Posted on 10/07/2026 9:31:33 AM PDT by Red Badger
If you are booking a flight on United Air, maybe you should think twice. This is the caliber of people they have flying your planes.
VIDEOS AT LINK...............
So, this pilot defended Hamas killing innocents in Israel. Rightfully, United Air removed him from the cockpit.
The ridiculous pilot's union defended him so he got his job back.
We just saw what happened with another pilot who has terrorist sympathies last week. Thank God the passengers were able to subdue him. What if this guy goes off the rails and the passengers aren't as savvy next time?
It gets worse.
When this lunatic returned from his suspension, two other pilots were so worried about what he might do, they gave up their first class seats and chose to sit in the cockpit with him. Other PILOTS are so worried they have to babysit this guy!
Recommended 'Oct. 7 Was Bad, BUT ...': Zohran Mamdani Gets DRAGGED for His 10/7 Anniversary Post Grateful Calvin Even His Own Party Hates Him: Susan Collins BURIES Troy Jackson in ME Debate With One Question Grateful Calvin What is going on, United?
Also, maybe it's time for our Secretary of Transportation to get involved with this. This seems like a danger to all Americans.
There is no way any American should be getting on a United flight right now. It's also scary because if the lunatic decided to use the plane as a weapon, it would ultimately kill people not even on the flight, as well.
We truly have forgotten the lessons of 9/11.
There has to be more than one way to skin a cat.
Too much is at stake.
At the very least.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
If something goes down (literally) sue the union into oblivion.
WHAT is United Air? No such thing...
Must be United AIRLINES?
This is why before you board ANY plane you have to ask who the pilot and co pilot are, what are their names..if their names are muslim, refuse to board
Some of those union members must also be supporters of Hamas and/or the Palestinian killers of Jews.
Aviation Stupidity Ping!..............
United is the absolute worst when it comes to Affirmative Action, DEI and wokeness. Heck, I hear their CEO even likes to crossdress.
Couldn’t the union membership push back against the union heads?
Something bugged me about that answer, so I asked Brave AI if the union could be held liable for such an outcome:
Why not:
No vicarious liability for rogue members. A union is a separate legal entity from its members. Courts have consistently held that a union is not vicariously liable for the criminal or intentional acts of an individual member acting outside the scope of union activity. A hijacking is the paradigmatic "rogue" act — it is not a union function, not authorized by the union, and not performed in furtherance of any collective-bargaining purpose. A Canadian case (Royal Oak Mines) reached this exact conclusion: a union was held not vicariously liable for a member's workplace violence because the member was acting as a "rogue" individual.
No duty to the public. For a negligence claim to succeed, the plaintiff must show the union owed a duty of care to the passengers. A union's duty runs to its members (e.g., fair representation under the NLRA), not to the general public or to airline passengers. Blocking a termination through the grievance process is a protected labor activity, not a failure of a safety duty.
The airline is the more plausible defendant. If a catastrophe occurred, the negligence claims (negligent retention, negligent supervision, failure to act on known risk indicators) would target United Airlines, which made the employment decision. The union's role in the grievance process is legally distinct from the employer's hiring/retention decision.
Criminal acts break the chain. Even under the broadest "scope of employment" analysis for employer vicarious liability, a deliberate terrorist act falls outside the scope of the employee's job. The same logic applies a fortiori to a union that had no employment relationship with the pilot at all.
The one narrow theoretical opening would be if a plaintiff could show that specific union officers knew the pilot posed a specific, imminent threat of violence and affirmatively facilitated the act (e.g., by pressuring the airline to override a security clearance). But merely defending a member against termination — even a member with controversial political views — does not come close to that threshold.
Are these exemptions statutory or by precedent?
Classified legal principles as statutory or precedent It's a mix, but the core "no liability" principles are precedent-based (common law), while the labor protections that make the union's conduct "protected" are statutory.
Precedent (common law / case law):
No vicarious liability for a rogue member's criminal act — This is a common-law tort doctrine. As the search results confirm, vicarious liability is "a common-law doctrine developed in case law rather than defined exhaustively by statute." The Royal Oak Mines holding and the general "scope of employment" analysis are both judge-made.
No duty to the public / negligence elements — The duty-breach-causation framework of negligence is entirely common law (codified in the Restatement of Torts, which is a secondary source, not a statute).
Criminal acts fall outside scope of employment — Again, common law.
Statutory:
Protected concerted activity — Section 7 of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 157) explicitly guarantees the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection. Section 8(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with those rights. These are the statutory hooks that make the union's grievance activity legally protected from employer retaliation.
Fair representation duty — Rooted in NLRA § 8(d) (29 U.S.C. § 158(d)), though its actual scope (what constitutes a breach, what damages are available) is defined by precedent, most notably Vaca v. Sipes (1967).
In short: The shield that keeps the union from being sued (no vicarious liability, no duty to the public) is judge-made. The sword that protects the union's conduct from being treated as an unfair labor practice or actionable interference is statutory. A plaintiff would need to overcome the common-law defenses and would find no statutory basis to impose liability on the union for a member's independent criminal act.
This is a well written and thorough reply. Thanks.
Also, it’s a surprising, to me, outcome that the union is not liable for helping someone get a job where the employer believes he’s a danger to their passengers. I suppose the airline could just assign him to a desk next the urinals. I’ve seen companies do that when they couldn’t fire someone they didn’t want around.
Need to check a Vegas book and see if there is a prop bet available for the outcome...
Madness!
I am undecided on the whole union thing, but tend to think they are bad. On the other hand I have seen them do good things on occasion.
I guess it is like an HOAs and Cops. there may be a few good ones, but you only ever hear about the bad ones.
I have a flight with them on Monday.
If I disappear from FR, you'll know why.
No vicarious liability for rogue members. A union is a separate legal entity from its members....
And, yet ... they can defend them to the teeth (or, knife ... whatever the case may someday be), in court.
Yet ... no d@m liability.
Sum Ting Wong (a little throwback pilot name lingo) with this picture.
I have a flight with them on Monday.
If I disappear from FR, you'll know why.
====
Be on the lookout for this guy ... from the article's links ...
Fly United, land in pieces.
You might want to dump United stock; may turn into a Bud Light fiasco.
Problem is, in some cities, United is the only choice you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.