Muricans are docile & obedient slaves

#26
#26
SaluteToTheHill said:
Yeah, I'm not really arguing if what UA did was legal or stated in the fine print. I just think it's going to be more costly for them to fight it and they'll probably do whatever they can to just make it go away.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they want this to go away as quick as possible.
 
#27
#27
Toujours Pret said:
Yep. They'd murder your ass and the boot lickers would go on about how heroic they were in doing so.
Click to expand...

You should follow the thin red line on Facebook. They post memes about how the colonists should look up to and respect the redcoats who keep them safe
 
#29
#29
hog88 said:
I can see UA settling, jurys can be stupid and swayed by emotion. But reality is all UA did was enforce it's carriage contract, the man was the one in violation. UA could and should file suit against him.

The only party, outside of the passenger in the wrong IMO were the police.
Click to expand...

The carriage contract is ridiculous. Understand everything else you've stated. But airlines may be the only serrice industry which gives preference to employees over paying customers. The flight crew for another flight is what caused the kerfuffle. Additionally, the practice of overbooking (overselling) is a crap SOP.
 
#30
#30
Vol8188 said:
Lol what? Why not?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't get a dime from UA, when you buy a plane ticket you agree to a carriage contract. UA was well within their rights buy the contract, the passenger on the other hand violated his end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
hog88 said:
I can see UA settling, jurys can be stupid and swayed by emotion. But reality is all UA did was enforce it's carriage contract, the man was the one in violation. UA could and should file suit against him.

The only party, outside of the passenger in the wrong IMO were the police.
Click to expand...

You can't really think physical removal was the correct decision. More money was the right answer. The CEO has said United will never remove a passenger like this again, so clearly it's not a practice they want to defend or use going forward. It just boggles my mind that adults with working brains thought the next step after not enough people accepted their lowball offer was to call in the cops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
McDad said:
The carriage contract is ridiculous. Understand everything else you've stated. But airlines may be the only serrice industry which gives preference to employees over paying customers. The flight crew for another flight is what caused the kerfuffle. Additionally, the practice of overbooking (overselling) is a crap SOP.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement but that's neither here nor there.
 
#34
#34
McDad said:
Disagree. Assault isnt ok in this situation. United should keep sweetening the pot and hook volunteers willing to give up seats.
Click to expand...

Should, but they fulfilled their obligation. UA didn't assault the guy, it would be like you calling the cops to get a trespasser off your property, the cops are responsible for their actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
This is one of the major things bothering our country right now... An airline forcefully removing a passenger.

Thank god we don't have real issues to worry about.

What a ****ing joke.
 
#37
#37
hog88 said:
I'm in agreement but that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

If a contract is built around crap concepts and stupid stipulations, i have a moral obligation to fight it.

However, i never do. I put in my earbuds and do what im told.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#38
#38
DancingOutlaw said:
You can't really think physical removal was the correct decision. More money was the right answer. The CEO has said United will never remove a passenger like this again, so clearly it's not a practice they want to defend or use going forward. It just boggles my mind that adults with working brains thought the next step after not enough people accepted their lowball offer was to call in the cops.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it was the right decision just that UA was within their rights to make that decision.
 
#40
#40
McDad said:
If a contract is built around crap concepts and stupid stipulations, i have a moral obligation to fight it.

However, i never do. I put in my earbuds and do what im told.
Click to expand...

Yep, me too. I'm the guy who usually volunteers to be bumped unless it's crucial I get to where I'm going on time.

If SW flew to the moon I've got enough points and vouchers to take the family.
 
#41
#41
McDad said:
If a contract is built around crap concepts and stupid stipulations, i have a moral obligation to fight it.

However, i never do. I put in my earbuds and do what im told.
Click to expand...

Fight it by not patronizing that business. Don't sign a contract, and then not abide by the rules.
 
#42
#42
hog88 said:
Yep, me too. I'm the guy who usually volunteers to be bumped unless it's crucial I get to where I'm going on time.

If SW flew to the moon I've got enough points and vouchers to take the family.
Click to expand...

I do too. SW should fly to Hawaii.
 
#49
#49
hog88 said:
No, I don't think it was the right decision just that UA was within their rights to make that decision.
Click to expand...

And that is why he have more and more laws that legislate every conceivable possibility. People are willing to do whatever crap they can to make a buck if it is within their legal rights. Common sense and moral decency take a second seat to profit. Obsession with profit drives laws and regulations. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top