Current Events > And now websites are digging into the past of the United Doctor

(+) Yeah! (+)

She deleted her tweet and then says its not okay to threaten me because of this

People are roasting over that now lmfao
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

prettyprincess posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Guy is white - No one cares

Guy is Asian or female - People moan

Guy is black - Riots.

do you have something documenting response to airplane assualt incidents by demographic?

I didn't mention airplanes.

This is just how our society works now.

hmm, just considered the theory wrt pornography and it seems to check out
---

wrt?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

prettyprincess posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Guy is white - No one cares

Guy is Asian or female - People moan

Guy is black - Riots.

do you have something documenting response to airplane assualt incidents by demographic?

I didn't mention airplanes.

This is just how our society works now.

From the point of view of an ignorant cretin, yeah.
---

darkprince45 posted...

She deleted her tweet and then says its not okay to threaten me because of this

People are roasting over that now lmfao

Well it's not.

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

UnfairRepresent posted...

wrt?

with regards to
---

It's a little bit better.

They need to come up with a new policy and getting volunteers to re-accommodate. The maximum they should offer to get volunteers should be raise substantially, perhaps up to $5,000 per seat.

They need to apologize personally to the man who was mistreated and pay him a punitive reward of $25 million at-least.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

People have already seen their initially "apology", if you can even call it that. United doesn't care, and the only reason they've issued another statement is because the amount of negative attention they've gotten over the past 2 days. Plus, notice how the apology only comes after their stock starts to tank. They didn't give 2 shits yesterday. They can start to make it better by immediately and publicly changing their policies about overbookings, especially when your butt in firmly planted in a seat on the plane already.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.
---

That previous letter made it clear that the CEO doesn't understand/care about the actual person involved in this incident. He's sending out this apology because they are losing money
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

People have already seen their initially "apology", if you can even call it that. United doesn't care, and the only reason they've issued another statement is because the amount of negative attention they've gotten over the past 2 days. Plus, notice how the apology only comes after their stock starts to tank. They didn't give 2 shits yesterday. They can start to make it better by immediately and publicly changing their policies about overbookings, especially when your butt in firmly planted in a seat on the plane already.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.

He has no case. If captain says get off the plane you must get off the plane. He refused so he was removed.

eston posted...

That previous letter made it clear that the CEO doesn't understand/care about the actual person involved in this incident. He's sending out this apology because they are losing money

Um duh?

CruelBuffalo posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

People have already seen their initially "apology", if you can even call it that. United doesn't care, and the only reason they've issued another statement is because the amount of negative attention they've gotten over the past 2 days. Plus, notice how the apology only comes after their stock starts to tank. They didn't give 2 shits yesterday. They can start to make it better by immediately and publicly changing their policies about overbookings, especially when your butt in firmly planted in a seat on the plane already.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.

He has no case. If captain says get off the plane you must get off the plane. He refused so he was removed.

that's not how it works or how it happened
---

chill02 posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

People have already seen their initially "apology", if you can even call it that. United doesn't care, and the only reason they've issued another statement is because the amount of negative attention they've gotten over the past 2 days. Plus, notice how the apology only comes after their stock starts to tank. They didn't give 2 shits yesterday. They can start to make it better by immediately and publicly changing their policies about overbookings, especially when your butt in firmly planted in a seat on the plane already.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.

He has no case. If captain says get off the plane you must get off the plane. He refused so he was removed.

that's not how it works or how it happened

Yeah it is. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-video-overbooking-chicago-louisville-security-passenger-denied-boarding-a7677601.html

CruelBuffalo posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

People have already seen their initially "apology", if you can even call it that. United doesn't care, and the only reason they've issued another statement is because the amount of negative attention they've gotten over the past 2 days. Plus, notice how the apology only comes after their stock starts to tank. They didn't give 2 shits yesterday. They can start to make it better by immediately and publicly changing their policies about overbookings, especially when your butt in firmly planted in a seat on the plane already.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.

He has no case. If captain says get off the plane you must get off the plane. He refused so he was removed.

This is actully not true, they have a terms of service contract and they violated it. They are legally in the wrong

It is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

t is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.

Source?

You don't oversell a flight and then wait until everyone has boarded to ask for volunteers, you do that before the boarding process
---

chill02 posted...

You don't oversell a flight and then wait until everyone has boarded to ask for volunteers, you do that before the boarding process

Yes that is smart and good procedure. But it wasn't followed which they im assuming will address April 30th.

That wasn't what we were discussing these previous posts.

CruelBuffalo posted...

But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

What does my birthday have to do with anything?
---

Anteaterking posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

What does my birthday have to do with anything?

International celebration. And the date the CEO said he'd address their shitty process.

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

t is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.

Source?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx/

Specifically rules 5, 21 and 25

Also:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking
---

BTW it is possible that they DIDN'T breach their contract, but for that to be true, the guy they kicked off had to have either be refusing to present ID or being actively violent and disorderly towards the staff, simply refusing to leave his seat does not qualify.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

t is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.

Source?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx/

Specifically rules 5, 21 and 25

Also:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking

There is nothing saying you cannot be removed from your seat unless failure to have ID or unruly.

Nothing in 25 saying you can't be removed...all that has to happen is that he has to have compensation.

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

t is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.

Source?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx/

Specifically rules 5, 21 and 25

Also:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking

There is nothing saying you cannot be removed from your seat unless failure to have ID or unruly.

Nothing in 25 saying you can't be removed...all that has to happen is that he has to have compensation.

Wrong

Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:

They had boarded already. Then they were kicked off involuntarily after boarding.

That's a violation of the contract.

You can't allow boarding, THEN kick them off involuntarily because it has oversold.

What part of this don't you understand?

You're right that they could have done this at the gate, and that would have been legal. But they didn't, they screwed up.
---

eston posted...

Whether or not he had patients to see in the morning doesn't actually change my opinion of the situation tbqh

This. It could be a 40 year old NEET and it wouldn't change anything. What United did was reprehensible
---

Guys lucky he's not in prison. United treated him too nicely.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's a violation of the contract.

Theres a difference between a situation not being addressed and violating the contract. I don't see this situation being addressed by what you posted. Yours talks pre boarding. This is a during boarding process. They also addressed the compensation section. You'd have to post something to the effect of "you cannot be removed from a flight for any reason except: "

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/uniteds-real-mistake-173844672.html


Here talks about it. They're within their rights to remove you. That rule 25 you brought up is in a weird situation since it doesn't entirely address what happens if they're already in the boarding process like this gentlemen. The only violation the article seems to get at is that they should have given him written notice that his butt was being bounced but that's about it.

So even if United followed its own procedures, it would have violated government rules.

Actually I missed that line. What's the government rule specially about this? Is there one? Lol is this some weird gray area?

CruelBuffalo posted...

Theres a difference between a situation not being addressed and violating the contract. I don't see this situation being addressed by what you posted. You'd have to post something to the effect of "you cannot be removed from a flight for any reason except: "

Your being childish or otherwise do not understand how contracts work.

The contract demonstrates why this situation shoud never occur.

The contract is that you may not be allowed to board due to overbooking. That automatic demonstrates that that once you have boarded you cannot be allowed to be forcifully removed due to overbooking.

This is repeated at length by the contract's agreements for when it is and is not acceptable to boot people off.

The second they allowed him to board and then booted him out due to overbooking, they violated their contract.

Now they have 3 choices:

1. Try to claim the victim was being violent or refused ID.

2. Try to blame the cops.

or 3. Settle with a big payoff.

Now both the company and the police force have admitted fault #1 is unlikely.

But the "We didn't break the law/our contract" argument will get you no where when the police, Airport and every lawyer you ask will say they did.

You cannot allow boarding and THEN kick someone off due to overbooking. Once you have boarded, you have boarded. The only reasons they contractually allow to now kick you off, are demonstrated in Rule 21. That's the agreement. That's the contract.

"It's not in the contract but it could have been potentially!" is not a defense of breach of contract, hell that makes the entire point of a contract meaningless. The only rights they have to boot a boarded passenger off are shown in rule 21.

They violated their contract.
---

This happens with literally every person that gets 15 minutes of fame.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That automatic demonstrates that that once you have boarded you cannot be allowed to be forcifully removed due to overbooking.

Lol no it does not. Even the yahoo article doesn't mention that.

His only hope is the government laws about this.

CruelBuffalo posted...

Here talks about it. They're within their rights to remove you. That rule 25 you brought up is in a weird situation since it doesn't entirely address what happens if they're already in the boarding process like this gentlemen.

That's because this is never supposed to happen. Nobody should board a flight before the airline realizes it is overbooked.

They messed up.

Doesn't make a difference however because at that point theyre still contracted under rule 21. They can't kick him off.

And as your own article says, they have contracted rules and regulations that are not public, they are breaking the law anyway.

So no matter how you look at it, they either violated their contract or broke US law.

Either way, arline is in the wrong.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Lol no it does not. Even the yahoo article doesn't mention that.

Good for the Yahoo Article. But that changes nothing of the points you continue to ignore.

They violate their contract if they boot you out for reasons not specified in their contract. They did that, urgo they violated their contract.

Rule 21 is as important as rule 25 here
---

Which is why I'm asking, what's the exact us law about this?

Also this is a conversation you don't need to throw out "childish" and other demeaning things.

CruelBuffalo posted...

Which is why I'm asking, what's the exact us law about this?

You can't have invisible hidden terms in a contract that the people agreeing to it don't know about.

This is almost a textbook example of it. You can't say "Well it's your contract that we can force you out due to overbooking once you boarded.... but we hid it from you."

Also this is a conversation you don't need to throw out "childish" and other demeaning things.

I shouldn't have to but you're either being childish or do not know how a contract works. There is no way around it.

You're claiming you don't comprehend why its breaking contract to boot you out when nothing in their contract explains how they have the right to do so. Despite the contract have clear rules and regulations in detail describing exactly the scenarios and situtations where it is okay for them to remove you.

This was not one them.

On top of that earlier you said "The captain wanted it and you have to do anything he says! Thats the law" and that's also blatantly false and also childish.

That's insane.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

lmfao at UR being UR

How am I wrong in any way?


And he was never seen again
---

the flight wasn't actually overbooked

they just wanted to get their crew on it

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

the flight wasn't actually overbooked

they just wanted to get their crew on it

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/

Then why did United Airlines made a public announcement that it was an overbooking issue?

"Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation. Further details on the removed customer should be directed to authorities."

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/video-surfaces-of-man-being-dragged-from-overbooked-united-flight.html
---

Even if it's technically legal, doesn't mean it's not fucking a fucking stupid policy. There are plenty of immoral things that corporations can do that are "technically legal" and they should not be legal.
---

BilalPowell posted...

Guys lucky he's not in prison. United treated him too nicely.

yeah they was real friendly, until they summoned the boys in blue to give him a busted jaw and concussion plus a free escort off the aircraft.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

d concussion plus a free escort off the aircraft.

They actually failed at that

Details are sketchy as to what happened but after smashing his face into the chair and making him unconcious or stunned and dragging him across the plane, he managed to escape, get back onto the plane and run to the back of it while mumbling "I need to go home" over and over semi-coherantly.

A lot of speculation that he was concussed.

It was handled so insanely appallingly.
---

eston posted...

That previous letter made it clear that the CEO doesn't understand/care about the actual person involved in this incident. He's sending out this apology because they are losing money

Nor should he.... If someone is sitting in your house and you call the cops and he refuses to leave should the cops just sit around waiting until the guys ready to go? Don't be silly.

StucklnMyPants posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

New apology.

https://twitter.com/united/status/851875102769721344


It's a good start, certain users wouldn't be happy unless the CEO killed himself and all profits from the company are given away. But I'll wait and see how they address this on April 30th.

I hope United and the Police department get sued into oblivion. This isn't how you treat people, and the only thing these corporations care about is money, so they need to be hit where it hurts.

Lol
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Which is why I'm asking, what's the exact us law about this?

You can't have invisible hidden terms in a contract that the people agreeing to it don't know about.

This is almost a textbook example of it. You can't say "Well it's your contract that we can force you out due to overbooking once you boarded.... but we hid it from you."

Also this is a conversation you don't need to throw out "childish" and other demeaning things.

I shouldn't have to but you're either being childish or do not know how a contract works. There is no way around it.

You're claiming you don't comprehend why its breaking contract to boot you out when nothing in their contract explains how they have the right to do so. Despite the contract have clear rules and regulations in detail describing exactly the scenarios and situtations where it is okay for them to remove you.

This was not one them.

On top of that earlier you said "The captain wanted it and you have to do anything he says! Thats the law" and that's also blatantly false and also childish.

That's insane.

I based it off the article which said that. I asked which government laws it broke. And again this is a conversation. It's not serious you don't need to resort to insulting people.

UnfairRepresent posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

t is true that they have the right to not allow you to board for a long vareity of reasons, but once you have boarded and refuse to voluntarily leave, they cannot physically force you.

Source?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx/

Specifically rules 5, 21 and 25

Also:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking

There is nothing saying you cannot be removed from your seat unless failure to have ID or unruly.

Nothing in 25 saying you can't be removed...all that has to happen is that he has to have compensation.

Wrong

Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:

They had boarded already. Then they were kicked off involuntarily after boarding.

That's a violation of the contract.

You can't allow boarding, THEN kick them off involuntarily because it has oversold.

What part of this don't you understand?

You're right that they could have done this at the gate, and that would have been legal. But they didn't, they screwed up.

I mean I know you think you're super smart and all but the boarding process isn't finished until the door is shut. The boarding process was still happening. It wasn't after boarding.
---

cj pls
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Nor should he.... If someone is sitting in your house and you call the cops and he refuses to leave should the cops just sit around waiting until the guys ready to go? Don't be silly.

That depends - did you sell him a ticket to sit in the house for 6 hours, and then refuse to honor your end of the deal?

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Nor should he.... If someone is sitting in your house and you call the cops and he refuses to leave should the cops just sit around waiting until the guys ready to go? Don't be silly.

That depends - did you sell him a ticket to sit in the house for 6 hours, and then refuse to honor your end of the deal?

Yes and on that ticket it says "you may be kicked out and given another 6 hours if I decide to have company over" and then I have company and ask him to leave and he refuses.
---