United - Who is ready to fly?

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Yup, just like I said.


http://finance.yahoo.com/m/8ff53eab-...noz%3a-we.html


And once again for W.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-ai...201302721.html


From the article that he won't read:


?You can?t remove, under the current rules, a passenger once they?re seated on the aircraft. You can deny them entry if you?re overbooked, but once they?re on the aircraft, it?s a completely different set of rules.?




?If they?re not dressed appropriately, if they have certain communicable diseases, if they?re drunk, if they?re violent, you can remove them,? he said. ?If they don?t turn off their cell phone when they?re supposed to, you can remove them. If they won?t obey lawful instructions from a crew member, you can remove them. But telling someone, ?Hey, we?ve overbooked, get off the plane,? that wouldn?t be a lawful instruction.?

He did not OBEY rules " damn how narrow minded are you ?"
Rules i posted he did not obey them when told he would have to leave ! It's states ln the rules you can board the plane !

Dude got his azz kicked for not listing to CPD plain and simple !

Same reason why people get shot by PD
Cop says move or leave just do it and work details out later or get that azz beat !

Once it went to CPD it was out of United hands

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

He did not OBEY rules " damn how narrow minded are you ?"

That's the definition of irony folks. BTW, it wasn't CPD that drug him off the plane. I guess if LCPD showed up every morning and told you to get off the lake you would obey because the gestapo knows best, your rights and freedom be damned. Enjoy your day comrade

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

["W"]

Let me put it in real world you can understand
I'll put it as me the owner

Guy pays for a fishing when he gets on board my boat I realize I double booked my boat and another group showes up
So I tell the guy look man
I'm going to refund you your $600 back plus I'm going to put you up in a lodge for free and pay for all your meals
I really apologize for the inconvenience

Then he refuses to get out of my boat
I ask and plead for 20 mins then I get marina division to handle it .

Now they drag him out and rough him up and it gets videod of that 7 secs and goes viral . Well as the owner of company yes I have to uphold a image and apologize to the public for what happened !

But in reality I did everything I could to not make it go that route !

You understand now ?

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by "W"

Let me put it in real world you can understand
I'll put it as me the owner

Guy pays for a fishing when he gets on board my boat I realize I double booked my boat and another group showes up
So I tell the guy look man
I'm going to refund you your $600 back plus I'm going to put you up in a lodge for free and pay for all your meals
I really apologize for the inconvenience

Then he refuses to get out of my boat
I ask and plead for 20 mins then I get marina division to handle it .

Now they drag him out and rough him up and it gets videod of that 7 secs and goes viral . Well as the owner of company yes I have to uphold a image and apologize to the public for what happened !

But in reality I did everything I could to not make it go that route !

You understand now ?

I see your point, but let me change a couple things.

Instead of booking 2 clients and taking their money up front, change one client to family and leave the other a client. The client pays you up front for a guaranteed spot on your boat. He's made reservations and paid and has his fishing "ticket" in hand and is already seated on your boat with all his gear.

Now, the other client is "Family" being that United employees can be represented as such in a business perspective. You messed up and forgot about your family when you sold that fishing trip to the client who has fully paid up front. Instead of honoring your client's time and money, you offer them X amount of money/trip/whatever. They refuse. They've paid. As a company, your clientele should come first. But, in this case, you call the marina police and have them aggressively drag your client off the boat to make room for your family so you can take them fishing. That doesn't sound like much of a good PR move. Your business will gain a reputation as putting family over the service it provides to the masses with violent tendencies.

United should not have over sold their seats and taken into account they needed 4 seats left for crew. This man did nothing wrong at all, and should have never been forced to give up a seat when United is at fault for overselling their seats.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

I see your point, but let me change a couple things.

Instead of booking 2 clients and taking their money up front, change one client to family and leave the other a client. The client pays you up front for a guaranteed spot on your boat. He's made reservations and paid and has his fishing "ticket" in hand and is already seated on your boat with all his gear.

Now, the other client is "Family" being that United employees can be represented as such in a business perspective. You messed up and forgot about your family when you sold that fishing trip to the client who has fully paid up front. Instead of honoring your client's time and money, you offer them X amount of money/trip/whatever. They refuse. They've paid. As a company, your clientele should come first. But, in this case, you call the marina police and have them aggressively drag your client off the boat to make room for your family so you can take them fishing. That doesn't sound like much of a good PR move. Your business will gain a reputation as putting family over the service it provides to the masses with violent tendencies.

United should not have over sold their seats and taken into account they needed 4 seats left for crew. This man did nothing wrong at all, and should have never been forced to give up a seat when United is at fault for overselling their seats.

Forget it. W is either a democrat or one of those that is never wrong even when proven to be wrong. Or he's both.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Forget it. W is either a democrat or one of those that is never wrong even when proven to be wrong. Or he's both.

I Promise I'm far from Democrat

But I am a business owner and know that if you have to have law remove someone you done all you could do !

Again you saw a 15 sec video to make your conclusion !

Where is the other hour before ?

Dude just had to obey the officers and leave and again that's how people get shot and wonder why !

I'm not saying guy can't get pissed and raise hell because I would of but when turned over to PD it's time to listen or get dealt with

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by "W"

I Promise I'm far from Democrat

But I am a business owner and know that if you have to have law remove someone you done all you could do !

Again you saw a 15 sec video to make your conclusion !

Where is the other hour before ?

Dude just had to obey the officers and leave and again that's how people get shot and wonder why !

I'm not saying guy can't get pissed and raise hell because I would of but when turned over to PD it's time to listen or get dealt with

United should have never taken it to the point where police were needed. If no one wanted to give up a spot they've paid for and where their belongings are, united should have bit the bullet and either put those four employees in a van or car or different flight.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Again you saw a 15 sec video to make your conclusion !

No but you obviously did.

[Feesherman]

LOL yeah that's the same thing. So anyway, I'd give your rants a little more thought if you knew what you were talking about but you don't even know who drug the man off the plane. Good day Comrade!!

[Pat Babaz]

United was morally wrong, BUT the question is were they legally wrong? The link Feesh posted seemed to indicate that United was legally wrong because the dude had already boarded the plane. This was only one lawyer's opinion though.


I'd like to see how the actual law reads concerning when and under what circumstances people can be bumped off of flights AFTER they have boarded.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Pat Babaz

United was morally wrong, BUT the question is were they legally wrong? The link Feesh posted seemed to indicate that United was legally wrong because the dude had already boarded the plane. This was only one lawyer's opinion though.


I'd like to see how the actual law reads concerning when and under what circumstances people can be bumped off of flights AFTER they have boarded.

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. They realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Pat Babaz

United was morally wrong, BUT the question is were they legally wrong? The link Feesh posted seemed to indicate that United was legally wrong because the dude had already boarded the plane. This was only one lawyer's opinion though.


I'd like to see how the actual law reads concerning when and under what circumstances people can be bumped off of flights AFTER they have boarded.

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm goin turkey huntin, good luck on the lake comrade W!!

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

That's false is not just TSA
A Local PD can board any plane with permission from airline in its jurisdiction

It does not have to be the TSA to remove him !
Local PD can remove anyone who is a threat , or not obeying the rules of airline!

Which the Dr didn't read his "fine print "

Again bad look for United because of the 15secs of video

But at end of the day they accomplished what they went to do !

Solve a problem!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pat Babaz]

I'd have been pissed, raised hell and refused to leave right up till the time the cops arrived with a gun and taser on their hips... then I would have complied, better to fight it out in the court than roll in the aisles with the police. That's a fight you can't win

[mcjaredsandwich]

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

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.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/you...luntary-bumps/)

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

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.

Yes most everyone gets it but W. I suspect he won't get it either.

[Pat Babaz]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

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.

Looks like if they had refused him before he got on the plane they possibly could have used 250.a for legal justification but since he already boarded and did not violate rule 21 than it was United that violated the contract of carriage and not the passenger.


Seems to me that United was legally wrong.

[redaddiction]

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!