I was holding out for $80...UAL had some momentum to start the year, now I fear it'll teeter in high 60s low 70s for awhile. And if war breaks out that'll put a dent also. Huge Japan/China/Micronesia operation for UAL.
What you are communicating is that you don't give a rat's ass about someone else's inconvenience as long as your schedule isn't adversely affected. I'm pretty sure that's the same attitude the Asian Dr. had.
If you really feel you don't have 'rights" when it comes to flying... you're always going to be on this side of the argument.
lol are you ignorant? of course we have rights when we fly, which is why United admitted their fault and now will have to pay the guy a lot of money in court.
Are you really telling me you have constitutional rights? Because when you bring up civil rights and such, that is exactly what you're implying.
Are you really saying you don't have rights when you fly on an airplane? Like I said... if you really feel that way, you're always going to be looking at things from this viewpoint. When I bring up other situations its an example of where things were considered "illegal", and people should have had the right to do what they did, but what was happening to them was wrong. What happened to this guy (regardless of his past, regardless of united's policy.... that they were in violation of anyways....) was wrong. Continue to argue it if you must... thankfully the company in the wrong has admitted they were in the wrong.
If a passenger can not convince the crew to let them stay on board by the time security arrives, then that is exactly what I am stating. I do not want to see a passenger fighting with security. Again, take the drama elsewhere.
People saying "they admitted they were in the wrong" need to realize that after losing a billion dollars in net worth over the course of one afternoon, United was going to admit wrongdoing pretty much no matter what. To do otherwise would be business suicide. We'll find out exactly who broke the law and how in the days and weeks to come, but United's blanket "we dun goofed plz don't keep dumping our stock" statements aren't something to put a lot of credence into.
You have rights set forth by law and company policy. You do not have constitutional rights (again, as you implied with your civil rights comparison). You also do not have a right to resist security, regardless if one believes their rights have been violated. If you are escorted off the plane and you feel your rights have been violated, take it up with corporate or a lawyer. Dont throw a tempertantrum on the plane. Nobody is going to hold a court tribunal on the plane because on believes their rights are violated.
Well they can't just toss you off the plane for any reasons...... There are actually guidelines to behaviors that warrant of "refusal of transport" and by all accounts none of those applied. You're right, you don't have a right to resist law enforcement even when the company is using law enforcement inappropriately. However, this guy is going to get a lot more money than had United simply raised the price and cut a check (yes, you are entitled to an actual check and not vouchers by law) to get some other people to voluntarily leave. Despite you not liking this guy, this was a PR nightmare all around for United when they were trying to be cheap.
So, you still feel you have no rights once you set foot on a plane. In the end, if you do take action when you're being felt like you're wronged... and real change actually happens (in this case, United losing $1.4 billion of value in stock, exposing one of the biggest cluster-****s in modern airlines policies)... why is that such a bad thing? There are always flawed systems. If everybody always blindly followed those as you're advocating with "you have no rights" comment, society would probably be worse for it.
I though their "it was not an overbook situation" comment was explicitly them avoiding implicating themselves further.... yes, it took them long enough, and only after the real damage was already done, but probably after they looked at all the legal implications, its a tad more than simple PR.... if they stood by their "overbook vs. oversold" policy, they'd have been even further proved wrong and faced even more possible damages.
Well the is the internet, and people with legal knowledge have weighed in. While we won't know the true outcome for some time, it seems the consensus is that United did not have legal grounds for kicking off someone to fly one of their partner's airline employees. The guidelines for "refusal of transport" are outlined and none of them fit this scenario based on all the different angles and timing of the videos taken by cell phones.
TMZ dugged up the wrong dirt sheet,hahahhaha! Of course.. There's more than one Dr. Dao. Oh man this is so funny!!! The plane wasn't even overbooked!!
Washington Post opinion piece today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ucified-man-had-prior-run-in-with-authorities Crucified man had prior run-in with authorities By Alexandra Petri April 12 at 10:52 AM (Bigstock) I guess this is how we are writing up the victims of crimes now. I did not realize that when you boarded a plane you gave away the right to have your past remain your past, but a theme of life these days is that only people who have never done anything wrong, or are in some way related to Donald Trump, deserve to go through their lives unmolested. In accordance with this new house style I am writing up an incident whose anniversary some people are celebrating this week. The gentleman arrested Thursday and tried before Pontius Pilate had a troubled background. Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals. He had had prior run-ins with local authorities — most notably, an incident of vandalism in a community center when he wrecked the tables of several licensed money-lenders and bird-sellers. He had used violent language, too, claiming that he could destroy a gathering place and rebuild it. At the time of his arrest, he had not held a fixed residence for years. Instead, he led an itinerant lifestyle, staying at the homes of friends and advocating the redistribution of wealth. He had come to the attention of the authorities more than once for his unauthorized distribution of food, disruptive public behavior, and participation in farcical aquatic ceremonies. Some say that his brutal punishment at the hands of the state was out of proportion to and unrelated to any of these incidents in his record. But after all, he was no angel. United Airlines said a man wouldn’t give up his spot on a flight. According to witnesses, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security and back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. (The Washington Post)
