Why do you take Bobby's bait. The guy is a psychopath. Wouldn't be surprised if he does some crazy stuff and ends up on the news.
So, are you saying because UA was attempting to ferry around non-rev (i.e. employees) that the denied boarding rules/comp should not have applied here? Basically -- since this was not an "overbooked" scenario -- UA has no/less legal standing to do what they did...? I think they probably did this. So IOW, them ferrying around crew at the expense of paying customers is not legal? Not sure if "advanced seat assignment" applies to crew, etc. It should be pretty simple to determine in a contract whether or not UA can legally do what they did.
Yeah, i would. It would be a tragedy, but when people cause the situation with their actions I just can't support them. Sandra Bland was a good example of that. Her stupid actions turned a warning ticket into her going to jail and committing suicide. Do we blame the cop for her actions? Some do, I don't. Now if the guy did nothing and people just jumped him out of nowhere, that changes everything, but I don't think that's what happened.
It is amazing to me how invested and focused people are on smearing/attacking UA or the passenger instead of focusing on the absolutely dogs*** laws we have for the transportation industry in this country.
The FAA is the one that sets involuntary re-accomoddation guidelines. They specifically use the term oversold and in any passenger reservation system, ticketing for revenue and non-revenue passengers is a distinction. That distinction has been around since the beginning of aviation travel. This was not an oversold flight. An airline can ticket 100 crew members if they wanted for a flight but that doesn't make it oversold. [QUOTE="DonnyMost]I think they probably did this.[/quote] Actually I'm pretty sure they didn't. I've personally had to remind a gate agent of involuntary re-accommodation compensation rules. And the vast majority of the time, gate agents fail to provide the written instructions required by the FAA for compensation. It has to be written and it has to be immediate to notification of involuntary re-accomodation. I've been involuntarily removed 3 times and I've never actually received it. Now I know the rules so I dont really care but I've never actually seen the written instructions. So there are two types of non-rev bookings. You'll usually find standby non-rev bookings which will never have advanced seat assignment. They're stand by after all so in this scenario they wouldn't be able to board. Now there is confirmed non-rev bookings which can have advanced seats. Most airlines will grant their staff (especially tenured staff) one or two confirmed staff bookings. However in this case, regardless of whether the staff was confirmed or standby, its clear they DID NOT have a seat assignment. And I've never seen non-rev staff with no seat assignment gain priority over ticketed, confirmed and seated passengers. UA doesn't actually disclose how it prioritizes. It gives you a basic description in the contract but it doesn't explicitly reveal how. In theory, when you are bumped you are owed an explanation of why you're bumped including the reasoning behind you were on the bottom of the priority list (that's an FAA requirement). But I suspect the passengers weren't told this and I suspect UA won't release the priority list or explain it until a trial happens.
What if the person in this case was an 80 year old vet or a pregnant woman? Shouldn't matter right since they caused the situation?
This fails the 'so what' test. Unless you have some evidence any of this was used in the process of selecting who to kick off?
This fails the 'so what' test. Unless you have some evidence any of this was used in the process of selecting who to kick off?
This fails the 'so what' test. Unless you have some evidence any of this was used in the process of selecting who to kick off?
There were arguments about how much this "surgeon" would lose by missing a half day of surgery, how I didn't know anything about doctors and that patients want the same doctor so another doctor could not cover for him earlier in the thread. Turns out he is barely a doctor and almost certainly had no patients waiting for him. So I found it relevant.
I actually agree. There should be equal anger about that. Unfortunately, the CEO was so cavalier about it that it took away any interest in arguing that side of it.
They still have the same responsibility to comply. It just makes it a whole lot dumber for them to not comply if they are an 80 year old vet or pregnant woman.
