| Yeah standing up for your rights is childish. Making sure you get to work in the hospital on Monday is childish. |
And you thought Ryan Air were bad? (United are worse)
•
Page 9
-
Decks 31,013 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago -
Don't be so childish, Decks. -
Syrette 51,181 posts
Seen 24 minutes ago
Registered 19 years agoWhilst he technically had no right to refuse to disembark, they had no rights to enforce that decision upon on him in the way that they did. -
Psiloc 6,366 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago...you don't see how an old man has the right to not get the shit kicked out of him? -
Jono62 27,356 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago@Bloobat So you are saying you would have given up your seat and left without a fuss, even though you had to be at work the next day and this was the only flight that was leaving to your destination and you would probably get fired as you didn't show up for work for $800 of American Airlines vouchers and a flight the next day if you were randomly selected?
Why should his patients, who had an appointment with him for that day, be inconvenienced? If the cabin crew were required somewhere else, they should have charted a private jet.
Edited by Jono62 at 10:28:54 14-04-2017 -
KRadiation 1,743 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 13 years agoCabin crew should have got there earlier too rather than rocking up late like they own the plane and expecting to get a free ride from their mates. -
Jono62 27,356 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 13 years agohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39580113
No more forced removals - United Airlines -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoThat's a cap and dependent on other factors, they don't have to offer that amount. -
Youthist 14,723 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoBloobat wrote:
And leaving this EU is a good move for us to "get our borders back" and Trump has some good policies and can be trusted to do the right thing for the world, right ?
twelveways wrote:
I disagree, this isn't an issue of rolling over. He was selected to give up his seat. Yes you would be annoyed and yes it would have been preferable that there had been enough seats but refusing to budge after being warned and told that the plane would not move until you have complied is
Yeah he should. The airline have admitted they were wrong. Should we just roll over every time we're confronted by a uniform?
just childish behaviour in my opinion. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years ago@Gunzberg
The could have better negotiated, yeah. -
funkstar 3,280 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years ago -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoBloobat wrote:
WTF is wrong with you. They had no right what so ever to do what they did. None. Thank fuck united and goons encounters someone with a spine. I would have left the plane like the non confrontist that I am but I'm glad this guy took a beating for me.
To be fair though you have to presume he'd been told that they'd use force if he didn't get off calmly. I'm not saying he deserved what happened to him at all but the guy shouldn't have continued refusing to stand up after airport security were on board. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoThey were within the law to remove him from the plane, it's just the total farce around the incident - almost every aspect was handled badly - that needs to be analysed. -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago@Derblington they were? How? From what I read in that post I liked it seemed like they didn't have a leg to stand on. -
Psiloc 6,366 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoYeah I think the law says they could remove him using reasonable force, probably for any reason, even for something as douchey as making room for staff. That doesn't make it right though or a good PR move. But most importantly there's no way they used reasonable force considering the list of injuries he sustained. -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoNot according to the article I liked on previous page. I'd love to cot paste some quotes but my connection is crap -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoAre we reading different articles? Or have you read one that I haven't?
We seem to be talking past each other. The regulations are pretty clear that they had no right to remove him. None.
Especially not under the pretences they used as an excuse.
I think this would be easier if you copy pasted the bits in the article you disagree with and explain why. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoI read the article linked and it does go into it a bit but, from my very basic understanding, misses one tiny bit of info regarding the Gov DOT/FAA guidelines on the importance of deadheading emergency reserve flight crew, that would fall under Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage.
So, as I said, they can remove him from the plane but the whole things was a bit of a balls-up. They should have been refused boarding at the gate rather than allowed to board, the airport security shouldn't have been so aggressive, etc, etc, etc. It's all a bit of a mess. I'm sure Dr Dao is going to get a large amount of money over the whole thing.
Edited by Derblington at 15:25:55 15-04-2017 -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoDerblington wrote:
Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage
I read the article linked and it does go into it a bit but, from my very basic understanding, misses one tiny bit of info regarding the Gov DOT/FAA guidelines on the importance of deadheading emergency reserve flight crew, that would fall under Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage.
So, as I said, they can remove him from the plane but the whole things was a bit of a balls-up. They should have been refused boarding at the gate rather than allowed to board, the airport security shouldn't have been so aggressive, etc, etc, etc. It's all a bit of a mess. I'm sure Dr Dao is going to get a large amount of money over the whole thing.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the government, customs or airport security.
The plane should have sat there and waited for him to leave or for another passenger to volunteer, but of course that would have cost them more money.
Basically they had his face smashed in to save a few dollars, which is gonna backfire as he is going to win millions from them -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoWell wherever it sits, I skim read that and though it fit under it. Apparently there's some gov. reg. that enables airlines to send emergency reserve crew as priority in order to prevent flight standstill and subsequent backlog that would massively impact an airport.
A ton of lawyers have stated that United were fine to remove him from the flight and followed the correct procedure in doing so - they didn't touch the guy and called the security in order to resolve the issue. The problems started with boarding the plane in the first place and then the escalation by airport security dude getting super heavy handed. United didn't have "his face smashed in to save a few dollars", don't be such an idiot - they didn't mandate that he had to lose a few teeth for holding them up.
Edited by Derblington at 17:03:56 15-04-2017 -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoThere are tons of lawyers out there who state that UA shouldn't have removed him. But yeah, your unnamed source is obviously much better than the hundreds of articles that come up when you Google it.
And yeah, it obviously had nothing to do with them saving money... -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years agoBy the way, a doctor who needs to take the flight in order to be in work is on the must-fly list -
richardiox 10,097 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoBloobat wrote:
Their job is to drag paying customers off a plane to rectify mistakes made by their employers? In which case they should lose their jobs purely on the basis they're cunts.
@Decks sorry but what rights? I don't see which rights were broken? Had he stood up he wouldn't have suffered any of the injuries he did. I just don't get how people are asking for the security guys to lose their jobs when really they were just doing their jobs -
richardiox 10,097 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoDerblington wrote:
Putting legality aside for a second, just ethically speaking, you're basically on the side of the company that firstly asked a paying customer to leave the plane for a reason that was nothing to do with him and then when he didn't comply they called in airport security to remove him by force.
Well wherever it sits, I skim read that and though it fit under it. Apparently there's some gov. reg. that enables airlines to send emergency reserve crew as priority in order to prevent flight standstill and subsequent backlog that would massively impact an airport.
A ton of lawyers have stated that United were fine to remove him from the flight and followed the correct procedure in doing so - they didn't touch the guy and called the security in order to resolve the issue. The problems started with boarding the plane in the first place and then the escalation by airport security dude getting super heavy handed. United didn't have "his face smashed in to save a few dollars", don't be such an idiot - they didn't mandate that he had to lose a few teeth for holding them up.
That makes you sound like an arsehole. You're wording and phrases like "I'm sure the Dr will get a good payout" don't help. -
The legal aspects have been well covered:
...United, like most airlines, has a clause in its contract with every passenger which says, effectively, “You may have a ‘confirmed’ reservation for a flight, and be sitting on board, but we still reserve the right to offload you to make room for someone else.” (The actual wording is: “All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight.”)
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-david-dao-denied-boarding-overbooking-compensation-regulations-faa-caa-a7682276.html
I also pointed out that the captain’s word goes. The Federal Aviation Administration says: “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” Our own CAA has a similar regulation: “Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the pilot in command of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.”
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
