On 4/12/2017 11:27 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:03:28 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 11:50 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:



[snip]

There are, however some factors that could screw thing up. The guy
accepted the deal and later found out the details and changed his mind..
That is not an excuse to drag him down the aisle. There is always a
plan B or you make one.



Looks like they followed plan B. Maybe the guy should have had a plan B.

Apparently he does. He's represented by one of the top personal injury
lawyers in Chicago who specializes in, among other things, aircraft and
air carrier law. Look for a couple of whole numbers before six zeroes
to the left of the decimal point that UAL and the City of Chicago will
be writing by the time this is over. And THAT'S no gamble.

BTW, you missed my point in the earlier post which was simply that his
mandatory attendance at anger management classes is totally irrelevant
to this situation. He was not the aggressor, he just refused to roll
over and play dead like they wanted. Whatever his contract with UAL is
- and he does have a contract - it's a civil matter not a criminal one.
This is something that the parties involved will be learning thanks to
the forthcoming lawsuit.