- 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 9:16 pm to tigerfoot
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:16 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
all things a policeman can't and wouldn't know.
I agree, which is why I'm blaming United, as they are the actor here with the power.
0
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:16 pm to ThatMakesSense
They teach staff at hospitals how to place patients in manual holds without harming them. I don't know why a cop doesn't know better.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I just don't get the relevance. A cop busting into my house isn't the same as a cop removing a trespasser from a plane.
What am I missing?
You don't know as a fact that he was trespassing, signs point to quite the opposite, actually.
In one instance, a copy violates law by coming into your house, in the other United instructs cops to remove a guy while quite possibly having no legal authority to do so.
They're not as different as you're making it out to seem.
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:19 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
why would I read a part that doesn't apply.
I posted the contract. What part do you think backs your assertion that he was removed legitely?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:20 pm to JabarkusRussell
L
O
L
O
L
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:20 pm to NYNolaguy1
The part that says they can
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:21 pm to tigerfoot
quote:Aviation attorneys who know more than you and I say otherwise.
You don't have a legal right to that seat
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:22 pm to JabarkusRussell
quote:you know who the hospital calls when they can't control a belligerent patient? I'll give you one guess
They teach staff at hospitals how to place patients in manual holds without harming them. I don't know why a cop doesn't know better.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:good luck with that...
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 9:22 pm to tigerfoot
It's true they had every right to remove anyone on the plane. It's that they should not have.
They deserve the backlash.
They deserve the backlash.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:23 pm to tigerfoot
quote:I suggest that he did quite possibly have legal right to that seat, so United and/or the cops had no legal right to remove him from that seat.
The policeman was told to remove a passsenger that had no right to the seat. So you suggest what?
i say that because everything I'm reading from the people most qualified to know this is saying United had no legal authority to remove him from his seat, I'm not saying it, "just cause"
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Who do you think knows more about this, you or aviation attorneys who know the law and have read United's Contract of Carriage?
Purchasing a plane ticket isn't a lease. It even tells you this when you purchase it.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:25 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
The part that says they can
Oh ok. I like the part that says Tigerfoot is wrong.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:25 pm to Napoleon
possibly
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:26 pm to tigerfoot
quote:Yep, it indicates all the reasons you can be removed from a flight, specific reasons.
You purchase a ticket you agree to a contract of carriage. It clearly indicates you could be removed from a flight
Those who know more than you and I say this was not one of them and United very well have had no legal authority to do this
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:26 pm to tigerfoot
quote:And guess what, this was not an overbook situation...AGAIN according to actual attorneys in this field, they say this does incident did not qualify as such.
and it clearly indicates you could be removed from the manifest in an oversold situation, good point
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:27 pm to tigerfoot
quote:You said it was an overbooking situation but whether or not they sold more tickets than were available is irrelevant?
yes and irrelevant
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:28 pm to tigerfoot
quote:Experts say otherwise.
Sure it was
What do you base that assertion on?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:28 pm to shel311
So aviation lawyers may not know for sure if United had the right to pull him off the plane, yet we expect this crankpot doctor to know his rights in this case?
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 9:30 pm to NYNolaguy1
Let's go w this then
quote:
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.
Page 45 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News