- 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
re: United CEO doubles down, calls passenger "belligerent", claims United followed rules
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:01 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:01 pm to NYNolaguy1
Vouchers are currency for a ticket. Those non rev passengers are just as much passengers as anyone.
3
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:02 pm to Pettifogger
I don't know why United didn't offer more. Offer $2k and people would have jumped at it. They low balled them which resulted in well over $2k in the money they will lose because of this.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:03 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
Those non rev passengers are just as much passengers as anyone.
They were crew members en route to work, not voucher recipients.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:04 pm to tigerfoot
There is no defense for this and I feel bad about the state of our society if anyone sides with the airlines in these situations.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:04 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:the basis that clearly says he can be removed from the flight for appropriate reasons
in the event that he had a legal right to be there, on what legal basis was he removed?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:07 pm to NYNolaguy1
Yep, it's in there.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:08 pm to Chicken
quote:Assuming the person who violated your rights doesn't pull some sneaky shite to screw you over, maybe.
if my rights were violated, that will come out when I sue, no?
Also in the analogy, you chose to consent, so no, the cop will just search your house/possessions any time he pleases because you will let him.
But that's not the point either. Point is having no empathy for the person who exercised his right while never stating you have no empathy for what happens to the person at fault breaking the law is a bit odd.
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:08 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
the basis that clearly says he can be removed from the flight for appropriate reasons
United fricking up on their end isn't an appropriate reason in my estimation. They have a responsibility to their clients too. It goes both ways.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:09 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
the basis that clearly says he can be removed from the flight for appropriate reasons
I am not sure a court or a jury would agree they had appropriate reasons just because they said so.
Do me a favor and look up Rule 21 of United's Contract of Carriage.
It describes Refusal of Transport. What appropriate reasons are applicable here?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:09 pm to shel311
quote:what is truly odd is getting killed or injured because you resisted a police order.
But that's not the point either. Point is having no empathy for the person who exercised his right while never stating you have no empathy for what happens to the person at fault breaking the law is a bit odd.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:09 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yep, it's in there.
What/Where?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:10 pm to Hangit
quote:
the legal minds are saying he had a right to be there.
No, they aren't.
quote:
Tempura
?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:11 pm to Chicken
quote:
what is truly odd is getting killed or injured because you resisted a police order.
Following the law shouldn't get you killed. That includes telling a police officer "no" when appropriate and legal.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Rule 21
Rule 21 is irrelevant.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
I can't wait to see how much their stock drops tomorrow.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:12 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:all things a policeman can't and wouldn't know.
United fricking up on their end isn't an appropriate reason in my estimation.
If the guy was removed and United acted incorrectly. There are avenues to pursue
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:12 pm to Chicken
I wish I was a cop. I would demand you give me Tiger Droppings. Since you would never refuse a cops commands under any circumstance, you would have to give it to me. 
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:13 pm to Chicken
quote:It was my scenario, and this is why:
whatever...I don't even know what concocted scenario you are referring to anymore
but we all know that if the dude acts like a normal human being and obeys direct orders from a police officer, we wouldn't be talking about it
quote:Because you chose not to exercise a right of yours, that's fine, you can do that. You know what you can also do? Choose to exercise that right without fear of being injured.
I guess I have consented...now why did I do that???
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:Has it ever actually affected you?. . . Not likely. Last year, United involuntarily denied boarding to only ~4K of its more than 86 million passengers on oversold flights.
I'll pay more money for actually getting a seat and not a shady promise that I'll fly out on the flight I paid for.
Not saying it's right or wrong. But saying you'd rather pay more in order to keep this from happening doesn't really make much sense.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:why would I read a part that doesn't apply.
describes Refusal of Transport. What appropriate reasons are applicable here?
You don't like the fact that they prioritized in rev passengers. Great. Be mad. But whether a mistake or not they can deny your travel based on needing 1 seat for every passenger.
Page 44 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News