Muricans are docile & obedient slaves

#126
#126
McDad said:
If you ever get in a bind, let me know. You can borrow one of my vehicles.
Click to expand...

Thanks, McDad. Good to know. I haven't had any real issues to date, probably I book so far ahead, but you never know!
 
#131
#131
Vol8188 said:
When you watch Star Wars, I bet you cheer for the empire.
Click to expand...

sounds like you hate ewoks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/endor-holocaust-science-study-2015-12

and jobs

unemployment_-_sucks_when_your_job_gets_blowd_up.jpg


but love incest

looking-for-love-in-alderaan-places.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#133
#133
salutethehill said:
The police forcing someone to follow the law is assault?
Click to expand...

For about the 100th f***ing time, those were not cops! Just because you wear a jacket that says "Police" doesn't make it so or give you the right to act like one. These security punks broke the guy's nose, gave him a concussion and knocked out two of his teeth. United crew members called them onto the plane. If you don't think they are going to pay out the a$$ for this you are crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#134
#134
BowlBrother85 said:
For about the 100th f***ing time, those were not cops! Just because you wear a jacket that says "Police" doesn't make it so or give you the right to act like one. These security punks broke the guy's nose, gave him a concussion and knocked out two of his teeth. United crew members called them onto the plane. If you don't think they are going to pay out the a$$ for this you are crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they were cops. Airport cops. UA will probably end up settling but they shouldn't.
 
#135
#135
hog88 said:
Yeah, they were cops. Airport cops. UA will probably end up settling but they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong!... They were security guards who were impersonating police officers. They had even been instructed to stop wearing those jackets that said "Police" on them but they disregarded that instruction.
 
Last edited:
#136
#136
"In a directive in January, we ordered them (the security guards) to not use the word 'police'. To use the word 'security' on their jackets." - Ginger Evans, Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner testifying before the City Council's Aviation Committee on Thursday.
 
#137
#137
BowlBrother85 said:
You are dead wrong!... They were security guards who were impersonating police officers. They had even been instructed to stop wearing those jackets that said "Police" on them but they disregarding that instruction.
Click to expand...

Then their organization is possibly liable. UA isn't.
 
#138
#138
BowlBrother85 said:
You are dead wrong!... They were security guards who were impersonating police officers. They had even been instructed to stop wearing those jackets that said "Police" on them but they disregarding that instruction.
Click to expand...

They were not employees of United Airlines.
 
#140
#140
hog88 said:
Then their organization is possibly liable. UA isn't.
Click to expand...

UA is ultimately culpable for the entire situation to begin with. Any issue with overbooking should have been resolved at the gate before a single passenger was allowed to board. That is protocol for the industry in the United States. In this case, they allowed EVERY passenger to be seated and then tried to offload. This not only shows poor planning and organization on their part but in allowing security guards (not the police) to physically remove a passenger from their plane - it also shows a disregard for the safety of their passengers. There are many examples around the country of security guards overstepping their authority and injuring someone. In every case that I'm aware of, the establishment in question is held liable just as the contracted security agency is (assuming there is one).
 
#142
#142
BowlBrother85 said:
UA is ultimately culpable for the entire situation to begin with. Any issue with overbooking should have been resolved at the gate before a single passenger was allowed to board. That is protocol for the industry in the United States. In this case, they allowed EVERY passenger to be seated and then tried to offload. This not only shows poor planning and organization on their part but in allowing security guards (not the police) to physically remove a passenger from their plane - it also shows a disregard for the safety of their passengers. There are many examples around the country of security guards overstepping their authority and injuring someone. In every case that I'm aware of, the establishment in question is held liable just as the contracted security agency is (assuming there is one).
Click to expand...

The establishment would be the airport authority and whoever they report to.
 
#146
#146
hog88 said:
You throw a dinner party, it's over and a guest refuses to leave. You invited them but their still trespassing.
Click to expand...

Wait, you invited them for dinner, and you provided the dinner. Afterwards, they refuse to leave... yeah, I can go with you on that because you fulfilled your end of the bargain.

United, on the other hand, offered a service, took his money, boarded him on the plane, then refused service and proceeded to call in the goons. I can't go with you on that.

hog88 said:
The guy agreed to a contract when he purchased that ticket, he didn't honor his side of the deal.
Click to expand...

Look, for the last time, I am not going to go back and forth about the legality of what United did. In fact, if it makes it any better, I will gladly give you that point. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm asking you if this was the right and just way to treat a person? Forget about whether it is legal or not because that doesn't matter.
 
#147
#147
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look, for the last time, I am not going to go back and forth about the legality of what United did. In fact, if it makes it any better, I will gladly give you that point. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm asking you if this was the right and just way to treat a person? Forget about whether it is legal or not because that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Ras
 
#148
#148
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait, you invited them for dinner, and you provided the dinner. Afterwards, they refuse to leave... yeah, I can go with you on that because you fulfilled your end of the bargain.

United, on the other hand, offered a service, took his money, boarded him on the plane, then refused service and proceeded to call in the goons. I can't go with you on that.



Look, for the last time, I am not going to go back and forth about the legality of what United did. In fact, if it makes it any better, I will gladly give you that point. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm asking you if this was the right and just way to treat a person? Forget about whether it is legal or not because that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't right and UA ****ed up. But so did the passenger, when you buy a plane ticket all your guaranteed is that they will take you where you paid to go not when you will get there.

BTW I fly a lot and avoid UA at almost all cost. They suck for many reasons.
 
#149
#149
hog88 said:
No, it wasn't right and UA ****ed up. But so did the passenger, when you buy a plane ticket all your guaranteed is that they will take you where you paid to go not when you will get there.

BTW I fly a lot and avoid UA at almost all cost. They suck for many reasons.
Click to expand...

Well that makes all the sense in the world had we been talking about a weather delay or mechanical failure. I think most people get that.

But this was a scheduling problem that United had, not the passenger. The simple thing to have done was to simply delay or cancel the flight in Louisville that these 4 United crew members were going on. That gives the people in Louisville maybe some time to find alternate travel plans or get a room for the night. Instead of just cancelling one flight or postponing one flight, they ended up with the Chicago flight being postponed or cancelled in addition to that.
 
#150
#150
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well that makes all the sense in the world had we been talking about a weather delay or mechanical failure. I think most people get that.

But this was a scheduling problem that United had, not the passenger. The simple thing to have done was to simply delay or cancel the flight in Louisville that these 4 United crew members were going on. That gives the people in Louisville maybe some time to find alternate travel plans or get a room for the night. Instead of just cancelling one flight or postponing one flight, they ended up with the Chicago flight being postponed or cancelled in addition to that.
Click to expand...

Canceling the Louisville flight would have affected a lot more people than the 4 who were asked to get off in Chicago.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top