Imagine that

Wait, tell us about the freakin' "contract". Surely, the "contract" means UAL doesn't have to do shit to change, huh?

I just love it when people talk about fine print and technicalities when a disaster is staring them in the face, and if this incident doesn't qualify as a PR and financial disaster for UAL, then nothing does.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Imagine that

Wait, tell us about the freakin' "contract". Surely, the "contract" means UAL doesn't have to do shit to change, huh?

I just love it when people talk about fine print and technicalities when a disaster is staring them in the face, and if this incident doesn't qualify as a PR and financial disaster for UAL, then nothing does.

It's the same mentality that will argue that it's perfectly fine and reasonable for a police officer to give you a ticket for going 56 in a 55 zone.

We all know that technically it's 'legal', but we who have a smidgen of common sense also know that it's ludicrous, stupid and defies the concept of using judgement and a proportional response. Like the supporters of 'zero tolerance' nonsense in public schools.

Anyone who doesn't see that the United employees were dead wrong here is willfully blind to the concept of 'actions have consequences'.

IIR my elementary education, the Brits had "fine print" and extended it to the colonies.

Some subjects got real tired of having their noses rubbed in "fine print".

Then wrote some words of their own in big letters and signed it with big signatures. No more fine print.

Brits sent more Brits in boats to rub subject noses in fine print.

Subjects killed boatloads of Brits.

Boat..
Loads...

Wern't Subject to fine print and were Free from it.

Sometimes a thing is foolish because it's foolish.

Men make rules, men can change rules.

Bet some change is coming.

Bet.

Perhaps it's time for the legal system to review the "fine print" of these contracts. Is it much of a contract where 1 party gets to determine all of the conditions? Seems every single airline, except Spirit I believe, has these "terms".

You paid your fare, you showed up on time, you boarded the plane, but hey, we're gonna kick you off as we see fit, because we can. Then they'll offer you your money back. Of course if I tried to buy a same day ticket they charge me a much higher fare that if I bought it 2 months before the flight. Do they ever refund the price of a ticked based on the prior day's price, when it was more expensive?

People are trolling United Airlines with these brutal new slogans

For example:

At United Airlines we have both red eye and black eye flights.

Hey United, my MIL is on flight 97 from San Francisco to Houston at 10:50, row 16, seat D. Do your thing!

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
IIR my elementary education, the Brits had "fine print" and extended it to the colonies.

Some subjects got real tired of having their noses rubbed in "fine print".

Then wrote some words of their own in big letters and signed it with big signatures. No more fine print.

Brits sent more Brits in boats to rub subject noses in fine print.

Subjects killed boatloads of Brits.

Boat..
Loads...

Wern't Subject to fine print and were Free from it.

Sometimes a thing is foolish because it's foolish.

Men make rules, men can change rules.

Bet some change is coming.

Bet.

Yup.

Culture outweighs "fine print" every time. There is NOTHING so powerful as culture.

And our American Culture screams "Bullshit!" at this type of behavior, "fine print" be damned!

What I see missing from this discussion are the intermediate facts leading up the removal. From multiple news stories, which is lost when all you focus on is the video, is that the doctor and his wife agreed to the $800 voucher and actually deplaned.

Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started.

For all those who focus solely on UA's actions, was the airline supposed to let him back on and call it good? It wasn't acceptable by UA to do what they did but the good doctor isn't with entirely clean hands either.

Maybe in summary, United likely acted within the ticket/contract, broke no such rules. However, the way they carried out the contract will likely bring a civil penalty.

However, all that is peanuts compared to how potential customers will view the incident when it comes time to book a flight. The airlines industry is quite competitive, and profits don't come easy. Argue technicalities all you want, the bottom line will come in future ticket sales, profits (or losses), market share, and market valuation, all of which will likely take a hard hit.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
What I see missing from this discussion are the intermediate facts leading up the removal. From multiple news stories, which is lost when all you focus on is the video, is that the doctor and his wife agreed to the $800 voucher and actually deplaned.

Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started.

For all those who focus solely on UA's actions, was the airline supposed to let him back on and call it good? It wasn't acceptable by UA to do what they did but the good doctor isn't with entirely clean hands either.

According to the CEO of United Airlines, who has conducted an internal investigation of the incident:

quote:

Munoz said the problem resulted from a "system failure" that prevented employees from using "common sense" in the situation and that Dr. David Dao , whom security officers dragged by his hands, on his back, from the cabin before takeoff, was not at fault .

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started.

Uh huh. Yeah, that's what happened. In case you didn't notice, the guy is a physician. You don't need to respond to this. Really, you don't. Otherwise, I might have to "play" my "admin card".

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Maybe in summary, United likely acted within the ticket/contract, broke no such rules. However, the way they carried out the contract will likely bring a civil penalty.

However, all that is peanuts compared to how potential customers will view the incident when it comes time to book a flight. The airlines industry is quite competitive, and profits don't come easy. Argue technicalities all you want, the bottom line will come in future ticket sales, profits (or losses), market share, and market valuation, all of which will likely take a hard hit.

Yeah, when the entire world is on your ass, you shouldn't be pointing out the fine print.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:


Don't forget the guy's wife and the screaming lady in the video - passengers are going to come out of the woodwork for "mental anguish".

So they'll be paying several people, I have no doubt. Not as much as the primary victim, but you'll see some other settlements too, I think.

Probably not, if all they suffered was mental anguish. There are a lot of restrictions on recovery for mental anguish damages (and other types of soft damages) when they are all you allege. If you get physically hurt, it is another story. But the bystanders who got upset will be out in the cold.

I know people love to bemoan the ready recovery of such soft elements of damages, but that is mostly a myth.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:


Don't forget the guy's wife and the screaming lady in the video - passengers are going to come out of the woodwork for "mental anguish".

So they'll be paying several people, I have no doubt. Not as much as the primary victim, but you'll see some other settlements too, I think.

Probably not, if all they suffered was mental anguish. There are a lot of restrictions on recovery for mental anguish damages (and other types of soft damages) when they are all you allege. If you get physically hurt, it is another story. But the bystanders who got upset will be out in the cold.

I know people love to bemoan the ready recovery of such soft elements of damages, but that is mostly a myth.

but... but... snowflakes!

I am reading that United has stated they will never use the police to evict a passenger. Oh my.. maybe the job goes to big Louie with the aluminum bat.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Congress really fucked travelers over when they failed to pass the passenger "bill of rights" about 15 years ago.

Aren't most of us Trump-style conservative, no-regulation, keep-the-government-out-of-private-transactions, free market, laissez-faire capitalists?

Or do we like our regulations when they give us an advantage?

quote:

Originally posted by EasyFire:
I am reading that United has stated they will never use the police to evict a passenger.

What it means is that once a passenger is seated, they will not be removed due to an overbooking issue, if they refuse to leave. They will no longer use force to enforce the provisions of their one-sided "contract".

Common sense dictates this anyway, but "common sense" and "commercial airlines" should not be in the same sentence unless accompanied by the phrase "complete lack of".

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Congress really fucked travelers over when they failed to pass the passenger "bill of rights" about 15 years ago.

Aren't most of us Trump-style conservative, no-regulation, keep-the-government-out-of-private-transactions, free market, laissez-faire capitalists?

Or do we like our regulations when they give us an advantage?

Some regulations are good, but overregulation is bad. Completely one sided "contracts" like the ones associated with an airline ticket would be more two-sided with a passenger "bill of rights."

Remember, the passenger "bill of rights" got momentum after planes in Detroit pulled away from the gate and parked on the tarmac for 12 hours without returning to gate or bringing out stairs & buses. Most of the flights were supposed to be less than 3 hours so toilets were overflowing, ran out of food, parents ran out of diapers & formula, etc. They couldn't leave the plane and were told shut up or be subject to violating federal law. Sound familiar?

I can't believe some of you are still arguing in favor of the airline after looking through this thread. Get it through your skull. No one here wants to hear that shit. Is it not obvious? Stop telling us about fucking contracts and what the airline yadda yadda yadda!

Figure it out

I and others want to voice our displeasure about this stupid shit and we are not interested in the predictable minority rushing to the defense of corporate America. Figure it out.

What happened was the inevitable result of the airline's policies. Once UAL allowed passengers to board the plane, the die was cast. It doesn't take a grand master to see that what happened was an inevitable outcome. At some point, someone was going to refuse to deboard. Checkmate. The airline has two possible moves and loses either way. One, let the passanger stay on the plane. Or two, remove the passenger by force.

Option one was never going to happen. First, if the airline allows one passenger to refuse, every other passenger from that point forward will refuse. Second and more importantly, the people in charge of handling the decisions at this point are pawns. They follow a set of rules and they have to enforce those rules. Their jobs depend on it. The first one that lets a passenger refuse to deboard gets fired. Their job isn't to think beyond the rules and see what happens the next day. I'm talking about the gate agents, flight attendants, pilots, and police. Yes, the pilots to. You can see it in the "my plane, my rules; it's spelled out in the TOS" attitudes of the pilots who have responded in this thread. Of course, the pawns aren't to blame, the people who made up the rules are responsible.

This was a win for passengers. No longer will I grovel for a bag of nuts or beg for an entire can of Coke.

Thank you, Para, for reopening this thread. This whole story is so ridiculous, I've been laughing for days. UAL's response has been comedic gold. You just can't make this stuff up. Anyone trying to defend the airline's behavior really needs to take two giant steps backward, three deep breaths, and count to ten before they get out the magnifying glass to quote sub-paragraph two of paragraph seven, subsection ten, section eight. Big picture, no magnifying glass needed.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can't believe some of you are still arguing in favor of the airline after looking through this thread. Get it through your skull. No one here wants to hear that shit. Is it not obvious? Stop telling us about fucking contracts and what the airline yadda yadda yadda!

Figure it out

I and other want to voice our displeasure about this stupid shit and we are not interested in the predictable minority rushing to the defense of corporate America. Figure it out.

Yup, arguing for the sake of arguing. Totally crazy shit.