United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[BugI02]

I stand corrected then, airline employees and airline subcontractors. You know, that group of people that receives or has received money from the airlines in return for work. Is that better?

Guilt by association, counselor? Good to know that you have apparently never defended one of those evil corporations sucking at the soul of the proletariat, or at least that it was pro bono if you did (see, I can speak hyperbole too)

 

[actaeon277]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you steel mill guys. Earlier in life I worked with a good deal of heavy construction equipment but nothing even remotely like the stuff that you guys do. Plus, burns scare the hell out of me.

No respect needed.
It's the $$$$

I had more respect in the navy.
This, meh, just a job for a faceless corporation.

 

[Fargo]

Stock is almost $71/share today, and dammit they are booked solid. The SJW crowd has moved on to more important things.

Above expectation earnings report and news of the below link (if authentic) probably helped a good bit. I will be really curious to see if there is perceptible marketshare movement. I would guess yes, but with a government subsidized quasi-monopoly you never know.

https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsde...irlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Above expectation earnings report and news of the below link (if authentic) probably helped a good bit. I will be really curious to see if there is perceptible marketshare movement. I would guess yes, but with a government subsidized quasi-monopoly you never know.

https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsde...irlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

That document is legit

I arrived for a DH yesterday, 45 minutes prior to departure as per our contract, and I had no reservation. Someone in scheduling created the itinerary, then deleted it... on accident. So, had that flight been full, I would not have gotten on.

Good news is, I get paid whether I get there or not, the outcome is the same for me

 

[Fargo]

Guilt by association, counselor? Good to know that you have apparently never defended one of those evil corporations sucking at the soul of the proletariat, or at least that it was pro bono if you did (see, I can speak hyperbole too)

Where do you come up with guilt? Let's wayback machine this:

LOL, you understand that BugI02 and some of the other airline employees are the ones who started economic argument on this, not me? Bug was explaining that there is no way that they could not bump this guy because it would be an economic disaster.

Dont know exactly what guilt I was associating anyone with, I was trying to point out to Tlex the argument that I was replying to. If it came across as some sort of attack on you, that wasn't my intention and I don't believe that was in any way what I said.

FWIW I don't believe I have ever represented a corporation, much less an evil corporation. I did once pro bono represent a guy who really probably should have incorporated his business...

 

[jamil]

Two different things going on: policy and enforcement. Kinda the difference between legislation and enforcement. Big picture v. small picture.

At a policy level, the overbooking (even though that's not technically what happened here, but what you guys were arguing about) is about efficiency, which involves an assessment of profitability. At that level, overbooking (even though that's not technically what happened here) impacts profits, which impacts stock prices.

What you're talking about is more granular: what UAL employees did was wrong in a financial sense, as evidenced by the stock drop. If that is not what you are saying, then I invite you to clarify. The problem with that assessment is that in conflates 2 different things: stock valuation and correctitude. Wall Street honors profit, ill-gotten or otherwise.

So, which UAL employees were wrong in your assessment? The CEO or directors for having policies in effect for employees should do when an individual who does not belong on flight refuses to deplane?

You're putting great emphasis on structural apologies as meaning someone did something wrong, but you are being coy about who you think was wrong. Just an observation.

The market argument probably doesn't have that big a place in determining if UAL was right or wrong. People buy and sell stocks based on what they think the future value will be. Investors only care about how they think the public will react to this. They're not trying to make a moral judgement. It's a value judgement. It's a guess about UAL's financial future, short term or long term. You look at this and social media and all that and some people might sell because they think UAL is going to tank short term. If I'm looking to buy into airline stocks, I'm more long term, so I'm probably looking more for an entry point, and I'd see the dip as a buying opportunity.

As far as a moral judgment, which is what this discussion has become, I think I'd rather no see fat women in yoga pants. There. I said it. And don't worry. I'm not going to wear biking shorts on a plane. Ever. I would hate to subject anyone to that.

Yoga pants were worth it.

Depends who's wearing them. But....

I guess I can endure this:

For the occasional this:

 

[T.Lex]

If you want to have a reasonable discussion about this, maybe you should abandon the false premise that it has somehow been indisputably established that the passenger had no legal right to remain in his seat. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true.

LMAO

Reasonable discussion? You're the one ad hom'ing around this thread and had to take a break from it because your tidy whities were getting too bunched.

Did you read Nader? You know, the SCOTUS case. The progeny of which disagrees with you about contract of adhesion.

Do you think all other attorneys are idiots and no one's ever tried that argument? It hasn't worked. The airlines have attorneys, too. Damn good ones.

Your unreasonable starting point appears to be that you have an oracle's sense that the good doctor had a right to be on the plane after UAL told him he didn't.

There is no point in trying to discuss this if you think you get to unilaterally decide disputed facts.

I'm not. The legality of something is not a "fact" usually. You should know that better than most.

Its kinda funny. It took me awhile to realize you meant the "corporate attorney" thing as an insult. I thought it was deference. I've helped work up all sorts of policies, procedures and response plans. There's no way to think of everything, so an interdisciplinary team tries to come up with a framework that effectively: stays within the existing corporate culture, laws, rules, and judicial interpretations AND makes/saves the most money. Then other people train up staff, to include a feedback loop (hopefully) with metrics to gauge the effectiveness.

Sure, it isn't as dramatic as a jury trial, but it is meant to affect far more people.

Regardless, that's not even the question you're avoiding. Since you brought up reasonableness - was.... the... doctor... "right"... in your opinion... to refuse... to leave... the plane. Not, "did he have the right." Not, "was there a legal principle worth arguing about." Do you think he was right to refuse to leave?

And if you clearly answered it, I apologize for missing it. I skimmed your posts directed at others.

 

[jamil]

Argumentation for $200 Alex.

"a contest or rivalry in which the main concern of the parties involved is the conspicuous demonstration of superiority."

What is a pissing contest?

Ding ding ding!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[jamil]

I think I have to pee now.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Argumentation for $200 Alex.

"a contest or rivalry in which the main concern of the parties involved is the conspicuous demonstration of superiority."

What is a pissing contest?

Ding ding ding!

I'm just here for the yoga pants at this point. The lawyerly types can hash out the lawyerly stuff. None of it interested me from the start, and I'm positive I don't have the understanding of contract law to even remotely have valid input.

 

[rob63]

For the occasional this:

If I'm totally honest, I probably wouldn't complain if they removed Mr. Dao to make room for her in the seat next to me.

 

[jamil]

If I'm totally honest, I probably wouldn't complain if they removed Mr. Dao to make room for her in the seat next to me.

I wouldn't kick her off the plane for wearing leggins.

 

[churchmouse]

I wouldn't kick her off the plane for wearing leggins.

I seriously doubt any of us could kick her off the plane.

 

[Fargo]

LMAO

Reasonable discussion? You're the one ad hom'ing around this thread and had to take a break from it because your tidy whities were getting too bunched.

Did you read Nader? You know, the SCOTUS case. The progeny of which disagrees with you about contract of adhesion.

Do you think all other attorneys are idiots and no one's ever tried that argument? It hasn't worked. The airlines have attorneys, too. Damn good ones.

Your unreasonable starting point appears to be that you have an oracle's sense that the good doctor had a right to be on the plane after UAL told him he didn't.


I'm not. The legality of something is not a "fact" usually. You should know that better than most.

Its kinda funny. It took me awhile to realize you meant the "corporate attorney" thing as an insult. I thought it was deference. I've helped work up all sorts of policies, procedures and response plans. There's no way to think of everything, so an interdisciplinary team tries to come up with a framework that effectively: stays within the existing corporate culture, laws, rules, and judicial interpretations AND makes/saves the most money. Then other people train up staff, to include a feedback loop (hopefully) with metrics to gauge the effectiveness.

Sure, it isn't as dramatic as a jury trial, but it is meant to affect far more people.

Regardless, that's not even the question you're avoiding. Since you brought up reasonableness - was.... the... doctor... "right"... in your opinion... to refuse... to leave... the plane. Not, "did he have the right." Not, "was there a legal principle worth arguing about." Do you think he was right to refuse to leave?

And if you clearly answered it, I apologize for missing it. I skimmed your posts directed at others.

Post 468 begins with the answer to your question. I will summarize it again: it is outside of my competency to say with certainty whether he was right or wrong to do so. I do think that he has the stronger legal case. If "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer to you, you're going to need to find a new huckleberry. It also appears to me that the airlines attorney are also a little worried about not knowing.


https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsde...irlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

Corporate wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a reference to the fact that you look at these things from an insider's perspective which is not the way that the vast majority of the population looks at them. You seemed unwilling to even consider the perspective of anyone not on the corporate inside.

If I was going to ad hominem you, I wouldn't do half measures. Probably something about the first case we argued about on here. I didn't do that because in spite of our disagreements I like and respect you.

 

[indiucky]

I miss the days when flying was largely limited to the upper middle class and above and was not the "Greyhound" of the air. Doubling the prices to equate to what they were in 1980 sounds like the way to go....because that's what moves like this would do.

 

[jamil]

I'm just here for the yoga pants at this point. The lawyerly types can hash out the lawyerly stuff. None of it interested me from the start, and I'm positive I don't have the understanding of contract law to even remotely have valid input.

Okay. Cheers!

 

[indiucky]

As far as a moral judgment, which is what this discussion has become, I think I'd rather no see fat women in yoga pants. There. I said it. And don't worry. I'm not going to wear biking shorts on a plane. Ever. I would hate to subject anyone to that.

I know how you feel....I got a a dollar and a cease and desist order signed INGO from an Attorney in Lafayette to quit posting pictures of myself in breech cloths..Apparently my leg whites damaged Rhino's retina to the point where he had to see an eye doctor...

As far as the young lady above I must quote the great Thomas Dolby..."She blinded me with science but failed me in geometry..."

If she were mine I would have her lay on her side and I would run Hot Wheels all over her her spandex and make little motoring sounds....

All......Day.......Long....

 

[T.Lex]

Post 468 begins with the answer to your question. I will summarize it again: it is outside of my competency to say with certainty whether he was right or wrong to do so.

Wait. Do you ever watch someone do something and think, "Wow - they shouldn't have done that." This is not a competency issue (well, to the extent all of us probably spend too much time here, maybe it is). This isn't a legal question; it is a human one.

We all have personal frameworks of right and wrong. Based on your personal framework, did he do the "right" thing?

I do think that he has the stronger legal case. If "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer to you, you're going to need to find a new huckleberry.

You don't know if you think he did the right thing? Ok.

Corporate wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a reference to the fact that you look at these things from an insider's perspective which is not the way that the vast majority of the population looks at them. You seemed unwilling to even consider the perspective of anyone not on the corporate inside.

Me?

Dude - how long have you been reading my posts? When have I *ever* considered things from only one perspective? That's not how I'm wired. (And, in full disclosure, that's not always a good thing. My teenage kids remind me of that often.)

If I was going to ad hominem you, I wouldn't do half measures. Probably something about the first case we argued about on here...

Well, given your words to me then, perhaps it would be reversion back to form.

While I do not fly often, it is a fact of modern professional life. While I've never been bumped (knock on wood), I've been tempted by the offers. A couple times, if the bidding had gone up a bit more, I probably would've. Regardless, anyone who has seen that process can sympathize with the doctor's predicament. The next natural step is, "What would I do in that situation?"

I'm not sure what I WOULD do. The good doctor's answer to that question is exhibit A in the compendium of things I would NOT do.

 

[jamil]

I know how you feel....I got a a dollar and a cease and desist order signed INGO from an Attorney in Lafayette to quit posting pictures of myself in breech cloths..Apparently my leg whites damaged Rhino's retina to the point where he had to see an eye doctor...

As far as the young lady above I must quote the great Thomas Dolby..."She blinded me with science but failed me in geometry..."

If she were mine I would have her lay on her side and I would run Hot Wheels all over her her spandex and make little motoring sounds....

All......Day.......Long....

Of course set up jumps over the mounds and crevices. Brrrrrrr. Vroooooom! Errrrr!