i recall reading elsewhere that it wasn't even a UA crew, but one of their associated airlines.Originally Posted by Weston White
They should just rework their contracts to read, "In the event we decide we need some empty seats, you may be randomly selected for a beat-down; alternatively, you can exit the plane of your own free will."
Problem solved.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
The woman would not give up the seat she purchased for four riders with greater status.
She refused to move and give up her seat.
The employees were just following established policies, ordinances and laws.
Kops were called.
She was arrested, somehow without being dragged off and beaten even though she was non-compliant and contemptuous of the rules and regulations.
Yet some people still call Rosa Parks a hero.
What an uppity snowflake she was.
Last edited by sparebulb; 04-14-2017 at 09:24 AM.
Wait, I haven't blessed this thread with my signature line yet...
Here it comes...
Are you ready???
Goons gonna goon!!!
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Ya' got a way with words Danke . . .
it's just another way that United Airlines has blown this from the git-go - UAL slandering Dr. Dao with personal info released -
was it for PR to sway public opinion (?), or that UAL protocol will now be regarding a criminal charge as reason for a 'thinning".
Aherm...
United Airlines crew members will no longer be able to bump a passenger who is already seated in one of the airline's planes.A spokesperson for the airline confirms that United has updated its policy "to make sure crews traveling on our aircraft are booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure. This ensures situations like Flight 3411 never happen again."
If the crew member is not booked an hour before the flight, then he or she will have to wait for the next available flight.
The policy change effectively means that if there is a need to displace a passenger from a flight, the decision is made before boarding begins.http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customersTMZ quoted an internal email that states, "No must ride crew member can displace a customer who has boarded an aircraft."
Internal memo: https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsdes...doc-tmz-01.pdf
But, what the $#@! do I know? I'm not a pilot.
Well, I am sure that the Doctor threatning to bring in the Justus system has nothing to do with them changing their mind. Nothing whatsoever.Aherm...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customers
Internal memo: https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsdes...doc-tmz-01.pdf
But, what the $#@! do I know? I'm not a pilot.
We have insurance companies agreeing to do more impossible feats like offer insurance to men and women, young and old, sick and health customer premiums at fairly similar price and you think they cannot coerce the airlines to implement a business model that is not profitable? I think Danke forgot about the destructive powers of the courts
Also, isn't it weird that we have people who would condemn you to hell for calling the police but are here cheering you on when you call the even more destructive and powerful justice system.
Meanwhile.............
Pilot turns around flight from Manchester Airport to Australia so couple could say goodbye to dying grandson
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6979866.html
“They were taxiing on the runway when they got the text message saying their grandson was in intensive care and they needed to get there,” Mrs Stephenson said.
“They passed the message to the crew, who spoke to the captain and he turned the plane back.”
The pilot returned the aircraft to the boarding gate while staff arranged to get the couple’s baggage and assist them back through the airport and collect their car so they could drive straight home.
Their grandson died the following day, 31 March, when the passengers were scheduled to be arriving in Australia.
Mrs Stephenson said the couple, who did not wish to be named, were grateful to have had the chance to say goodbye to their grandson.
[snip]
Etihad are reportedly allowing the couple to re-use the tickets for a future trip to Australia, where they have relatives.
You really seem to be struggling between crimes and torts.Not really sure how to help you with the distinction...
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
A distinction with very little difference. One calls the police when they think their property right is being violated and the other threatens to call the big bad govt courts that have police as henchmen because he thought his rights as a consumer was being violated. And yes, he hasn't called the courts yet but he would do so if the airline do not settle with him. You guys condemn one side but would cheer the other side because.........?You really seem to be struggling between crimes and torts.
So yea, forgive if I fail to see the big difference between the two sides.
Seems to me that to ask forgiveness you missed quite a few threads that explained the difference or in which the difference was discussed. I do not think you have. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.
Hadn't we established that juleswin is an Eduardo sock puppet?
Have we? Not that I would be surprised.
Somebody tipped me off to that a few months back...
The Small Print vs. The Big Issue
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...-vs-big-issue/
Charles Goyette
A couple bought a new home from a Phoenix builder. It was in a nice development, a new and conveniently located community, so attractive that it is not surprising that it was almost sold out.
They sold their old home with a future closing date and made all the other arrangements to move into their new home at the scheduled construction completion date.
When suddenly…
When suddenly the builder rescinded that sale. It turned out that, thanks to the relocation of a major corporate employer, the builder had a chance to sell a large, unspecified number of new homes at once for relocating executives of the employer and it needed the additional house the Phoenix buyers had purchased to complete the big package deal.
It should have been unthinkable, except for that fact that in the voluminous paperwork required in a real estate purchase today – paperwork swollen to indigestible proportions by bureaucrats trying to compensate with regulatory minutiae for all the things that went wrong in the housing bust ten years earlier — there was a term called “involuntary denied occupancy” that allowed the builder “for reasons of compelling economic necessity” to rescind the sale. Since it was tucked into the contract next to the force majeure clause that would have relieved the builder of performance in the (increasingly likely) event of a nuclear war, the buyers didn’t pay it any particular attention.
Our would-be home buyers probably didn’t break their agreement down into its constituent elements. They simply thought in terms of the common law that we are all accustomed to. They thought they had a deal: offer and acceptance and all the rest.
But their reasonable expectation that they had purchased a new home was wrong. They hadn’t. The contract ruled and they were out of luck. And out of a home.
Sound crazy? Of course it is. This entire scenario is so utterly outrageous that by now I’m sure you know that I made the whole thing up, and that it is clear that I am only attempting to offer an imperfect analogy to the forced deplaning of that United Airlines passenger.
I have been both surprised and disappointed to discover that so many of the people I esteem as great defenders of free people and free markets have written to defend United’s right to deny a seat to the holder of a paid ticket. The “involuntary denied boarding” clause is in the contract, they say, and it rules. It is in there fair and square, they say, and the passenger should have known it.
Nobody books a flight and pays for it and is then told by the airline that it will honor the ticket only when it deems it convenient.
But that is the practical effect of the “contract of carriage” fine print.
Most of the commentary reasonably objects to the bloody treatment of the passenger, but otherwise it too often defends the airline’s right — not its judgment in doing so, but its right – to unilaterally rescind the purchase and bump its passenger. Some explain in needless detail all the reasons that airlines overbook flights. Those reasons are compelling for airlines, but they are a needless and irrelevant sidebar. Whatever their reasons, however much they value their practice of overbooking flights, airlines should be required to pay the price for it. They should assume its costs in their business practices. The economic efficiency of overbooking and bumping passengers can only be known for certain by discovering the real price of getting a passenger to relinquish his seat voluntarily. The price United offered in Chicago wasn’t the real price. That’s why United resorted to coercion. It made the passenger “an offer he couldn’t refuse.”
Delta, wishing to avoid an incident like United’s, has decided to offer almost $10,000 to induce passengers to relinquish seats on overbooked flights. I doubt the bidding will often go that high, but who knows? It’s still cheap to avoid United’s public relations disaster.
Some of the free market champions commenting on the story take solace at the public outcry against the airline, and trust that with either a lower share price or reduced bookings the airline will pay in the marketplace for yanking the traveler off the plane. I agree with them that it is great to see that the market is forcing United and other airlines to review their practices.
My fellow free-marketeers are correct that United Airlines only hurt itself by its thuggish behavior. But these outrages have been going on for a long time; the only reason United has been caught is that the incident was captured on a cell-phone cameras. How have these airline eviction practices endured? It is evident from the outcry over the now-viral Chicago video that people are affronted by the airlines’ bumping passengers who are booked on flights. If the practice is so repugnant, why didn’t competitive forces bring it to a halt years ago?
Let me put it a different way.
How do the airlines get away with it?
The answer is that the State protects them from competition. Commercial air travel today is not a free-market industry. Disagree? Try starting an airline. In an LA Times Op-Ed, Let Richard Branson Kill United Airlines, Matt Welch details some of ways the airlines are protected.
In protecting the crony airlines from competition the State allows them to get away with the intolerable. And it forces us to tolerate the intolerable.
But the issue that goes mostly unaddressed in the many defenses of United’s contractual rights is one of casuistry: the clever use of lawyerly reasoning or the exceedingly fine print of legal language and contractual minutiae to subvert the plain meaning of the purchase of a seat on an airline, a new home, or anything else.
Nobody here is arguing against a close reading of terms and contracts in complex business deals and agreements. But must we go through the principal activities of our daily lives — shopping, traveling, and all the rest – needing to have a lawyer on speed dial or Black’s Law Dictionary in our hip pockets? Have you read the fine print that goes with your brokerage account? Have your assets – which you plainly think are yours – actually been pledged, repledged, hypothecated, or re-hypothecated by the brokerage house? When you clicked “Yes” in the box to download a piece of software, were you really agreeing to be Bill Gate’s towel boy?
Here’s an entry on casuistry from the Oxford English Dictionary: “Casuistry destroys by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong.”
In the spirit of the Easter season I prefer the words of a higher authority who said of such casuistry that it ladens men “with burdens grievous to be borne.”
No matter what they slip into the fine print.
The "customers" should require the company to sign a memo of understanding - We can assure you nobody is $#@!ing with you in this finely printed legalese. The only way for us to rescind the agreement is an act of God.
Rosa Parks did that on a public busline, disobeying a law set up by the govt which she pays her taxes to. Please spare me with the Rosa Parks comparisons. I thought people on this site respected private property and the right of the owners to set rules of conduct for their property?
If you don't like how UA is conducting their business, maybe you should take your business somewhere else instead of threatening them with daddy govt. What kind of communist drum circle did I just walk into?
I have actually looked and I can't find the thread discussing this difference. Can u please help me out
The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.
Travel options extremely limited? and even if you believe that, how is any of that UAs fault? Also there is this idea that these sort of very affordable services with microscopic chance of inconvenience built into the service wouldn't exist in the free market. The people saying this do not know what they are talking about.The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.
Montgomery Bus Lines was a division of National City Lines. A private company.
You have gone full dumba$$ rabid retard on this issue.
I don't see why you are so wrapped around the axle on this.
As our friend, Alex, would say: This is a 360 win.
Dao wins big $$$.
Fellow passengers got a free ride.
Airlines get the fear of regulation and litigation to help remind them that they should treat people with a bit more respect.
Airport kops and psuedo-kops get either a paid vacation or fired.....either is good, depending on perspective.
The only losers are United shareholders for the moment.
Even Oscar Munoz wins. Even if he is fired, he will wright a book about leadership which will be a bestseller and he will hit the lecture circuit before he is appointed either the head of La Raza or the Department of Transportation.
Last edited by sparebulb; 04-17-2017 at 09:44 PM.
Microscopic chance of inconvenience?
I assume you are not flying very often. I suggest reading this thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nd-Overbooking
Ok, I got it half wrong, the bus line was a private company and not state run. But that still leaves Rosa Park rightfully violating private property to protest an unjust state law. She gets a pass on that, but had the rules about seating come from the company itself, then Rosa Parks would be in the wrong and I as a free market, private property guy would have to condemn her for what she did.
You might not know this but this is how you operate when you are guided by free market principles. If you don't like the way a private company is running their business, take your business somewhere else
Yeah, like a different planet!
United and United Express 3411 lose the O'Hare - Louisville air route granted by the FAA/goonerment as part of punitive damages to the company in the new lawsuit to hit the books in the second quarters earnings, all while they start flying more and more emptier planes.The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.
Dr. Dao damages aren't that much . . . except then the slander with release of personal info and "priors" to discredit the doctor.
Last edited by Jan2017; 04-18-2017 at 06:34 AM.
No. You have been told how to fish and I'm not going to just give you one.I have actually looked and I can't find the thread discussing this difference. Can u please help me out
+rep for using the correct term (goonerment) referring to those who feel they need to run our lives...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
You don't have to be a pilot to know how it works. A flight attendant, gate agent, crew scheduler, manager, etc. know too.Aherm...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customers
Internal memo: https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsdes...doc-tmz-01.pdf
But, what the $#@! do I know? I'm not a pilot.
What I said, is there will really not be a change to get a crew in position. They are addressing a 60 minute cut off for crew scheduling to overbook a flight, which already is an extreme rarity. Domestic flights don't start boarding until 35 minutes prior, and have a goal to end by 10 minutes prior. So , as you can see, a passenger can be denied boarding inside 60 minutes. They should not force one already boarded to disembark for a crew, and until now I have not seen that happen, nor can I find policy for that. Flights can still be overbooked and passengers denied boarding. But I sure they will now increase the pay out to get volunteers.
A solution, that was and remains available, is to ask for volunteers. And up the payout to do so until they get enough to volunteers to fly on a later flight. So again, no real change. It was not a policy of United, but a carry over from Continental Airlines to max out compensation at a certain level. (That is the management team that took over during the merger, and why one sees a small mostly domestic carrier trying to run a large international carrier). United Airlines finally with new leadership is slowly rebuilding the global product we used to have after the disruption of the merger with an inferior airline.
A "must ride" crew ( a continental airline term) is still going to happen as it protects the integrity of the operations, that effect many more passengers later then a few whom can be bought off now. So again, no real change.
Now to the specifics WRT this case. It appears the crew was not involved. But certainly could have been if a passenger disembarks with his wife, then runs back on the plane acting erratically. That is both a security and safety issue. Federal laws demand I don't allow such a person on board. So again, no real change. Unless congress wants to change the laws.
Last edited by Danke; 04-18-2017 at 07:26 PM.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us