adhesion contracts. the law frowns on those.
For those who have to fly for work or overseas, not flying is not an option.
Car companies tried this by “modifying warranties” via a document in the glove compartment after you took possession of your new car.
We now are crammed into spaces not even fit for livestock. airlines are cavalier bout DVT dangers and say “tough”.
fake security to go with fake customer service to go with all the other BS.
For those who have to fly for work or overseas, not flying is not an option. finally someone is on the right track...yes, these contracts are contracts of adhesion.
However the interesting issue is that the Federal Regulations have "allowed" them. Your issue of traveling for work is relevant, but not the actual issue.
The issue is/are the law/laws that allow ALL the airlines to ignore basic contract law if they choose . The author correctly identified the issue with this quote.
In the context of the airline, let’s dissect “entitled.” You’re d*mn right I’m entitled. When you pay for a service, you are entitled to that service. It is known as “contract”. And I don’t really care if the government says it’s legal for them to drop people involuntarily. The government is no arbiter of morals. The truth is that in any other industry, if I pay for something I’m ENTITLED to it. And if people revoke it after payment, it’s called fraud and there are all kinds of ugly consequences.
The ensuing litigation will be epic.
From a political standpoint, would all the posters apologizing for United on this board have encouraged their representatives to actually vote for the law/laws that allow airlines to suspend contract law?
I doubt it.