Anonymous wrote:I see United put out a hit piece on the man. They are eye deep in the shit now. The stock is falling like a dead bird out of the sky.

I don't care who this man is, what he's done. He bought a ticket like everyone else. To be treated like a common criminal is beyond the pale. A good lawyer can fix this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

The passenger was the one who brought it up. He told people he was a doctor and had to go see patients.

Someone else could have another reason.

No one is saying his personal information or that of any other passenger is part of the decision making about bumping

So why is it 4 bozo United employees, who chose to live outside of their Louisville base, and were using free personal passes to commute to Louisville are more important to get to work than anyone else? Because this is the only way those four can get to Louisville for free vs renting a car and driving together vs actually living where they are based so they don't have to commute via plane?

From what I understand, this man and his wife initially volunteered to be bumped but didn't understand that the alternate flight was an entire day later on Monday afternoon. So when he realized that the next flight was 24 hours later (which is complete bs on United's part) he said no he couldn't wait that long because he was a dr and had patients to see Monday morning in the Louisville area. This is where the dr part comes in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The airlines are already deregulated... HELLO!!!!!

Don't be daft. Of course we are all aware of the "airline deregulation" that took place in the late 70s. It takes the feds out of the business of dealing with fares, routes and new airlines entering the market. But there are a shit ton of regulations that relate to the airlines, planes, runways, you name it. My point is airlines, for example, should be regulated in the way they handle overbooking. Set a limit (can't overbook by a certain percentage), set a minimum that must be paid to customers who are bumped (triple the fare), enable the paying customer to say no.

I'm conservative and don't give a shit if they overbook, no limits needed. But you need to pay $$ for the seats if you bump people. You can't use police to force the consequences of your overbooking.

I also have happily gotten off for $800 before, but obviously that wasn't enough money in this circumstance.

They offered $800 in United vouchers. That's waaaaaaaaaaaay less than $800 in cold hard cash. The vouchers have restrictions, expiration dates, and can't be used to pay for taxes or other fees associated with airfares.

United needs to quit being cheapskates. They basically just beat this man up in order to save money. That's not how we do business in America. 'Eff them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

The passenger was the one who brought it up. He told people he was a doctor and had to go see patients.

Someone else could have another reason.

No one is saying his personal information or that of any other passenger is part of the decision making about bumping

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see United put out a hit piece on the man. They are eye deep in the shit now. The stock is falling like a dead bird out of the sky.

Stock is doing OK. It opened at 70.15, dived down a few dollars, now back to 69.52.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UAL?p=UAL

Their earnings are going to go down. People are having a visceral reaction to this. This isn't a blip of stupidity like the Pepsi commercial. People in Asia think the doctor was targeted because he was Asian. People will choose other airlines even if they have to pay more. They're going to take a hit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to United's Contract of Carriage, it appears the Asian Hero was in the right, and United was wrong. United's Contract of Carriage speaks only to DENYING BOARDING to confirmed passengers on flights that are OVERSOLD.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

United didn't try to deny the Asian bro boarding, they permitted him to board the flight and then physically removed him from the flight. Second, the flight did not appear to be OVERSOLD, in that United did not sell tickets to the individuals it attempted to give preference to over its paying, boarded passengers.

As such, Asian bro was an authorized licensee of United and his presence on the plane was lawful at all times. United attempted to unilaterally and unlawfully revoke his licensee status, and he was within his rights to refuse.

EDIT: The above is based upon Rule 25 in United's Contract of Carriage. Rule 21, which lists the circumstances where United may refuse to transport a ticket holding passenger, further supports this interpretation of the Contract of Carriage.

Asian bro's situation was clearly a "refusal to transport" by United. However, overselling the flight is not listed as a reason in Rule 21 for United to refuse transport of a passengers. The only relief afforded to United for oversold flights is in Rule 25, which is limited to "denying boarding." The Contract of Carriage's Rule specifically pertaining to situations where United may remove a boarded passenger from a flight dispels any remaining doubt that Rule 25 concerning "denied boarding" can be interpreted to apply to forced deboarding.

There is some debate as to when boarding officially ends. Some say it ends after you scan your boarding pass at the gate, others say it ends after you enter the plane, others say it ends after you have taken your seat, others say it ends when the doors of the plane close...

IMO this would be where a jury or judge would decide what constitutes "boarding", look to the case law.

Anonymous wrote:And just to think, those 4 employees could of drove 4 hours to Louisville.

Anonymous wrote:I see United put out a hit piece on the man. They are eye deep in the shit now. The stock is falling like a dead bird out of the sky.

I don't care who this man is, what he's done. He bought a ticket like everyone else. To be treated like a common criminal is beyond the pale. A good lawyer can fix this.

Anonymous wrote:I believe boarding ends when the door shuts. Don't the flight attendants come on and make some announcement about boarding now being ended?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The airlines are already deregulated... HELLO!!!!!

Don't be daft. Of course we are all aware of the "airline deregulation" that took place in the late 70s. It takes the feds out of the business of dealing with fares, routes and new airlines entering the market. But there are a shit ton of regulations that relate to the airlines, planes, runways, you name it. My point is airlines, for example, should be regulated in the way they handle overbooking. Set a limit (can't overbook by a certain percentage), set a minimum that must be paid to customers who are bumped (triple the fare), enable the paying customer to say no.

I'm conservative and don't give a shit if they overbook, no limits needed. But you need to pay $$ for the seats if you bump people. You can't use police to force the consequences of your overbooking.

I also have happily gotten off for $800 before, but obviously that wasn't enough money in this circumstance.

They offered $800 in United vouchers. That's waaaaaaaaaaaay less than $800 in cold hard cash. The vouchers have restrictions, expiration dates, and can't be used to pay for taxes or other fees associated with airfares.

United needs to quit being cheapskates. They basically just beat this man up in order to save money. That's not how we do business in America. 'Eff them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see United put out a hit piece on the man. They are eye deep in the shit now. The stock is falling like a dead bird out of the sky.

Stock is doing OK. It opened at 70.15, dived down a few dollars, now back to 69.52.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UAL?p=UAL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to United's Contract of Carriage, it appears the Asian Hero was in the right, and United was wrong. United's Contract of Carriage speaks only to DENYING BOARDING to confirmed passengers on flights that are OVERSOLD.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

United didn't try to deny the Asian bro boarding, they permitted him to board the flight and then physically removed him from the flight. Second, the flight did not appear to be OVERSOLD, in that United did not sell tickets to the individuals it attempted to give preference to over its paying, boarded passengers.

As such, Asian bro was an authorized licensee of United and his presence on the plane was lawful at all times. United attempted to unilaterally and unlawfully revoke his licensee status, and he was within his rights to refuse.

EDIT: The above is based upon Rule 25 in United's Contract of Carriage. Rule 21, which lists the circumstances where United may refuse to transport a ticket holding passenger, further supports this interpretation of the Contract of Carriage.

Asian bro's situation was clearly a "refusal to transport" by United. However, overselling the flight is not listed as a reason in Rule 21 for United to refuse transport of a passengers. The only relief afforded to United for oversold flights is in Rule 25, which is limited to "denying boarding." The Contract of Carriage's Rule specifically pertaining to situations where United may remove a boarded passenger from a flight dispels any remaining doubt that Rule 25 concerning "denied boarding" can be interpreted to apply to forced deboarding.

There is some debate as to when boarding officially ends. Some say it ends after you scan your boarding pass at the gate, others say it ends after you enter the plane, others say it ends after you have taken your seat, others say it ends when the doors of the plane close...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The airlines are already deregulated... HELLO!!!!!

Don't be daft. Of course we are all aware of the "airline deregulation" that took place in the late 70s. It takes the feds out of the business of dealing with fares, routes and new airlines entering the market. But there are a shit ton of regulations that relate to the airlines, planes, runways, you name it. My point is airlines, for example, should be regulated in the way they handle overbooking. Set a limit (can't overbook by a certain percentage), set a minimum that must be paid to customers who are bumped (triple the fare), enable the paying customer to say no.

I'm conservative and don't give a shit if they overbook, no limits needed. But you need to pay $$ for the seats if you bump people. You can't use police to force the consequences of your overbooking.

I also have happily gotten off for $800 before, but obviously that wasn't enough money in this circumstance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The airlines are already deregulated... HELLO!!!!!

Don't be daft. Of course we are all aware of the "airline deregulation" that took place in the late 70s. It takes the feds out of the business of dealing with fares, routes and new airlines entering the market. But there are a shit ton of regulations that relate to the airlines, planes, runways, you name it. My point is airlines, for example, should be regulated in the way they handle overbooking. Set a limit (can't overbook by a certain percentage), set a minimum that must be paid to customers who are bumped (triple the fare), enable the paying customer to say no.