So, United admitting fault and taking full responsibility. Will that be enough to save the stock? I see they put an arbitrary deadline of 4/30 to invoke "change"...
If your logic was sound, evictions would go a lot smoother than you think they do. Try and get someone evicted, especially with as little cause as united had here, and then tell me what my rights are. Like a rental, that man was renting a seat on that plane. As a landlord, I can't come in and drag you out just because I want to.
Exactly right. Bobby is just simply completely off-base on this one. Refusing an unlawful request does not justify in any way the amount of force that was used here.
I think I see what you're saying. But even if it's not an unlawful request, it's a request that breaches United's contract with the passenger, right? https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 United can only refuse transport if the passenger violated one of those rules. Which rule did he violate? IMO, it's unlawful. The flight wasn't overbooked. 4 United employees simply needed a last minute ride, so United physically forced the passenger off the plane. How can that possibly be legal?
Definitely refreshing. In a world of fake news, and always having to be right even when you're wrong it's nice to see someone be able to change his/her mind on something.
Ideally yes. But could you imagine if it was a pregnant lady and they tried to remove her like this? Sure there is no magic eject button but there were other ways as well, they had 3 grown men there. I firmly believe they could've removed this guy in a different manner instead of one guy trying to single handedly yank him out. You had one guy just standing there watching and another guy trying to help, but it almost looked like it was one dude who had enough and just made a move.
You said you fly often, right? You do know how ungodly cramped it is in there, right? I can barely scratch my own ass, let alone get 3 dudes to do it at the same time.
Read what you copied instead of selectively bolding. Interfere with THE DUTIES of the crew, not any arbitrary command they give for this person to leave, when they had no legal basis to do so. Unless you're telling me it was the crew's duty to act illegally, you don't have a point here.
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.. Lol you are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. The "or" only applies to the "interfere with" clause. Notice the parallel usage of "with" that denotes what the "or" separates? Taking out the second part of that or clause yields: "Passengers who fail to comply with the duties of the members of the flight crew..." Again, not the crew's duty to illegally remove passengers.
The duties of the flight crew were unable to transpire with the passenger staying on the aircraft. Him staying there was impeding them doing their duties.
No, the fact that they were trying to put four people on to take the seat of this guy and other passengers did.
SMH, it means that passengers who fail to comply with the members flight crew OR they interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew. I'm not going to spell this out for you again. Either you understand that's what the sentence means, or perhaps you should enroll in a basic English class at a junior college to brush up on things.
Airlines are no longer private companies who are allowed to dictate who should or should not be on the airplane now? When did this change?
