Have you seen the folding trays in some jets theses days?
Posted on 04/13/2017 5:10:20 AM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
Edited on 04/13/2017 7:04:23 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Good thing our forefathers stood up, some of them died or were ruined in health & finances but they stood up for their rights & beliefs. According to commenters on this thread they were the idiots, losers etc.
Confusing to see that aspect completely overshadowed on this website by the supposed right of the airline to do whatever the employees want you to do at any time with or without a reason or a legal right for them to so order you.
The above is the logic used to condemn those in the early 40’s in Europe that hid Jews.
SW.
I liked Midwest air, all seats were 1st class
Laws upon rules upon regulations upon .....
Man doesnt do laws very well.
I like Trumps thing of removing 2 for every new one.
Have to agree with you there...
The airline slowly grew by adding additional DC-9 aircraft to its fleet, including larger DC-9-30 jets, with a total of 24 by the end of 1996. Eventually, Midwest Express served most major Midwestern and East Coast destinations. Its longtime slogan, “The Best Care in the Air”, represented its inflight product. For many years, all flights featured 2-by-2 leather seating (in aircraft usually fitted with 3-2 seating), ample legroom, complimentary gourmet meals, and warm chocolate chip cookies. This made the airline popular with business travelers. In addition, Midwest Express operated a sizable executive charter operation with a specially configured DC-9.
I think I’d rather think about this than think about whether NK is going to get bombed. If there is an action on NK I hope the plan is to take out all of his nuclear and long range capacity from the get go.
My ignorance is showing. People were condemned for hiding the Jews? Who could not at least try to help and still live with one’s conscience?
I am grateful for their courage & selfless humanity whenever I come across the mention of such heroism. One man died recently at age 104 who had saved over 900 children. He was surprised by a group of them in the audience of one of those true life TV shows in the UK. It was very touching.
Not since I flew Emirates back in 2012.
Absolutely people were condemned for hiding Jews. Not all the public supported the Third Reich, but plenty did.
And it was “the law” after all, to turn them in.
Since 1970 I’ve said that what is legal is not necessarily moral and what is illegal is not necessarily immoral.
I agree with your personal acceptance of the level of service provided from a favorite carrier. If it is fine with you, then your acceptance is being relied upon to determine the level of service provided.
I do not agree with a policy of overbooking for the most demanding levels of financial concern. In this case, there was no over-booking, only an arbitrary buy-back for “non-rev” passengers. The buy-back did not hit its 1200 dollar limit that United says they use before crew resorted to removal-by-cop.
I flew about 1300 flights in the last twenty years. The few times I have had a terrible and unreasonable experience were twice on United and once on a regional carrier. The vast majority of the flights were on Southwest and their flight crews never were this stupid.
seats way too small...the airline people treat you like they're doing you a big favor after charging you up the ying yang....its waiting, taking shoes off, waiting, lining up, possessions searched, more waiting...etc...
Not a pleasant experience...
however, this idiot doctor was told to get up and get off the plane...the airlines have this right and we agree to it when we use their business...
and for the record, wasn't it the cops who took him off the plane?....
many freepers are wrong on this incident....
it was a typical "I'm too important to follow the rules or listen to the cops" attitude from this doctor....
You are 100% right and its how we deal with those inconsistencies that defines us.
a contract is a two way street.
and for the record, wasn’t it the cops who took him off the plane?....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/why-united-is-in-legal-trouble-over-removing-a-passenger/
Under United’s Contract Of Carriage (COC) rules (which follow federal rules), a passenger may only be bumped from a flight before they board (Rule 25). After they have taken their seat, Rule 21 is in effect, which would allow security to forcibly remove the passenger for many reasons — none of which includes accommodating last minute needs for a seat for other airline employees (or even overbooking).
The flyer is in a contractual relationship with the airline, and each has rights and responsibilities under that contract. United Express violated the terms of the contract, and injured the passenger in the process.
But doesn’t federal law require passengers to follow all crewmembers’ instructions?
One might argue, ok, so they shouldn’t have forced the passenger to de-plane… but by federal law he has to comply.
Well, what if a flight attendant approaches a young lady who has just taken her seat, and says, “I’m sorry, m’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to stand up and take your clothes off.”
“Excuse me?”
“Take your clothes off, m’am. Either obey our instructions, or you are in violation of federal law.”
Well, that’s just ridiculous, you might protest. It has nothing to do with the safety of the flight.
Exactly. And neither did the passenger who was forcibly removed from the United Express flight.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
The current federal rule grew out of a situation in which Ralph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had a valid ticket. He sued, in a case which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitled to compensation if he was denied boarding.
As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.
United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.
Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.
Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.
So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.
This denied boarding rule, and similar rules applying to Great Britain and the European Union, only permit denying boarding, not removing a passenger who has already boarded. The situations under which airlines are permitted to have a passenger who has already been boarded disembark are contained in a completely separate section the United’s COC entitled “Refusal of Transport.”
Have you seen the folding trays in some jets theses days?
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.