Jump to content

United flight


westend1

Recommended Posts

I think he guy should have left the plane when he was ordered to do so, but what the eff was United thinking?  The guy bought a valid ticket and wanted to be on the flight.  I think United is obliged at that point to keep offering more money until someone agrees to leave,  Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I think he guy should have left the plane when he was ordered to do so, but what the eff was United thinking?  The guy bought a valid ticket and wanted to be on the flight.  I think United is obliged at that point to keep offering more money until someone agrees to leave,  Thoughts?

Yes, he should've got off.  Since he refused, United should have thrown out more dough.  It'd been a lot cheaper than this deal is going to cost them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I think he guy should have left the plane when he was ordered to do so, but what the eff was United thinking?  The guy bought a valid ticket and wanted to be on the flight.  I think United is obliged at that point to keep offering more money until someone agrees to leave,  Thoughts?

Agree...their fault, their obligation to fix it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

Yes, he should've got off.  Since he refused, United should have thrown out more dough.  It'd been a lot cheaper than this deal is going to cost them.

Their stock ended the day down 1.1% which is around $250m.  It was way worse earlier in the day at $1 billion in lost value. 

 

United handled this poorly, but the guy should have obeyed the cops and gotten off before he was forcibly removed.  I agree with west end that United should have kept upping the price until someone aggreed.  Everyone has a price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the guy get off the plane? On what grounds were they removing him? He had purchased a ticket to board the plane. United had accepted the ticket when they allowed him to board. He wasn't a threat/danger to the flight.  The fault is entirely United's. If they had done this before boarding, it may have been different. There is no excuse whatsoever for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, texanabroad said:

Why should the guy get off the plane? On what grounds were they removing him? He had purchased a ticket to board the plane. United had accepted the ticket when they allowed him to board. He wasn't a threat/danger to the flight.  The fault is entirely United's. If they had done this before boarding, it may have been different. There is no excuse whatsoever for this. 

Exactly, like I said, it's totally their fault for overbooking the flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago, I went to a monster truck show at the old fairgrounds in Beaumont. I took my oldest son. When we got there, we found out they had double sold my seats. The other people bought the same tickets as mine but they bought them earlier than me so they got to sit there. I wanted to absolutely kill someone but I held back for my kid. We sat in some worse seats but sat through it. If we had sat in our seats before being confronted with the screw up, someone would have had to drag me out of my seat, therefore, I have mixed emotions about this. United screwed the pooch on this one, but I don't blame the guy for not getting up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2017 at 6:57 PM, REBgp said:

Yes, he should've got off.  Since he refused, United should have thrown out more dough.  It'd been a lot cheaper than this deal is going to cost them.

Bingo.  The cheap bastards really deserve what they are getting.  How much cheaper would a couple grand in vouchers and a couple of free flights to Hawaii have been vs what they are going through now?  Greed can be crippling, which is what is dripping all over this story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greed (as with need) is the mother of invention. Stifling greed is crippling. It all depends on the situation and the circumstances.

Both sides are wrong. This has nothing to do with capitalism vs socialism, or any label anyone wants to attribute. The man was a total a-hole to defy authority. At the same time, the company should never have the power to forcibly remove him after he purchased a ticket. (Granted, I don't know the rules of the ticket he purchased.) It is now the public's duty to decide if the status quo can continue. That is what democracy is all about. I have no faith in the public ever since I've discovered that the public will give up their privacy in favor of cheaper rates. (If you don't think what I'm currently writing is being saved by the ISP and the NSA, then you don't have a clue as to modern company and government surveillance...all with public consent). I have a feeling the same thing will happen here...people will willingly purchase tickets subject to "bumping" to save a few bucks. We, the public, have a unique opportunity to disavow airlines from offering tickets subject to "bumping", or we can settle for this practice in order to save some money. Sadly, I know which we will pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, REBgp said:

I'm surprised no one would even take the $800.  A whole plane full of people?  I bet if it was a flight out of McCarran in Las Vegas folks would be jumping on that $800 lol.

This is the hidden content, please

You would think this guy would have taken it...from the article:

This is the hidden content, please
 that while his medical license was suspended, Dao "made a killing" as a World Series of Poker player, earning a total of $234,664.

Also from the article:

It took virtually no time for his hometown paper, 

This is the hidden content, please
, to point out that Dao, a father of five and grandfather who went to medical school in Vietnam, had his medical license suspended for about 10 years for illegally prescribing painkillers, including to a patient in exchange for sex. It's all a matter of public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

You would think this guy would have taken it...from the article:

This is the hidden content, please
 that while his medical license was suspended, Dao "made a killing" as a World Series of Poker player, earning a total of $234,664.

Also from the article:

It took virtually no time for his hometown paper, 

This is the hidden content, please
, to point out that Dao, a father of five and grandfather who went to medical school in Vietnam, had his medical license suspended for about 10 years for illegally prescribing painkillers, including to a patient in exchange for sex. It's all a matter of public record.

I don't understand how any of this is relevant. What difference does it make what his profession was or his past history? What if he were a school teacher or garbage collector? It really doesn't matter. United screwed up and should have NEVER used force to remove him. They should have kept increasing their offer until he or someone else accepted it. Had they been on the ball and not allowed him to board to begin with, there would never had been a story. They were incompetent and they are paying for it, and it will cost way more than $800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, texanabroad said:

I don't understand how any of this is relevant. What difference does it make what his profession was or his past history? What if he were a school teacher or garbage collector? It really doesn't matter. United screwed up and should have NEVER used force to remove him. They should have kept increasing their offer until he or someone else accepted it. Had they been on the ball and not allowed him to board to begin with, there would never had been a story. They were incompetent and they are paying for it, and it will cost way more than $800.

It is not relevant in relation to United's actions. 

It makes some of us feel better that a person that is probably a dirtbag got what he deserved.

It is like seeing a couple of guys assault someone and it is clear that the assault was a crime... but finding out that the guy that was beaten was a child molester and ruined the lives of several children. It is better to see a vile person suffer than a truly nice person. 

Maybe you could reduce it to one word... karma. 

Legally? No bearing. Feeling? Good riddance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 12, 2017 at 11:10 AM, BS Wildcats said:

Why should he have gotten off the plane?

It says in the fine print that nobody reads that you have to get off the flight if they need the seats to get employees to another town to work the next day.  I don't like the rule, but we all agree to it when we purchase airline tickets.  They handled it very, very poorly, but they had the right to remove him from the plane.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

It says in the fine print that nobody reads that you have to get off the flight if they need the seats to get employees to another town to work the next day.  I don't like the rule, but we all agree to it when we purchase airline tickets.  They handled it very, very poorly, but they had the right to remove him from the plane.  

They should have known they needed the seats before they loaded the plane.  All airlines may need to review policy of overbooking flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the rules for overbooking, which is legal btw, but just my opinion, once a person is seated, that should be it - game over.  Once seated, then the Airline should be responsible for making an offer that someone will take.  They make money overbooking, so sometimes they should have to bite the bullet.  In this case, United will bite the MOAB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

It says in the fine print that nobody reads that you have to get off the flight if they need the seats to get employees to another town to work the next day.  I don't like the rule, but we all agree to it when we purchase airline tickets.  They handled it very, very poorly, but they had the right to remove him from the plane.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...