re: United Attempted to Throw Another Passenger Off

quote:

---

Meh, it's all way overblown from a stock standpoint IMO.

---

Sure, to you and me. But the Chinese are about to frick some United shite up

Every time I see that Doctors name I think about pistols

UAL closed at 69.00 today. That's a hair above what it was after it crashed... -4% to what it was pre-dragging.

I am not sure this is going away.

quote:

---

There is a HUGE difference between accidental overbooking and asking a person to give up their seat at the gate vs telling them they have to get up once they are already seated b/c the airline decides after the fact to send some employees to a different location.

---

Sure there is. But my point is people thinking they can say no. As if its their choice.

quote:

---

making sure i don't own any united stock.

---

This will blow over. Might be a good time to buy. These guys are making more money than ever.

quote:

---

Actually in some instances they can. There are some rights that passengers do have.

---

link?

united has their money (albeit temporarily) and the passenger is shite out of luck, get off.

surely you understand why people become unreasonable when this happens...especially when they're being treated like shite on top of it.

Again, if the guy had been told he was out at the gate, he would have been SOL. But he was already permitted to board. That changes things regardless of what United wants people to believe.

The rule United cited as their defense only talks about denying a person from boarding. His arse was already in the seat and he wasn't doing anything that could justify his removal until they got up in his face and demanded he leave.

quote:

---

United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.

Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

-------

Rule 21 . . . which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.

-------

Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.

---

LINK

quote:

---

regardless of what United wants people to believe.

---

haven't read all of the minutiae, but I thought this was an overbooking/sale incident, the rules of which used to be printed on the back of the ticket way back when, still available on line, it's not a United thing it's a Warsaw agreement thing, UAL employees may have handled it better but I think it was CPD that did the manhandling, there's more to this than what we've heard but the dude will get a little payoff because it's cheaper for UAL looking down the road

quote:

---

UAL closed at 69.00 today. That's a hair above what it was after it crashed... -4% to what it was pre-dragging.

I am not sure this is going away.

---

American Airlines was down more than United today, from a percentage standpoint.