- 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 10:06 pm to shel311
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:06 pm to shel311
quote:
That's more to support that side of the argument than you've posted.
No, it isn't. Just because it wasn't in response to you, doesn't excuse you from ignoring it.
0
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:06 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Does it address the terms of the contract and the specific verbiage?
Yes.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:06 pm to Chicken
quote:So cop thinks in good faith he did have a warrant......
in this case, I believe that the police were acting in good faith that passenger
Look, if the policy states that they had legal right to remove him, then united fricked up on a customer relation standpoint, put the Asian is ultimately to blame for his physical injuries
But if the policy states that the Asian had every right to his seat, than united and the security company is to blame for the physical injuries
Yet you are arguing the Asian is to blame either way
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:07 pm to nc14
quote:
Martial law, yeah it's kind of relevant.
In your most wild, rampant, retarded libertarian fantasy, you cannot construe this as martial law. Where do you people come from?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:07 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But if the policy states that the Asian had every right to his seat
The policy doesn't state that.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:07 pm to tigerfoot
quote:The people those 4 gave up their tickets for were not originally on the manifesto, this makes no sense.
Based on the need to have a ticket that is issued to get on a commercial aircraft Then the need to have an accurate manifest with all souls accounted for
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:07 pm to NYNolaguy1
It isn't. Just like other ways folks obtain a ticket isn't.
The contract of carriage doesn't cover how you become a passenger, only after you become one.
The contract of carriage doesn't cover how you become a passenger, only after you become one.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to shel311
Here's another
Philly Atty says United was dead wrong
Philly Atty says United was dead wrong
quote:
Under certain conditions, airlines can bar passengers from boarding - if the passenger is unruly or intoxicated or on a terrorist watch list - but United had no right to remove Dao, says aviation law expert Arthur Wolk, a Center City attorney who read the 45-page “contract of carriage.”
Wolk says Dao “absolutely” had the right to the seat, and this was not a case of “overbooking,” he says, because all the passengers had seats. What happened to Dao was “assault and battery,” he says.
“There’s absolutely no humanity left in the airline business,” Wolk says, adding that United routinely finishes low in surveys of passenger satisfaction. “I would sue their asses off.”
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to shel311
The manifest doesn't exist until the cabin door shuts
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:I think his reply to this was "yes"
Well I must have ignored it then So humour me. Does it address the terms of the contract and the specific verbiage?
Unless I'm just getting the 2 posters mixed up now, the 2 who keep saying, in effect, "Just cause" without backing it up with anything whatsoever.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to Junky
quote:
The fact is, there are other experts that think otherwise. He keeps repeating the same lawyer nonsense, like it means anything.
United could have deemed the flight overbooked simple by the fact that they subtract the 4 seats as if they are not even on the plane to begin with. Just another thought before I hit the bed.
100% correct.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to tigerfoot
quote:Then you broke the law and deserve to be removed
Nope closes at ten. I just decided I like the view
But here, the contract possibly says you can stay past ten....
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It's more of an argument than you've presented, clearly.
Neither is "the experts in the field say otherwise."
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:09 pm to shel311
He asked a question. I answered it.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:09 pm to shel311
quote:
It's more of an argument than you've presented, clearly.
No, it isn't.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I say it does
The policy doesn't state that.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:10 pm to Junky
quote:So if experts have differing opinions, then you sure as hell don't know with 100% accuracy.
The fact is, there are other experts that think otherwise.
And that has been my point all along.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:11 pm to Chicken
quote:
in this case, I believe that the police were acting in good faith to remove that passenger
Good faith? It's their job to enforce the law, not go blindly into an airplane because an airline tells them to. They should assess the whole situation.
I agree with you that they had good faith that the airline was telling the truth, but they could also face assault and battery charges because they didn't look before they leaped.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:11 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Based on?
The policy doesn't state that.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:He's wrong, "just cause" so I'v presented just as much evidence as you!!!
Wolk says Dao “absolutely” had the right to the seat, and this was not a case of “overbooking,” he says, because all the passengers had seats. What happened to Dao was “assault and battery,” he says.
Page 52 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News