Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip. Dao was in the wrong on all points, from a to zed.

Bullshit. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?m=1

Bullshit back at you, just read the comments to that article. Dao was not in flight and until you take off, you can be asked to go. The force used by police was reasonable given his Erratic behavior of noncooperation and running back on a plane once removed. The greater good issue was the the need to get the employees to the next destination for the greater good. I've been bumped while aleady seated, and I was ok with that and didn't turn into a dao nutjob, even though they offeted me a lot less than they offered dao!

You're a lying corporate shill. Bumping after boarding doesn't happen, that's why this case is so unusual. Dr Dao ran back on the plane because he was disoriented after being knocked unconscious. If they truly thought he was a threat, they'd have secured him after removing him from the plane. They didn't think he was a threat, they just wanted his empty seat. United used an arm of the government to avoid paying proper compensation for bumping someone. That's a frightening abuse of government power by a corporate interest. If that doesn't scare you, you're either not thinking clearly, or being paid to not think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip. Dao was in the wrong on all points, from a to zed.

Bullshit. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?m=1

Bullshit back at you, just read the comments to that article. Dao was not in flight and until you take off, you can be asked to go. The force used by police was reasonable given his Erratic behavior of noncooperation and running back on a plane once removed. The greater good issue was the the need to get the employees to the next destination for the greater good. I've been bumped while aleady seated, and I was ok with that and didn't turn into a dao nutjob, even though they offeted me a lot less than they offered dao!

I sure would like to know how you kick off a passenger "in flight" to give the seat to a United employee. Do they get a parachute? do you just open the door and push them out? Geronimo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As seen on FB

United Operating Principles...

1. Enjoy a complementary copy of SkyMaul

2. United Airlines. Putting the hospital in hospitality"

3. "Not enough seating, prepare for a beating"

4. United Airlines App: "Now with Drag and Drop feature"

5. Rival Southwest logo: "We beat the competition. Not You"

6. "Fly United and you'll have a bloody good time."

7. "Making sure doctors get to the hospital"

8. "Our prices are unbeatable. But not our customers. "

9. "Roses are red. Violets are blue. So will your face be when we're done with you"

10. "Now offering BOTH red eye and black eye flights."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

+1

United is f*cked. It seems like their spin machine found their way on this thread (with other PP). LOL.

United can make up all kinds of stories, the proof is in the multiple videos. United can s*ck it. Everyone knows what really happened, everyone knows the truth. United can try to spin the story all they want, it won't make what really happened go away. If United was a person, they would be your nightmare trouble making neighbor from hell who thinks they own the neighborhood. We've all seen the type. No thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

+1

That is what you are choosing to concentrate on? That he made an ass out of himself/ Are you for real? The man was beaten up - directly because of United - and that is all you have to say? That just shows how delusional you really are. You know nothing. Get back to us when you know the law. You saying you are right does not make it so. Too bad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip. Dao was in the wrong on all points, from a to zed.

Bullshit. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?m=1

Bullshit back at you, just read the comments to that article. Dao was not in flight and until you take off, you can be asked to go. The force used by police was reasonable given his Erratic behavior of noncooperation and running back on a plane once removed. The greater good issue was the the need to get the employees to the next destination for the greater good. I've been bumped while aleady seated, and I was ok with that and didn't turn into a dao nutjob, even though they offeted me a lot less than they offered dao!

You're a lying corporate shill. Bumping after boarding doesn't happen, that's why this case is so unusual. Dr Dao ran back on the plane because he was disoriented after being knocked unconscious. If they truly thought he was a threat, they'd have secured him after removing him from the plane. They didn't think he was a threat, they just wanted his empty seat. United used an arm of the government to avoid paying proper compensation for bumping someone. That's a frightening abuse of government power by a corporate interest. If that doesn't scare you, you're either not thinking clearly, or being paid to not think.

+1

Not being paid to think, is more like it.

United involved the city of Chicago - that is a hell of a payout for Dao. If you don't like that fact, don't get the city involved. Don't call the cops when there is no reason. Don't file a false report. There is so much basis for Dao here, but I'm not going to be the one to educate you. United blew it, every step of the way. Now the payout is even bigger than it ever would have been, had they not involved multiple parties. Idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supposedly United will be offering up to $10,000. per bumped passenger to avoid assaulting passengers in the future. This is to avoid getting the bumping rules changed by lawmakers (so United can claim they are "already" making changes). As if:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/04/14/delta_is_clear_it_wants_to_avoid_united_s_public_relations_fiasco.html

That's actually Delta making that policy change. Smart move.

1. This will come back to bite delta.
2. I would definitely fly United if all the people who believe Dao acted appropriately stop flying United.
3. I would never want a passenger who behaves like Dao in the seat next to me or on my plane.
4. Folks will be bahving worse than a toddler if they feel they can get money out of such behavior. It is now called a Dao move. So, if you want to pull a Dao, go for it, but not me. I don't have much pride, but I've got enough to not throw a public temper tantrum on a plane.

Dafuq? Who is this person who is rambling on and on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

+1

United is f*cked. It seems like their spin machine found their way on this thread (with other PP). LOL.

United can make up all kinds of stories, the proof is in the multiple videos. United can s*ck it. Everyone knows what really happened, everyone knows the truth. United can try to spin the story all they want, it won't make what really happened go away. If United was a person, they would be your nightmare trouble making neighbor from hell who thinks they own the neighborhood. We've all seen the type. No thanks!

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip. Dao was in the wrong on all points, from a to zed.

Bullshit. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?m=1

Bullshit back at you, just read the comments to that article. Dao was not in flight and until you take off, you can be asked to go. The force used by police was reasonable given his Erratic behavior of noncooperation and running back on a plane once removed. The greater good issue was the the need to get the employees to the next destination for the greater good. I've been bumped while aleady seated, and I was ok with that and didn't turn into a dao nutjob, even though they offeted me a lot less than they offered dao!

You're a lying corporate shill. Bumping after boarding doesn't happen, that's why this case is so unusual. Dr Dao ran back on the plane because he was disoriented after being knocked unconscious. If they truly thought he was a threat, they'd have secured him after removing him from the plane. They didn't think he was a threat, they just wanted his empty seat. United used an arm of the government to avoid paying proper compensation for bumping someone. That's a frightening abuse of government power by a corporate interest. If that doesn't scare you, you're either not thinking clearly, or being paid to not think.

Bullshit back at you, not me. I am a fiftysomething who has been in this area since age 20. It happened in my 20s, and you wouldn't know a lie from the truth, because apparently you missed my truth when I told you outright, just because it didn't agree with you view that the world is not so black and white. And when it happened, my checked bag got there ahead of me because they didn't take it of, of course.
Touche.

[Anonymous]

Etihad airways turns back to gate to let a couple out, who got news that their grandson got admitted to intensive care.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2016/04/13/etihad-airways-turns-plane-around-for-elderly-couple-to-visit-dying-grandson/#FDH0ws44PwJYCOiD.01

Night and day compared to UAL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supposedly United will be offering up to $10,000. per bumped passenger to avoid assaulting passengers in the future. This is to avoid getting the bumping rules changed by lawmakers (so United can claim they are "already" making changes). As if:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/04/14/delta_is_clear_it_wants_to_avoid_united_s_public_relations_fiasco.html

That's actually Delta making that policy change. Smart move.

1. This will come back to bite delta.
2. I would definitely fly United if all the people who believe Dao acted appropriately stop flying United.
3. I would never want a passenger who behaves like Dao in the seat next to me or on my plane.
4. Folks will be bahving worse than a toddler if they feel they can get money out of such behavior. It is now called a Dao move. So, if you want to pull a Dao, go for it, but not me. I don't have much pride, but I've got enough to not throw a public temper tantrum on a plane.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Wow - didn't realize there were so many lemmings/idiots who would let the airlines illegally push them around.