Posted on 04/13/2017 3:37:45 AM PDT by Zakeet
Chocking, really? I meant choking.
My Seattle flight was 12 hours late because the plane I was to leave on hadn’t left Houston for the East coast and made that voyage (and back) by the time it was supposed to be heading West to Seattle.
***************
Planes are dirt cheap ,, especially if you buy a lesser model that gets (maybe) 5-10% worse fuel economy ,, say a 737-400 instead of the newest, the problem is how they schedule and a lack of crews... the way to fix this is to make the customer less of a commodity to be abused.. dis-incentivize bad customer service,, I’d start with disbanding the TSA and requiring the airports to hire their own security.
“I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
- - John Wayne
But I keep wondering if the phrase "Passengers denied boarding involuntarily" doesn't mean something.
The guy had already boarded. Everybody had already boarded. Doesn't the contract imply that United should have taken care of this prior to filling the seats?
Trump himself once tweeted that Marco Rubio is a ‘chocker,’ in addition to calling him a ‘choker.’
You’re in good company.
Certainly crotch rubbing 8 year old white girls does nothing to reduce the threat of Islamic terrorism on domestic flights.
Landing the airplane enroute is typically the airline solution these days to in-the-air incidents involving unruly/out-of-control passenger(s). So it is not a far stretch to now expect that policy to be extended to ground operations whether or not security might be available to assist in solving the problem. Once you rule out the use of any kind of force, having the flight cancelled at the gate over a non-compliant passenger becomes the only realistic option left to an airline.
I will hand it to United though, They somehow managed to assemble a flight of @200 random passengers that, to a person, had such urgent business on Monday morning that none of them would accept $800, a free hotel and flight the next day.
Remarkable.
In the 80s I used to take red-eye flights. They seldom carried many passengers (no overbooking) but carried cargo and the planes themselves were being moved across the country for the next day’s flights.
I don’t recall any hostile passengers and the flight crew were friendly, not surly.
I flew earlier this year on AA. They let AA advantage members board after first class. I thought that was a nice gesture. I don't remember them doing that in previous years. My only beef with AA is using miles. I used to be able to fly during the middle of the week for 25K miles. Now it takes 40K miles for my normal 1 hop flight. I can still fly for 25K but it is 2 to 3 hops and 12+ hours of travelling.
Well, Tyler....this man PAID for his seat, was in his seat and hell yes, he “resisted”.
I do not see that YOU jumped up and offered to be bumped.
No instead you videoed it and then snaked about it.
STFU.
Nothing in that contract says that the airline reserves the right to remove a boarded passenger solely for reasons of bumping.
Wasn’t the original offer something like $300 or $400?
$800 was the raise.
$400 with flight restrictions won’t get you very far. Especially with an additional $50 per bag per flight and $50 or so in airport “safety” fees. That $400 “free” flight would cost you upwards of $150 and be prone to bumping (which is “okay since you didn’t pay anything in the first place”).
Also, I’ve heard that 3 customers did take the $800 offer and that another volunteered if the amount was raised (reportedly to $1600 as which the flight crew laughed in his face).
That’s why I fly as infrequently as possible. I recently had a business trip for several days in a city 1,100 miles away from home. I drove there rather than deal with the bullsh!t of flying.
Two more airport police officers suspended over United Airlines dragging incident
CHICAGO – Two more airport police officers involved in dragging a passenger off a
United Express flight at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport have been placed on leave.
The announcement Wednesday from the city’s Aviation Department comes two days after
another officer involved in the Sunday night confrontation was put on leave.
Show me where all business have the same thresholds for obnoxious behavior from customers. Maybe they should treat the BLM’ers the same way. But then again, many of them are afraid of being sued into the ground.
Somehow I doubt people would be feeling sorry for them if their security gave them the heave-ho out the door after they refused to leave.
Snarked...not snaked.
The offending fingie has been sent to a re-education camp.
I think it’s a safe bet that no passenger is going to be making a trip from Louisville to Chicago to be a witness in a trial. If any lawyer tried to serve a subpoena on me to compel me to testify in a stupid lawsuit four hours away from home, you can be sure I’m not going to testify very favorably for his client.
Right there is your problem. That is not how they should have determined who got booted. Everything the airline does from overbooking flights to transporting staff around the country on their planes is associated with a cost/benefit. Part of the "cost" of doing these practices should be the fair market value of the seats they taking away from people who they have already made an agreement with. The people who gave up their seats should have been the first 4 people to accept their reimbursement offer.
The whole idea of a free market sale is that I have federal reserve notes that I assign a certain value. You have a plane ticket that I assign a certain value. I make the judgement that the value of your ticket is worth more TO ME than my federal reserve notes so I trade you. You make the judgement that my federal reserve notes are worth more TO YOU than your ticket so you trade me. After that transaction is complete you shouldn't be able to re-evaluate and say, "You know what, that ticket is now worth more TO ME than I initially thought it was worth. I want to cancel the trade."
That isn't right. If they want to acquire the seat back for some business related purpose, they now have to make me an offer that is worth it to me.
This isn't the same as removing someone who has violated the rules. If someone is not living up to the agreed upon behavior requirements, they should definitely be able to be removed.
The one time I did voluntarily give up my seat for a travel voucher, I was cast adrift. My “replacement flight seat” was also bumped and then I had to catch a cab from one NYC airport to another at my expense (I think my original flight was Dallas to Nashville to Boston and it became Dallas to Nashville to NYC to Boston).
I do recall back when I did fly regularly that the offer to “get on the next flight in 90 minutes” was soon followed by an announcement on the FIRST plane (to those who remained onboard) that THIS flight is now expected to be delayed 1-2 hours (sitting on the tarmac).
After repeatedly experiencing that, I decided one time (and one time only) that I would give up my seat (since I had no one waiting for me at arrival) and I fully expected that the plane would soon announce a delay as they always had in the past.
The BLMers were not customers. They were trespassers in every sense of the word.
The gay Chinaman was not sitting in his seat making noise that drew attention to him. He was selected at random and told you are now trespassing, you may go peacefully or forcibly.
He had done nothing wrong for the airline to suddenly revoke his ticket (which is what happened when they told him he’d been identified by the computer as the passenger who’d have to give up his seat).
The airline reneged on the purchase agreement. Many believe that the airline did not have sufficient cause to revoke that agreement.
Poor staff planning on the airline’s part is in no way excuse to justify invalidating that contract.
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.