- 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 10:07 am to ThatMakesSense
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:07 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
True. I'm not sure what his payout could be, all I see is this chart for this type of situation.
Domestic Flights:
0 to 1 hour arrival delay: No compensation
1 to 2 hour arrival delay: 200% of your one-way fare (up to a maximum of $650)
Over 2 hours arrival delay: 400% of your one-way fare (up to a maximum of $1,300)
Key is one-way fare.
Right, so if anything this dude might have a case.
1
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:08 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:09 am to NYNolaguy1
Civil vs criminal
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:09 am to NYNolaguy1
Read through that website I just linked. After I did, I'm not so sure. But I'm OK with what United did.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:10 am to NYNolaguy1
United Airlines newest policy when over booked was to offer Chinese takeout
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:10 am to yellowfin
quote:
Civil vs criminal
The civil violation would be breach of contract, the criminal would be tresspassing.
I think a criminal trial for tresspassing here would be hilarious.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:11 am to NYNolaguy1
Gotcha, I just quickly read the article.
It seems to me this would be a passenger vs United case, if United airlines personnel gave the Chicago Aviation Security to remove someone I would think that is direct authorization.
It seems to me this would be a passenger vs United case, if United airlines personnel gave the Chicago Aviation Security to remove someone I would think that is direct authorization.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:11 am to weagle99
quote:
The bad PR from this far, far outweighs any other option available to United when this situation occurred.
Just like every other social media outrage nobody will remember this in a month.
Last month it was southwest not allowing a couple kids on the plane in tights.
Next month it will be something else
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:12 am to Adam4848
quote:
It seems to me this would be a passenger vs United case, if United airlines personnel gave the Chicago Aviation Security to remove someone I would think that is direct authorization.
Nope.
quote:
The bad news: There is no private right of action for violation of the DOT’s consumer protection regulations. So passengers cannot sue the airline themselves and instead must rely on the DOT to enforce the rules.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:13 am to yellowfin
quote:Pretty sure that was United too
Last month it was southwest not allowing a couple kids on the plane in tights.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:13 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
The bad news: There is no private right of action for violation of the DOT’s consumer protection regulations. So passengers cannot sue the airline themselves and instead must rely on the DOT to enforce the rules.
Just lol, figures.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:14 am to TexasTiger89
quote:Yea, I don't get why they don't do this. The money lost there is likely less than the money lost as a result of the bad PR they're getting now.
This should of happened before everyone boarded. Easier to bump someone at the gate. They should also offer more compsensation until some one volunteers
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:14 am to iheartlsu
Shares down 4.4% erasing 990M in market value
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:14 am to Navajo61490
I just watched the video. Yep United is screwed.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:16 am to iheartlsu
quote:
Pretty sure that was United too
See nobody cares a month later
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:16 am to Adam4848
I am most shocked that they were pulling, and in some instances paying compensation to, paying customers to put non-revenue passengers on board.
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:17 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I think a criminal trial for tresspassing here would be hilarious.
There is no way that UAL will even try this, as boneheaded as the CEO is, his legal department would mutiny at the thought.
The hay DAL would make from that would be beyond humerous.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:17 am to yellowfin
quote:
Last month it was southwest not allowing a couple kids on the plane in tights.
That was also United. But they were friends of an employee and traveling on buddy passes. They HAD to follow a specific dress code.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:19 am to SanFranTiger
quote:
am most shocked that they were pulling, and in some instances paying compensation to, paying customers to put non-revenue passengers on board.
They were "must ride" employees who had to be in Louisville to operate a flight out of there the following morning.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 10:19 am to shel311
quote:
Yea, I don't get why they don't do this.
The practice is to do the VDB/IDB process at the gate before people get on the plane. Likely a combination of a last-minute switch to get this crew on the flight and incompetence from UA's staff in ORD.
Page 8 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News