- 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
0
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:21 pm to Kjun Tiger
quote:
What did United do that was illegal?
You don't have to do anything illegal to have your financial arse handed to you in civil court.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:22 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
look I am not "siding" with United. they are trash. but this guy is a POS too.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:23 pm to teke184
quote:
They still aren't considered paying customers and the rules about bumping passengers are different when you are removing them in favor of non fare passengers.
But they aren't considered non fare in this instance either. They shift employees around weekly. They need a full crew (including attendants) to operate a flight. They don't care to bump a few paying passengers on one flight to get a crew on so they don't have to cancel another flight down the line.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:23 pm to teke184
quote:
They still aren't considered paying customers and the rules about bumping passengers are different when you are removing them in favor of non fare passengers.
tell us more
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:the problem is they don't know what's best for shareholders. this guy has clearly arrived at the conclusion that any consumer backlash is short lived and the resulting lawsuit is what he needs to protect the company from. I would argue the opposite.
You could make the argument the CEO isn't keeping a fiduciary responsibility to his stock holders at the moment .
sony pulled "the interview" and everyone defended it saying they needed to do what's best for shareholders and what do you know, sony's stock took a hit...the public perception was that they were caving to this bullshite to protect the higher ups from having their emails with off color jokes and gossip from being released to the public, when really I think people were willing to look past anything to give the hackers (presumably north korea) the middle finger for trying to censor American movie goers in addition to the American sony executives.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:27 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
NYNolaguy1
really think airlines need to change this format for the future. what can be done?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:28 pm to NYNolaguy1
This is the best thing I've seen regarding the event. Good job
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:30 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
So my question for Junky is this: if the airline agreed to pay these amounts in it's contract, then threatened said passengers with the hard way if they didn't agree to lesser amount than in said contract- on what ground did they pull this guy off?
its 400% CAPPED at that amount, not simply that amount.
if the dudes one way was $200 or less they were still following procedure
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:31 pm to StealthCalais11
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:32 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
really think airlines need to change this format for the future. what can be done?
Its a DoT policy, right?
Id venture you would need to petition them to change it and lift the cap and change to a basic bid system.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:35 pm to teke184
quote:
From a lawyer:
1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about " OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.
2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.
Per Reddit
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:39 pm to teke184
quote:
This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
This is in reference to non-revenue flyers. Not must-rides. There's a distinct difference.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:39 pm to NoSaint
Rule 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
quote:
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
_________________
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
__________________
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).
_________________
If a Passenger is removed from an Economy Plus seat for which a fee has been paid, and the Passenger is not re-accommodated in an Economy Plus seat or a seat of equal or greater value, or if a Passenger is downgraded from a class of service and is not re-accommodated in a seat in an equal or greater class of service for which a fee has been paid, the Passenger is eligible for a refund of this fee
_____________________
All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:39 pm to teke184
If the above is even remotely wrong, he is not only going to be paid but the CEO may well be long gone. If the CEO commented like he did and the above is right, that's beyond fire able IMO. In the least he clearly did not touch base with the legal team before sending out the memo.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:41 pm to Golfer
quote:
This is in reference to non-revenue flyers. Not must-rides. There's a distinct difference.
Has that been proven in court? It could easily go both ways in court IMO. Kicking a paying customer off for an employee does not look good no matter how you spin it imo.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:43 pm to Golfer
quote:
This is in reference to non-revenue flyers. Not must-rides. There's a distinct difference.
This
quote:
Kicking a paying customer off for an employee does not look good no matter how you spin it imo.
That's your opinion, but these employees were needed somewhere else.
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:43 pm to baldona
No clue. And yeah in this situation they should have avoided IDB all together and kept raising the VDB price.
I also contend had the IDB been done at the gate a lot of this would have been moot.
I also contend had the IDB been done at the gate a lot of this would have been moot.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:44 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
what can be done?
1)Get better logistics for getting your crew to work that doesn't involve bumping paying passengers. Charter planes, Uber, trains, planes, automobiles, hitchhiking, whatever.
2)Stop overselling tickets as policy (I.e. for money) and only do it when necessary (bigger plane goes down for maintenance, smaller plane takes over inconveniencing x amount of passengers...) Golfer and I were discussing this yesterday- JetBlue does this.
3)Get a better CEO and fire the PR department.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:48 pm to NYNolaguy1
What kind of plane full of OT ballers doesn't have AT LEAST 4 people in coach that are willing to take $1000, a hotel room, and a free flight? And if they just really need to be in Louisville that bad, take your $1000 and walk down to the Enterprise desk and drive. I mean shite, it's like a 4 hour drive from Chicago.
Page 16 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News