That's right, comply or die. You don't get to ask questions. This is America after all.
quote:
Who cares why but you are fricking up the trip for everyone else.
United fricked up the trip for everyone else by:
1. Overbooking the flight
2. Not offering proper alternative compensation
3. Allowing too many people to board the plane
quote:
It is there plane,
And he gave them money in exchange for the ability to use part of their plane for a specified time period.
quote:
so get the frick off when asked and you would be beat the frick up and drug off.
It was Hitler's country, so just go to the concentration camp when asked and await your impending torture, followed by murder.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:45 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:and none of that goes against what i have said. "spinning up the lawyer machine" im not head, included the negative exposure over the course of the trail and every negative aspect of going to trial, even if they are in the right.
But I think the bigger problem was the continued missteps, public backlash, and negative name recognition. The best way to end that quickly was to pay him quickly.
If they had gone to court they would have lost in the court of public opinion every day it was in the news. Plus they probably dont like the fact that their contract of carriage would be publicly picked apart for all to see. United likes the fact the majority of passengers dont know what their rights are.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 10:46 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:48 am to CarRamrod
quote:
included the negative exposure over the course of the trail and every negative aspect of going to trial, even if they are in the right.
Even then there was more than one law professor that said the Asian dude could win. There was absolutely no benefit to going to trial, including the fact that United could lose, not to mention the bad publicity, exposure to continued liability, and litigation costs.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 10:50 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:50 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
hat's right, comply or die. You don't get to ask questions. This is America after all.
you fricking idiot. quote:#1 happens on every single flight ever, with all airlines.
United fricked up the trip for everyone else by:
1. Overbooking the flight
2. Not offering proper alternative compensation
3. Allowing too many people to board the plane
#2, ok but this is a private company, you can pay for something all you want but if they dont want to give it to you, they can return the exact dollar you paid them and everything is square.
3. no arguing with 3
quote:again, If United so wishes they can nullify that agreement.
It is there plane,
And he gave them money in exchange for the ability to use part of their plane for a specified time period.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:51 am to CarRamrod
quote:
If United so wishes they can nullify that agreement.
Thats a losing argument once they accepted his boarding pass and asked that he be seated.
If they held him up at the gate thats a whole different scenario.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:52 am to RedRifle
What a litigious puss. However, he should get a nice settlement as United just wants to keep sweeping the whole thing under the rug.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:53 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:Law professors have been know to side of their side of politics rather then thinking about self responsibility.
Even then there was more than one law professor that said the Asian dude could win.
Prime example are the cases where burglars injure themselves while burglarizing someones house, and then sue the home owner and win. Tell me how that works.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:53 am to NYNolaguy1
It's time for United to go under.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 10:54 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:show me this language in the contract.
Thats a losing argument once they accepted his boarding pass and asked that he be seated.
If they held him up at the gate thats a whole different scenario.
does it make you fell better to downvote my posts and upvote yours?
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 10:55 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:01 am to CarRamrod
quote:
does it make you fell better to downvote my posts and upvote yours?
I dont play the upvote downvote game.
quote:
show me this language in the contract.
A couple of things:
1)I believe United changed their contract of carriage following the flight & the incident, so finding a copy now that was pertinent then will be challenging. That said, I actually did read it following the incident and nowhere in the contract did it say a seated passenger could be removed without cause. United's main frickup was accepting his boarding pass and then trying to kick him off without him misbehaving.
2)You are asking me to prove a negative to you. There was no language in the contract about Uniteds ability to cancel their contract at any point for no cause- even after the passenger is boarded. How can I show you something that doesnt exist?
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 11:08 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:11 am to CarRamrod
quote:
you fricking idiot.
Says the guy calling the customer that insisted on using the service that he paid for a con man.
quote:
#1 happens on every single flight ever, with all airlines.
It certainly does not happen on every single flight ever.
And when it does happen, it's their airlines' responsibility to properly rectify the situation, not the customers who are being denied the service they paid for.
They didn't. That's why they fricked up the flight for everyone else.
quote:
2, ok but this is a private company, you can pay for something all you want but if they dont want to give it to you, they can return the exact dollar you paid them and everything is square.
Everything isn't square if you don't accept their offer to break the contract as a viable form of compensation.
Additionally, the private company should be and is expected to offer you higher compensation for terminating the contract without cause on the customer's behalf after they've already started engaging the services agreed to in the contract.
They didn't. That's why they fricked up the flight for everyone else.
quote:
3. no arguing with 3
Exactly. That's why they fricked up the flight for everyone else.
quote:
again, If United so wishes they can nullify that agreement.
Not without offering proper compensation that is accepted by both parties.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:19 am to CarRamrod
quote:
show me this language in the contract.
LINK
Granted - the most recent update is 2018 post-Dao. Under rule 21 "Refusal of Transport" the only thing UA can use is "but not limited to" under the "Other Unforeseeable Conditions" clause. Remember - what happened wasn't an overbooking so it's not clearly covered.
quote:
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
UA Lawyer would say " the phrase but not limited to means anything UA says it does"
Dao Lawyer would say "conditions were not beyond UA's control - UA's internal policies are by definition within UA control, and it's publicly available knowledge that UA VDB compensation lagged competitors by a long shot."
And, all Dao's lawyer needs to do is have 1 or 2 other passengers on that plane testify they would walk off of it for $800 VDB and you have a pretty good case.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:37 pm to BRIllini07
quote:did UA not try to lure people off for money? i believe they did.
And, all Dao's lawyer needs to do is have 1 or 2 other passengers on that plane testify they would walk off of it for $800 VDB and you have a pretty good case.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:03 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
did UA not try to lure people off for money? i believe they did.
Correct, and it is legal. I believe the applicable Federal regulation is that you have to first ask for volunteers (w/compensation - VDB) before involuntarily denying boarding (IDB). There is no requirement on what that compensation is.
However, UA's internal maximum was (I believe) $600 in vouchers before triggering an involuntary denial of boarding. Delta and American maximums were both much higher. If I remember right, before the Dao incident Delta was in the news (positively) for the amount of vouchers it gave out in the wake of an ATL shutdown. Early in 2017, prior to the Dao incident, I have witnessed a Delta flight go to $1300 voucher in an attempt to avoid an IDB.
Even the property aspect is not clear. At O'hare (owned by the City of Chicago), the gate agents are United Employees. However, the plane belonged to Republic Airlines, operating as the United Express partner of UA. The captain of the plane was not involved.
So, what happened was a United Airlines employee ordered a forced removal of someone who was sitting on Republic Airlines property on the City of Chicago's land.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:09 pm to RedRifle
quote:
He also alleges that although he completed five months of a police recruit training programme, the department did not provide training on the "level of force continuum", according to the Chicago Tribune newspaper.
What is this, England?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News