No United airlines thread ? VOL....Delta won

This argument and the airline mean that much to you it's worth calling someone dumb over?
:lol: you called me pleb and another guy called me a coward just because you guys don't wanna hear how things are done. Sorry it's not "right"
 
My post was a general statement with pleb used in the roman context to make a point, not to insult you specifically.
 
This argument and the airline mean that much to you it's worth calling someone dumb over?


This argument and the airline mean that much to you it's worth calling someone dumb over?
:lol: you called me pleb and another guy called me a coward just because you guys don't wanna hear how things are done. Sorry it's not "right"

I quoted amel because he frequesnts the NBA thread, which I do as well, where that is a common retort when people post something that challenges reasonable and almost common knowledge.

You claim to know how things are done but you don't even know the rules in your industry. You don't really have the grounds to question the intelligence of another poster.
 
"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."
21B could apply, if the crew on that other flight was timing out then the FAA will ground them and this crew was needed to comply with government regulations.

Bu bu bu bu bu bu bu bu but its procedure and I see it happen alL the time, though.

The only thing worse than someone who blindly capes for unbecoming business practices is someone who claims to know them thoroughly when they clearly do not.

full
so you just quoted him saying the guy is gonna be rich and thats your argument? Your dumb*** should have quoted the guy I quoted, atleast he was making a point. :lol:

Please go into more details, especially with consideration in this case. The crew's flight was the next day, so I'm confused on why you would bring that up. No hate, just trying to see it from your side.
 
United did f*ck up by waiting until the plane was fully boarded before soliciting volunteers. should've never come to that. 
 
**** a refund.  time is more important than a couple hundred

Word. He's a doctor with patients to see who depend on his professionalism and responsibility to be on time. He can't punch his patients around when they complain.
 
I think the craziest thing I heard today btw is that there are ppl who make a career out of getting bumped. They book flights that they know are going to be overbooked over and over again and collect checks :lol:

Can't knock the hustle
 
Last edited:
 
**** a refund.  time is more important than a couple hundred
Word. He's a doctor with patients to see who depend on his professionalism and responsibility to be on time. He can't punch his patients around when they complain.
He can only solicit them for...sorry I had to lol. So I'm reading United's CoC...a bit different from my company's...there are still DoT regulations regarding compensation requirements that trump the airline's CoC.

I admit when I'm wrong and I'm more than willing to call a spade a spade. Here's what the DoT has to say.

DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash. The amount depends on the price of their ticket and the length of the delay:
  • If you are bumped involuntarily and the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to get you to your final destination (including later connections) within one hour of your original scheduled arrival time, there is no compensation.
  • If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
  • If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).
 
Please go into more details, especially with consideration in this case. The crew's flight was the next day, so I'm confused on why you would bring that up. No hate, just trying to see it from your side.
I dont have a side, that's just probably the one they will go with since it is probably the only one they can use. Dao is getting paid regardless, but both side will have more information on what they use to support their claims. How far apart were the flights? I didn't see the times, just that a crew was needed for another flight so I figured they were stepping in to relieve a timed out crew.
 
"George Washington law professor John Banzhaf has a pretty neat argument about United’s liability. Defenders of corporate jackboots and internet lawyers everywhere have been quick to refer to the Contract of Carriage. Technically, you agree to this every time you buy an airline ticket. United’s defenders say that rule 25, “Denied Boarding Compensation,” allowed United to refuse to honor Dao’s ticket in an overbooking situation.

Which it does.

But Professor Banzhaf points out that Dao wasn’t “denied boarding.” As George Carlin might say, he wasn’t on the plane, he was “in” the plane. At that point, rule 21, “Refusal of Transport,” should apply to Dao, not rule 25. Banzhaf writes:

Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed…

The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc."


"The Chicago Aviation Department, we should note, said that its employees did not follow standard procedure, and that one security officer is on leave while the department looks into what happened."


Just in case someone else wants to come in here talking about how entitled Dao was acting.
 
Last edited:
Man the first thing they're going to do is rewrite that contract to make physically removing seated passengers legal
 
Last edited:
Man the first thing they're going to do is rewrite that contract to make physically removing seated passengers legal
even if they write into a contract that they physically have the right to beat you, it doesn't make it legit.
 

Great post.

"We can argue about whether a passenger's criminal past has any relevance to how he is treated when engaged in legal commerce all we want. But an airline seeking to boot passengers off a plane by misapplying a regulation intended to protect consumers, well, that's something that every air traveler should be concerned about."
 
According to United, all passengers were already on the aircraft when four employees of Republic Airways presented themselves at the counter requesting seats. Republic has the contract to provide the plane and crew for the Chicago to Louisville flight. Unless Republic employees had purchased their tickets, this could not accurately be called an overbooked flight.

This is bad all around. Everyone is seated THEN a contract crew runs up all late? come on man.
 
Man the first thing they're going to do is rewrite that contract to make physically removing seated passengers legal
Its already legal under certain circumstances. Sad thing is this is true, all airways are probably having their contracts of carriage amended to just make it easier to remove passengers. If they really werent United crew members that were needed to cover a timed out crew then yeah they completely F'ed up :smh: Dao is gonna have his own fleet of planes. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom