comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 25 seconds ago
Having said that the end result was legally allowable just the method to get there was very dubious.

.............................

The fact that the aircraft was boarded for starters was totally wrong.

As I keep saying, this should not have got past the gate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I'd be plenty annoyed if told at the gate that I wasn't able to fly but on the plane? Much worse.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 9 seconds ago
Having said that the end result was legally allowable just the method to get there was very dubious.

.............................

The fact that the aircraft was boarded for starters was totally wrong.

As I keep saying, this should not have got past the gate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and, playing the legal pedant, the contract of carriage posted earlier makes repeated references to passengers "denied boarding"...now unless the airline has a different legal definition of boarding, most of us would assume that getting on the plane = boarding.

no mention in that contract of the airline's right to remove someone after boarding.

though actually rule 21 probably covers it

"UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage."

While all of this is grabbing the headlines I wonder what news is being buried today?

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 minute ago
Why does it matter that he's a facking doctor? Would it have been more acceptable if he was a facking plumber? Or a facking binman?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is apparently also worse because he is asian, something that has been mentioned a number of times on here.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
While all of this is grabbing the headlines I wonder what news is being buried today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jose's bullying shaw in public, the sly devil

Violence and physically removing someone are worlds apart.
______________

Correct.

When the victim is injured, it's a clear sign of violence.

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 minute ago
Why does it matter that he's a facking doctor? Would it have been more acceptable if he was a facking plumber? Or a facking binman?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is apparently also worse because he is asian, something that has been mentioned a number of times on here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
for one he has appointments next day god knows what kind of doctor he is. second of from all the people in flight they could have asked others when he refused. i'm pretty sure they could have asked others as well or was it cos he's 69 and easy target they decided to go for him. if others said no why did they not get the same treatment.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
While all of this is grabbing the headlines I wonder what news is being buried today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jose's bullying shaw in public, the sly devil

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm waiting for the video where Jose is security and Bastian/Shaw/Martial is the passenger any minute now.......

Indeed. Hence the whole "they dealt with it badly" part. The physically removing him part is fine
_______________

Then someone still needs to explain all that piffle about "faux outrage".

Do people have a right to be outraged or not?

You don't seem to be able to make up your minds.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 25 seconds ago
Violence and physically removing someone are worlds apart.
______________

Correct.

When the victim is injured, it's a clear sign of violence.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. Hence the whole "they dealt with it badly" part. The physically removing him part is fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtleties appear lost on this guy, Greatteams.

comment by "My greatest challenge is not what's happening at the moment, my greatest challenge was knocking Liverpool right off their f*****g perch. And you can print that." #lovepalestine (U19085)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 minute ago
Why does it matter that he's a facking doctor? Would it have been more acceptable if he was a facking plumber? Or a facking binman?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it is apparently also worse because he is asian, something that has been mentioned a number of times on here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
for one he has appointments next day god knows what kind of doctor he is. second of from all the people in flight they could have asked others when he refused. i'm pretty sure they could have asked others as well or was it cos he's 69 and easy target they decided to go for him. if others said no why did they not get the same treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
he didn't have the right to refuse.

and no, i have no idea what kind of doctor he is, maybe he's a cancer specialist, or specialises in fake t!ts. does it make a difference? as someone else asked, what is he was a cop? or a teacher? or a drug counsellor? or even a ja606 admin?

and if he really and truly felt he had to travel he should have declared that before the draw was made.

and you have no idea whether others did or didn't say no.

as i have said, 40k passengers were involuntarily bumped from flights last year, this can't be the first time someone was in a position where they had to make a flight and kicked up a fuss.

but it does go back to the airline's mistake in only sorting this after boarding, they still may have had the legal right to kick him off the flight, but in practice it's a lot harder.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I'm outrageously outraged at outrageous outrage.

Think the worst part about all of this is the police statement saying the passenger sustained injuries​ after he 'fell' on to the armrest

They provided incentive ($800 worth of hotel and flightbfollowing day) to passengers before proceeding with random check. If they increase incentive to point that passengers left they would have saved so much than this PR nightmare

The fact that the aircraft was boarded for starters was totally wrong.

As I keep saying, this should not have got past the gate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I'd be plenty annoyed if told at the gate that I wasn't able to fly but on the plane? Much worse.

............................

I have never seen this happen before. And I have done a fair bit of travel around the US.

I frequently see this kind of thing getting sorted out at the gate, but never once on an aircraft.

If they've selected people at random then the headline 'United draw lots....' is one that just isn't going to go away. Having seen the video though this United seems to attack better.

comment by Kunta Kinte Kante Conte (U1641)
posted 22 seconds ago
They provided incentive ($800 worth of hotel and flightbfollowing day) to passengers before proceeding with random check. If they increase incentive to point that passengers left they would have saved so much than this PR nightmare
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i mentioned earlier that there is a regulation in place both a) saying that compensation must be offered and b) what the maximum that can be offered is (4 times the cost of a one-way ticket).

so it may be that the airline either a) had a policy of stopping at a certain figure or b) were not actually allowed by regulation to increase it.

i have no idea of the intricacies of this by the way, but it might not be as simple as the airline simply offering more and more until someone accepts.

Indeed. Hence the whole "they dealt with it badly" part. The physically removing him part is fine
_______________

Then someone still needs to explain all that piffle about "faux outrage".

Do people have a right to be outraged or not?

You don't seem to be able to make up your minds.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not up to me what people are outraged by. I am simply correcting people who seem to think the airline had no right to do what they did.
________________

And I am simply responding to the accusations that people are overreacting to nothing with their "faux outrage".

If the situation was handled badly then people have every right to be annoyed about it.

According to Lambeau, Don and co, nobody has any justification for complaint.

Lambeau even went so far as to say that people are only complaining to seek attention.

What is the evidence or justification for such an aggressively sanctimonious attitude?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
If they've selected people at random then the headline 'United draw lots....' is one that just isn't going to go away. Having seen the video though this United seems to attack better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Kunta Kinte Kante Conte (U1641)
posted 4 minutes ago
They provided incentive ($800 worth of hotel and flightbfollowing day) to passengers before proceeding with random check. If they increase incentive to point that passengers left they would have saved so much than this PR nightmare
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly they're meant to offer 4x the price of the ticket or $1300, whichever one is cheaper but apparently the vouchers they offer have a ton of small print saying certain flights and only one can be used at once etc. Not surprised why no one wanted to accept it

Comment deleted by Site Moderator