I love their Tampa to Seattle nonstop. Layovers can stick it
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
United Airlines violently drags a doctor off a plane so employee could take his seat
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
I love their Tampa to Seattle nonstop. Layovers can stick it
ChemicalCutthroat
Member
Gotta remember, while a lot of people are regular flies, there are probably way more who only end up taking a trip every couple of years. You could give me $2000 in airline miles and I wouldn't really have anything to do with them. Maybe fly a friend out to visit or something. But then I'd be making my friend suffer through flying with United, so that's almost cruel.
If it was $800 cash so I could go have a few drinks at the airport bar before going to my hotel for the night, that's a totally different story. Airline miles aren't going to pay me for missing a day of work because you bumped me. They won't cover my car payments or my rent. (I mean I guess you could buy tickets for friends and have them reimburse you for a lower amount to be a nice person or something, but that's about it.)
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
I keep flying United because the in-flight movie is always Thor 2: The Dark World.
MisterR
Member
Sorry, just because you put something in T&C's or a contract doesn't mean it will hold up or mean anything in a court.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
I wouldn't know since I haven't flown on the really bad American ones, but from what I've heard, the experience isn't even comparable. Flying is always so enjoyable when I do my yearly trips to Asia. I'd compare the American ones (based on hearsay) to some of the really cheap and spotty Mainland Chinese airlines though.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
:lol What in the hell does Acts of God, which you went out of your way to bold, have to do with this thread at all? SMH
Audioboxer
Member
....
Did you read my post? I was in no way saying this was an act of God. I was "laughing" at just how in-depth the T&C section is for
RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
What's the alternative here, do you and guybrushfreeman think involuntary bumping isn't
a) A thing/reality
b) Legal
Because it most certainly is. It's up to the airlines to handle how people still refusing it are treated. I really don't think it's worth bringing in security. As I've said about 10x now in this topic, just move on to choosing someone else while politely reminding everyone the plane is not taking off till 4 seats are freed up. I even went as far to say the worst case situation should be the whole flight cancelled, and the reason given as no one would leave. Then EVERYONE needs to be rebooked. Trust me, if a whole plane is staring at that situation, while bad PR for the airline, someone willaccept $800.
See above.........
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
It's not even in the T&Cs, I mean seriously it really isn't even in there
TangoAlphaLima
Member
We also need to remember that corporations put things in the "small print" that are not legally sound. Just cause it's in there doesn't mean they have the right.
There's also a legal principle called adhesion contracts. That's where these terms and conditions are presented as "take it or leave it" to the other party, in this case, the passengers. Courts do not always uphold these contracts, because there is inequality in bargaining between the parties. And honestly, I think the U.S. legal system should do more to discourage them and provide better rights to the party that had no ability to negotiate.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
Nothing the passenger did is covered under RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT. What are you saying specifically from that section he did?
Edit: Let's look shall we?
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Nope
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Nope
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Nope
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Nope
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Nope
MisterR
Member
I know. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Just parroting company bullshit.
What he posted isn't the point though. Through their decision making process it resulted in an injury and shaming, which would put them directly liable. Same as if you are negligent in a car and kill/injure someone in your car, they can sue you. Their responsibility.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Did you read the terms? It gives them the right to prevent boarding, not removing them once they've boarded.
Also it's not really unique in how "in-depth" it is. Pretty much all contracts worth a damn are like this. Actually as far as contracts go, this is actually fairly simple and concise, I assume because for the exact reason that they want laypeople buying their tickets to be able to read it and understand it (or at least in court not be able to claim that they couldn't possibly have understood it due to its arcane nature).
And yet UA's still doesn't cover what they did to this man.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Twitter is enjoying this
This doesn't make sense even as a joke.
Um... no? It shouldn't be what happens.
Your analogy makes no sense. When you pay for a burger then stay too long, McDonalds fulfilled their obligation by giving you the meal and a place to eat.
In the current situation, by contrast, the passenger paid for a flight to his destination and United didn't fulfill its obligation when they removed him with force from his seat prior to takeoff. If it says in the terms and conditions that this is something that could happen, then those terms and conditions are not fair and should not be there.
This would be like McDonalds telling you to fuck off and come back with a raincheck because they ran out of meat after agreeing to make you a burger and accepting your payment. We shouldn't accept that even if they had fine print on their sign saying that it was a possibility.
Why? Because it's blatantly unfair and absurd.
That makes a lot more sense.
One of the atrocities that should be in the poll...
Slackbladder
Member
What a monumental fuck up. And shame on anyone defending this in the slightest. I just hope they're sued for millions. And get taken over by another company. Or close down (assuming everyone can get a job apart from the fucks who did this).
Skellig Gra
Member
The real joke is them charging first class prices for the first 2 rows on that tiny as airplane.
"Hey it could have been worse! At least we didn't kill the guy!" - United PR, probably.
HawksWinStanley
Member
Aren't there websites that allow you to sell stuff like gift cards, miles, app store credit, etc., basically junk you got but don't want or would never use for actual cash? It's usually at a discount so the buyer gets a deal but $1000-$1500 for $2000 worth of miles I'd never use still sounds pretty good to me.
You're right though, it's a shitty situation and in the end nobody wins because somebody ends up with those god forsaken miles on United.
LizardKing
Member
Why would somebody allow their flight to be cancelled just because everybody else will be cancelled if they didn't? That's no benefit to the person who would voluntarily cancel. The real answer is to just keep raising the price until you get volunteers. That's what everyone else does.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Well I mean if they could make the case that he was disruptive, violent, offensive, etc., then they could have cause to remove him.
Obviously, even if he was, it was because UA first tried to breach their contract by removing him against their own terms though... Kinda gonna be a hard case for them to make seeing as how the guy was sitting there quietly until the police officer put hands on him.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Anecdotally speaking, my least best Asian airline flight experience was with China Airlines, but it was still pretty good. It's just the Korean, ANA, Anasian, Thai, etc were all better.
Oh, actually now that I think about it, the Air Asia flight that I took was pretty basic, but it wasn't that bad. It was a budget flight, after all.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
There's plenty of video footage and eyewitness so they aren't going to get too far trying that one
StopMakingSense
Member
Yep, UA was clearly the first party in breach of the contract. It's plain as day from their own website.
Yep, airline isn't going to compensate my customer for having to wait an extra day for me to show up on site. $800 is nothing in these scenarios. I will never volunteer unless I got some extra time at the end of a business trip.
Ironically, a study on this was released about an hour before the United thing broke.
Spoiler:
1. Alaska Airlines (ranked 5th in 2015)
2. Delta Air Lines (3)
3. Virgin America (1)
4. JetBlue Airways (2)
5. Hawaiian Airlines (4)
6. Southwest Airlines (6)
7. SkyWest (7)
8. United Airlines (8)
9. American Airlines (10)
10. ExpressJet (9)
11. Spirit Airlines (13)
12. Frontier (11)
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Yeah some of the mainland China ones are extremely cut-rate. China Eastern has a pretty bad rep with us Chinese people, but they're cheap. Hey kinda like how Americans feel about UA!
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
I don't think $5 words are gonna help you out of this one, Oscar.
Im kinda surprised that spirit is so low. Its almost as if people dont read the fine print or something
Audioboxer
Member
Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Sad thing is all of these airlines are WAAAAYYY down the list once you actually include airlines from around the globe.
Christ that's a picture that says a lot.
Look at the damn blood.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
Nope again. All those procedures talk about pre-boarding. It's actually very specific
I mean the title of the section is 'DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION'. This was plainly not supposed to happen after boarding
Simon Belmont
Banned
Audioboxer you are not coming off as super informed here. As a passive observer.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
Yeah I've read all of that already before replying to you. You're talking about removal or rescinding/reneging the boarding, not denying someone board.
"Denied boarding". The guy had already boarded.
LizardKing
Member
The fucked up part of this statement is that he's apologizing for having to "reaccomodate" passengers. Not for having a paying customer physically assaulted and forcibly removed for improper reasons.
StopMakingSense
Member
Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
For denying boarding.
That entire procedure is prior to the boarding the the plane. The section is very clear about that. They mention it several times.
See all the fucking times it talks about being 'denied boarding'?
It helps to actually fucking read the things you think back up your argument when instead they just prove what we've been saying.
Didn't know this
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Yeah if an attorney specifically called you to solicit business you could report him to the state bar.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
You really need to learn to read what you're posting instead of just dumping paragraphs of words that literally contradict what you're saying. This isn't about boarding, a section about boarding has NOTHING to do with this incident.Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
Very Berry Sunday
Member
CEO is probably hoping that we don't remember that.
Okay, back to reading because while I'm getting shat on for copying some terms from section 21, there is indeed section 25, where I should have gone the first time
RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
Same link, you can go read it yourself. The point is involuntary requests are a thing. Not complying is what will probably "fall" under some "failure to adhere to cabin crew requests" and/or "creating a disturbance the pilot, or in this case management, has to engage with". As I said, a lot of loose language to cover just about any situation where a passenger refuses to comply with cabin crew.
I am sorry, but are you stupid?
Firstly, it is before boarding, it was already discussed before. And FYI not everything that is written in terms of service or whatever means anything on a court.
You just keep going and going with all this bullshit, just stop man, it is looking bad...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked