Fly the Friendly Skies of United
- Thread starter gdr_11
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
To ALL,
While I don't like UNITED's actions, ONCE a FEDERAL POLICE OFFICER said, "GET OFF THE PLANE", you GET OFF RIGHT THEN & you surely do NOT assault the police officer, as 2 passengers have stated that the passenger DID..
(IF I was the police officer, that the passenger hit in the face, he would have needed a trip to the ER before he went to jail.)
NO matter who else is at fault or NOT at fault, you MUST do as a federal officer directs you to do in an airport/on an airliner.
(Don't want to comply with U.S. commercial aviation regulations & federal laws?? - STAY HOME or "PAY THE PIPER" when you fail to do as you are ordered..)
just my OPINION, satx
While I don't like UNITED's actions, ONCE a FEDERAL POLICE OFFICER said, "GET OFF THE PLANE", you GET OFF RIGHT THEN & you surely do NOT assault the police officer, as 2 passengers have stated that the passenger DID..
(IF I was the police officer, that the passenger hit in the face, he would have needed a trip to the ER before he went to jail.)
NO matter who else is at fault or NOT at fault, you MUST do as a federal officer directs you to do in an airport/on an airliner.
(Don't want to comply with U.S. commercial aviation regulations & federal laws?? - STAY HOME or "PAY THE PIPER" when you fail to do as you are ordered..)
just my OPINION, satx
Yeah, yeah, the small print says they can take you off for whatever reason and the plane belongs to UA but all that legalese is gonna cost them a fortune. You lay hands on me after I made my reservation and paid my ticket fare and one or both of us is gonna have a bad day.
UA knew they had a problem so they should have never let people board. Once they did, they should have deboarded everyone for "mechanical issues" The plane was delayed regardless and it would have been better PR. Why couldn't the UA crew get on another brand's aircraft?
I hope the guy gets a nice fat check and the folks who saw that should also get PTSD and get some cash
UA knew they had a problem so they should have never let people board. Once they did, they should have deboarded everyone for "mechanical issues" The plane was delayed regardless and it would have been better PR. Why couldn't the UA crew get on another brand's aircraft?
I hope the guy gets a nice fat check and the folks who saw that should also get PTSD and get some cash
sharkey,
And ANYONE here KNOWS that the 4 people were Asians to be FACT??
(Funny thing. NO "media outlet" has offered any proof & NOT even a last name.)
SORRY, but ABSENT PROOF from an unimpeachable source, I don't believe any claim from the "main-SLIME media" any more, given the MANY KNOWING LIES that the "news" spews into print & onto the airwaves constantly.
yours, satx
And ANYONE here KNOWS that the 4 people were Asians to be FACT??
(Funny thing. NO "media outlet" has offered any proof & NOT even a last name.)
SORRY, but ABSENT PROOF from an unimpeachable source, I don't believe any claim from the "main-SLIME media" any more, given the MANY KNOWING LIES that the "news" spews into print & onto the airwaves constantly.
yours, satx
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Well as of this morning the cop was suspended (yes yet another government agency with cops and guns...what?), the feds are investigating, and its news over all the morning shows. This has to be millions of ad expenses just shot down the toilet.
Good.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
It's gonna be you. You cannot violate your contract with a company, refuse to leave when told to, interfere with a flight crew and think you will suffer no consequence.
The entitled speak again...
Polarbear6
Active Member
United Airlines Training video
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v...tRqt0QBYKH31pVDHE33v2Cfz3mc5a1cls8XJVzpN0LU&e=
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v...tRqt0QBYKH31pVDHE33v2Cfz3mc5a1cls8XJVzpN0LU&e=
mortdooley
Active Member
This is going to cost United a lot of business, bad planning followed by bad company choices. If the employees required a seat it should have been assigned seating for each one. Dragging a paying customer off the plane will sour many against this Airline, me included.
Lots of error in your post:
1. He wasn't removed due to overbooking, he was asked to leave as a 4-person flight crew had to board to get to another airport. It was a last minute situation for the flight crew due a problem at some other airport.
2. FAA sets the maximum they can pay passengers depending on circumstances.
3. In situations such as this it isn't a random pick, it is based on check-in time, or at least that is what is supposed to happen. The last four to check in for the flight were asked to deplane, 3 went peaceably, 1 did not.
Last edited:
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...ng-with-a-flight-attendant-or-crewmember.htm#
Also, customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers and reported struck one of them in the face. They were the ones that pulled him off the plane, not United employees.
It is pretty simple really: United asks customer to leave, customer refuses, United calls LEO, customer struggles with LEO and gets dragged off the plane as a result.
Ask yourselves, How does struggling with LEO usually work out?
Last edited:
If that is the case, how can you trust that the incident even happened? Or that there was really a flight crew needing to board? How can you trust that he wasn't removed simply because the pilot didn't like asians? How can you be sure he offered any resistance and wasn't just clubbed and drug off the plane for no reason?
Which unimpeachable source are you using to get the REAL story?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Thats the airline's problem, not his. He fulfilled his terms of the contract.
A. And the airlines set up what that maximum is.
B. They didn't go tot he maximum, they just started trying to pull people AFTER they were already seated. i've never seen that before and I used to fly weekly.
Told not asked. There was no negotiation on remuneration. We don't know how the selection occurred. We do know it didn't occur until after the plane was fully boarded.
Nope, it is a part of the contract that the airline has the right to bump passengers, even after already seated.
My understanding is that it is set by the FAA. Of course the airlines try to get it done for less if they can.
I have.
It was a last minute situation to get the flight crew to Louisville. Stuff happens.
Last edited:
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
-It was set by the FAA. If you don't know who helped the FAA come up with that then you need to ramp up that cynicism level by several geometric factors. It was laso not used in this instance.
-It may be an escape clause in the contract, but if the company is setting up a pattern and practice of routinely obviating the primary terms of the contract, thats potentially actionable under contract law or IMPORTANTLY tort law.
-Stuff may happen indeed. UAL's stock is down 2% in pretrading, and the story was hit 160mm times in China alone. The Feds are now investigating. UAL is paying bigtime for their utter incompetence.
-It may be an escape clause in the contract, but if the company is setting up a pattern and practice of routinely obviating the primary terms of the contract, thats potentially actionable under contract law or IMPORTANTLY tort law.
-Stuff may happen indeed. UAL's stock is down 2% in pretrading, and the story was hit 160mm times in China alone. The Feds are now investigating. UAL is paying bigtime for their utter incompetence.
