On 4/11/2017 10:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/11/2017 11:44 AM, Frank wrote:
Just got through listening to some supercilious United Airline pilot
calling Limbaugh and saying that it is a privilege to fly and there are
rules that must be followed and the airline obeyed them. He implied
that travelers should also know them and abide by them.

A privilege to spend a few hours in a seat designed for an anorexic 10
year old? To get groped by the Total **** Assholes? I fly Trans Love
Toyota these days. It's much more restful.

That's one of the reasons I called the pilot supercilious. You pay for
the "privilege" to fly and if not in business or first class you put up
with awfully cramped seating and the TSA. I saw them drag a 93 year old
woman out of her wheel chair so they could check the chair and pat her down.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:59:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/12/2017 6:35 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

Calling the cops and dragging a man, like what happened is arbitrary
and capricious. Just sayin'. :-)


Commercial aviation is a bit over a century old. This may go down as
the f-up of the century. Costliest too. They could have offered four
passengers $50,000 each and come out ahead.

A Lear Jet may have cost UAL ~ $4,000 for a short flight. I bet a
nickel there are some in Chicago to transport a four person crew.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:04:36 +0100, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

On 4/12/17 6:52 PM, Frank wrote:

There are what they call jump seats for crew as temporary seats for
landing and taking off and maybe clear air turbulence. These must have
been full too.
Generally the jump seats are filled by the regular crew. Don't know
about that particular jet, but many have a jump seat in the cockpit for
things like check rides by supervisory pilots, etc., If you got three
and needed four, I wonder if the cockpit seat was available and they
screwed up that much more.

If they're going to ferry crew about, there should be spare places for them. Or they could learn to count and only sell the spaces they actually have.

I avoid flying anyway, it's so much bloody hassle to do checkins and get tickets ready. Especially if you go on holiday and have to find internet access to print your return ticket which you're not allowed to do before you depart! The only convenient mode of transport is the car.

--
FREE TIBET!!!! (with purchase of 1 mainland china)

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.

On 4/12/17 7:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
an 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.

City of Chicago probably won't be involved. The airport authority is a
completely separate entity.

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.

On 4/12/2017 4:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
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 does now, but didn't then.


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.


it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

On 4/12/2017 6:30 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 7:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
an 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.

City of Chicago probably won't be involved. The airport authority is a
completely separate entity.

You're incorrect. ORD is run by the City of Chicago, Department of
Aviation. The woman in charge is a mayoral appointee (read, political
hack) and the officers are employees of the city and are trained at the
Chicago Police Academy. Further, they do not receive the same level of
training at CPD nor are they permitted to carry firearms. The most
steadfast requirement to work that position is a very good relationship
with one of the Chicago aldermen and being a registered Democrat.

On 4/12/2017 6:31 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 4:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
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.



[snip]

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.


it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

Okay, explain why he wasn't arrested, why the City and UAL are crapping
in their collective pants and issuing apologies, rewriting the rules,
regulations, and procedures. Instead, his attorney, Thomas Demetrio, is
trying to figure out how best to structure the settlement or jury award
to mitigate the tax ramifications when those checks are written.

Enough of the ****ing contest among us who are uninvolved. I suggest
you just set up a good Google search to track this puppy and perhaps
chip into a pool: Will they settle or will it go to trial? How many
millions will it bring in damages.

On 4/12/2017 4:45 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:31 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 4:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
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.



[snip]

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.


it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

Okay, explain why he wasn't arrested, why the City and UAL are crapping
in their collective pants and issuing apologies, rewriting the rules,
regulations, and procedures. Instead, his attorney, Thomas Demetrio, is
trying to figure out how best to structure the settlement or jury award
to mitigate the tax ramifications when those checks are written.

Enough of the ****ing contest among us who are uninvolved. I suggest
you just set up a good Google search to track this puppy and perhaps
chip into a pool: Will they settle or will it go to trial? How many
millions will it bring in damages.





I agree and wonder why this has dragged on so long. We need more facts,
and let the process play out. While there is room for improvement all
around, I hope the airlines don't kowtow to this sort of disruptive,
inconsiderate and unruly passenger behavior, or there will be more and
more of it.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:31:52 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

Huh? He wasn't arrested, got back on the plane. Did the Keystone Kops
advise him of his Miranda Warnings, if he was arrested. Did they tell
him what he was being charged with a crime. No.

Was he taken to a Federal Magistrate to face charges? No, best I can
tell so far.

Any evidence he did anything other than saying no to give up his seat
and disembark the plane?

On 4/12/2017 7:07 PM, Frank wrote:


That's one of the reasons I called the pilot supercilious. You pay for
the "privilege" to fly and if not in business or first class you put up
with awfully cramped seating and the TSA. I saw them drag a 93 year old
woman out of her wheel chair so they could check the chair and pat her
down.

That's sad and abusive. My wife uses a wheelchair at the airport. She
has always been treated very well both in the US and other countries in
Europe. She has never been asked to stand, though she could. I get to
go through security with her and it certainly makes it easier and
bypasses the long lines.

Flying isn't fun any more though.

On 4/12/2017 5:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:31:52 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

Huh? He wasn't arrested, got back on the plane. Did the Keystone Kops
advise him of his Miranda Warnings, if he was arrested. Did they tell
him what he was being charged with a crime. No.

Was he taken to a Federal Magistrate to face charges? No, best I can
tell so far.

Any evidence he did anything other than saying no to give up his seat
and disembark the plane?



That alone was a crime. Then he runs on board again and has to be
removed again (I think that is how it went).

Not all crimes result in arrests on the spot.

On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf



That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:01:11 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 4/12/17 6:12 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:17:51 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56,
title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Did for me just now off of your reply. Interesting. Cut and paste the
URL work? Maybe Google GUIDANCE ON UNRULY PASSENGER PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT, International Air Transport Association and see if that does
any better.

Did the google thing and found it.

On 4/12/2017 5:52 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf



That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.



of course they should. Period! (I guess that makes it so).

On 04/12/2017 08:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:31:52 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.
Huh? He wasn't arrested, got back on the plane. Did the Keystone Kops
advise him of his Miranda Warnings, if he was arrested. Did they tell
him what he was being charged with a crime. No.

Was he taken to a Federal Magistrate to face charges? No, best I can
tell so far.

Any evidence he did anything other than saying no to give up his seat
and disembark the plane?


That's the problem. We have no evidence of anything, just the typical
unreliable news puke. News reporting today is 90% fiction. But if I had
to guess based on my personal experiences with United Airlines, I'd say
that the pervert/felon/doctor is just another obnoxious asshole. My
condolences to the folks at United that had to deal with this jagoff.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:18:36 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

With the actions taken in the planes these days, regardless if you
feel you're right, you're better off following instructions,
answering questions, and not making a fuss.

Valid soon in ANY public place.
"Making Amerika Great again".
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 4/12/2017 9:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:52 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation
of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction
of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew
member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance
of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more
than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in
assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L.
107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf




That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.



of course they should. Period! (I guess that makes it so).

Only in your world.

On 4/13/2017 5:12 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 9:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:52 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation
of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction
of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew
member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance
of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more
than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in
assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L.
107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf




That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.



of course they should. Period! (I guess that makes it so).

Only in your world.



I am just following your lead.

On 4/12/17 7:39 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:30 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 7:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
an 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.

City of Chicago probably won't be involved. The airport authority is a
completely separate entity.

You're incorrect. ORD is run by the City of Chicago, Department of
Aviation. The woman in charge is a mayoral appointee (read, political
hack) and the officers are employees of the city and are trained at the
Chicago Police Academy. Further, they do not receive the same level of
training at CPD nor are they permitted to carry firearms. The most
steadfast requirement to work that position is a very good relationship
with one of the Chicago aldermen and being a registered Democrat.


Thanks. The website looked like a different entity to me.
The website specifically stated that they get the same training as other
officers and have to qualify with firearms even though they don't have
firearms (and the union is ****ed about that)

On 4/13/2017 8:22 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/13/2017 5:12 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 9:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:52 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never
win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation
of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction
of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew
member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance
of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the
member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more
than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in
assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L.
107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf





That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.



of course they should. Period! (I guess that makes it so).

Only in your world.



I am just following your lead.


I stated a fact. Obviously you missed the "noted as such".

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

On 4/13/2017 7:40 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/13/2017 8:22 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/13/2017 5:12 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 9:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:52 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:01 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never
win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong
thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation
of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction
of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew
member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance
of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the
member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more
than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in
assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L.
107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and
attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf





That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

The police should not have been involved and was noted as such. The
fault lies with the airlines...period.



of course they should. Period! (I guess that makes it so).

Only in your world.



I am just following your lead.


I stated a fact. Obviously you missed the "noted as such".

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.



The police should be involved with trespassers. Do you think the United
employees should have handled the passengers removal. You keep making
up "the facts".

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 9:25:13 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:07:51 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 9:50:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:38 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
One snowflake, squealing like a pig, as he is dragged from the plane as other snowflakes sit by and scream "Oh my
God"! That had to be a flight either to or from California.

Maybe the police should have taken the guy who kept saying "I have to go home" with them too.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/539284773...#sp=show-clips


They kicked him (and 3 others) off to make room for a Delta employee.
That seems unfair to me as they were already boarded. .

Apparently they needed 4 seats for Delta employees who were crew
on their way to where they were needed for a flight. I don't see
that as unfair. Airlines routinely overbook flights and it's not
often that they wind up with too few seats. If they made a mistake,
it was in letting people on the plane before they were sure they
had enough seats. But then IDK when they first learned that they
had these 4 extra employees, could have been at the last minute.

I agree with Gordon on this one. The media is just going wild on
this one, saying the whole country is outraged at United.
Well, I'm outraged too, but not at United. I'm fed up with idiots
like this that make a spectacle, force planes to make an emergency
landing because they have to pay $12 for a blanket and stunts like
this. The dishonest media isn't even reporting the most basic facts.
This was Chicago, not some little airport with no flights. So, when
was the next flight that they could have put this passenger on?
I bet they could have gotten him to his destination in just a few more
hours.

And this clown is a doctor? I wouldn't want him as my doctor with that
kind of judgment and behavior. Also, on talk radio this morning,
apparently the truth is starting to come out. I heard talk that the
doctor's license had been suspended for drug offenses, including trading
drugs for sex. IDK if it's true, but that's what's being reported some
places now.

The doctor paid for his seat.

As do thousands of other passengers that wind up not having a seat
every day. It's nothing new. Airlines routinely overbook flights,
relying on the history of how many people don't show up. If they
didn't, tickets would cost significantly more and a lot of people
wouldn't like that.




Did the 4 Delta employees pay for their seat.


Ridiculous and irrelevant. They were a FLIGHT CREW.



Not they did not !!

I cheer for the doctor who stood up for his rights.

There is a good saying.

"Your bad planning does not become my emergency."

Andy

Clearly you don't fly much or understand how airlines operate.

All you are doing is making excuses for bad judgement on the part of United.

I hope you never make it on a jury.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:37:42 AM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:34:53 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:35 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:15:07 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

If it was overbooked, there should have been four people standing up
looking for a seat. Musical Chairs rules should apply.

Airlines overbook every day. It ****es people off.



People don't show up for flights, so airlines overbook. They play the
statistics game and sometimes there are loosers. Just like in Musical
Chairs.

Irrelevant. It's a game played by the airlines, not the customers. The
"losers" should ALWAYS be the airlines. They assume the risk, they
should suffer the consequences when they lose that risk.

It's not just the airlines. Passengers are very much involved in this
too. Are you willing to pay the increased fares that would result if
airlines did not overbook based on statistics and instead had planes
leaving with empty seats?


You mean we're not paying high fares already?

Whether you think they are high or not is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that if airlines were to end overbooking, more planes would be flying
with more empty seats and that would be a cost passed on to the consumer
with higher ticket prices.



I don't buy into the corporate lies of their reasoning for low or high
costs. Rules and procedures can be applied to ensure filled seats and no
overbooking.

Wow, so you're smarter than the airlines with their 75 years of experience.
Go figure. I don't suppose you'd care to share your new method?



They play that game because they can win. It's all about
the money.

You obviously just don't get it. Suggest you take a course in
microeconomics.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:40:54 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:30:56 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 11:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:14:55 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...


[snip]

Because it's the airline's plane, the airline controls it and the law
is that you have to obey the flight crew? What do you think would
happen at a hardware store if the management told you that you had
to leave and you refused? They would call the police and if you also
refused their commands to leave, they would drag you out.

I don't want an asshole like this on my plane. What's next? A hissy
fit at 40,000 ft over a pillow that results in the plane being diverted?

BTW, just heard on the radio this morning that to get his medical license
back following his felony drug peddling/sex charges, he was required to
take anger management classes, so that suggests there were plenty of
problems, disregard for authority in his past.


Okay, let's assume that he has/had anger management issues. In this
instance, what is the relevance? It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Excuse the hyperbole, but if this was a matter of the flight crew
telling the doctor to please fasten his seat belt prior to take off, and
his response was to yell and scream at the flight attendant or take a
swing at him/her, there would be some relevance. Such is not the case.


It is relevant. You have to obey the flight crew, whether it's to
turn off your phone, sit down, or get off the plane. It really is
that simple. And for double sure, when LEO arrives and they also
tell you that you have to get off, you have to get off. If not,
then we have a whole new system and less and less people will comply.



The request by the airline is viewed as unreasonable under the
circumstances and the majority agrees.

It's not a voting system, anymore than if you were in a store,
had a disagreement with store management over a purchase and
refused to leave the store.



Further, the airline is the
aggressor in this situation, he merely said he wasn't willing to give up
his seat.


If you were in a hardware store, had a disagreement with the store
manager and he told you to leave, can you just stand there, disrupt
the whole store, refuse to leave? When they call the cops, what
happens next?



Further clouding the issue is something I just picked up in reading one
of the "news" articles here (same one that detailing his drug use, sex
life, etc.). Apparently his wife was also on the flight and witnessed
what transpired.

Was she also randomly bumped or was the airline "splitting the pair"
(apropos since the doctor apparently is also a gambler )?

Regardless of your position vis a vis the airline's policy and actions,
would your position change if YOU were sitting on that flight with your
wife and told YOU were leaving and she was staying? Just sayin'

That's a good question that someone should ask the airlines. They have
the policy of going to random selection at some point. And you'd think
that would have happened in the past. How they dealt with that would
be interesting. What would they do, IDK. At least offer the wife
the $500 or whatever too? I suspect this hasn't been a big problem because
they deal with it before boarding, so if something like that comes up,
they just use so simple logic to avoid it. Like if they need one seat,
they don't pick someone traveling with someone else.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Nobody volunteered...tuff
**** for airlines. Put your four extra people in cargo.

The tough **** would be for the hundred passengers in Louisville, KY
that did not have a flight crew, so they had no flight.


It's just over a 1 hour flight, they can stand.


Who could stand? The four flight crew? That's illegal under federal
regulations.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

Wow, so you're smarter than the airlines with their 75 years of
experience.

Why not you claim to be and claim to be smarter
than everyone on all subjects!

WTF, goober??

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:49:32 AM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:31:31 PM UTC-4, Neill Massello wrote:
Ralph Mowery wrote:

If that doctor was all that important, he should have scheduled a flight
a few days sooner.

So passengers should waste their time because United Airlines doesn't
plan ahead?

United Airlines can't foresee the future. Things happen, ranging from
eqpt problems, to weather, to a flight crew that doesn't make it to
where they are needed. The latter is what happened in this case,
creating the need for those 4 United employees to go to KY. If you
have some critical job, absolutely have to be somewhere, it's really
stupid to rely on the last flight out of the day.


You are completely unaware of his issues and why he may have taken the
last flight. Regardless, it's irrelevant. The flight problems you list
are rarer than the airline overbooking.

Which is why something like this rarely happens even with millions
flying every day.


Why is it acceptable for them to
play the odds but not the passengers?

It's acceptable for the airlines to run the business the way they see
fit because it's their business, their property rights. They set the
rules, when you buy a ticket you agree to the terms and conditions.
If you don't like the terms, then find another airline or other way
of traveling. And what you don't understand is that by overbooking,
airlines ensure that planes are as full as possible. If they ended
that, then more planes would fly with empty seats. That would be
passed along in ticket prices, just like labor costs, fuel costs,
gate costs, beverage costs all get passed along. I've flown a lot,
both domestic and international. I've never been bumped off a plane.
Maybe 10 times I've been on planes where they were looking for volunteers.
A couple times, when I had the flexibility and the offer was a good one
I've taken it. It works for me and I'd rather have the current system
than an increase in ticket prices.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:02:43 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 8:40 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:30:56 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 11:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:14:55 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...


[snip]

Because it's the airline's plane, the airline controls it and the law
is that you have to obey the flight crew? What do you think would
happen at a hardware store if the management told you that you had
to leave and you refused? They would call the police and if you also
refused their commands to leave, they would drag you out.

I don't want an asshole like this on my plane. What's next? A hissy
fit at 40,000 ft over a pillow that results in the plane being diverted?

BTW, just heard on the radio this morning that to get his medical license
back following his felony drug peddling/sex charges, he was required to
take anger management classes, so that suggests there were plenty of
problems, disregard for authority in his past.


Okay, let's assume that he has/had anger management issues. In this
instance, what is the relevance?

because if he wasn't a nut job, this situation would not have arisen.


+1

And sadly now there are more and more of these. Why? I believe a lot
of it is because they figure everyone has a phone, there will be a video
and likely a $500K payday, a trip to Good Morning America, etc.


It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Who cares that a supposed majority thinks? What is the LAW?


+1

A majority thinks those baggage fees suck too. Following the same
logic, I guess you can have a hissy fit at check-in, block the line,
refuse to leave......

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

You obviously just don't get it. Suggest you take a course in
microeconomics.

And you take one in humanity.

United apologized for their ERROR. The policemen involved have
been suspended and face charges of battery.
United lost millions, but didn't lose more because of the
virtual monopoly they hold in Chicago (thanks Reagan).
And an elderly person was beaten and is still in hospital. Who
or what race he is has NOTHING to do with the subject. He was a
passenger.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...airlines11.jpg
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:12:13 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:42:45 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 1:17 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:32:59 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/11/2017 10:50 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...



I would agree, assuming they knew they had these 4 employees all
along. It's possible that only came up after people had boarded.
Once this guy claimed he was a doctor and started bitching, they
should have asked to see his license and if he showed it, then
selected another random person. That seems like a reasonable thing
that could have avoided this mess.


If that doctor was all that important, he should have scheduled a
flight a few days sooner. Unless he was some kind of very special
doctor on an emergency call, which would be doubtful.

It's rather clear that you, Ralph, have little understanding of overbooking.

Your comment that he should have planned ahead is just ignorant. He DID
plan ahead. He booked and was seated on a flight that would get him to
Louisville when he needed to be. The airline did not do the same with
their crew members. Whose planning was **** poor?

I don't think Ralph is too far off. If you really, really have to be
somewhere, then you don't plan on taking the last flight available
the day before you need to be there. For example, if you live in NYC
and are taking a cruise that leaves from LA, it's not a good idea to
take the last flight that will get you to the dock on time. Airlines
have to cancel flights occasionally due to weather, equipment problems,
crew problems, etc.

That was sort of my thinking. Airplanes often get delayed for various
reasons not under control. The weather could be bad, or for some reason
the airplane could have mechanical problems, or even a bomb threat. How
many days was it that all planes were grounded after 9/11 ?

If someone absolutly has to be at a place, they should be set up atleast
a day or two sooner.

As far as the planning on the airlines part, there could have been crew
problems at the other airport. Maybe the crew had a wreck or some
medical problems or family problems.

I worked at a plant that needed to run 24/7 as to shut it down,
especially under under controlled conditions would have cost over a
million dollars. We don't usually get much snow in NC, but one day we
got 12 inches. Very few could get into work or out of the plant (around
400 or more people on a normal shift change each way). The ones there
stayed over and worked to keep the place running. That goes to show
things hapen that no one can predict.


You discuss the gambling odds of the airline overbooking yet fail to
give credit to a customer who may play the odds the airlines are usually
on time.

I guess in addition to not flying much, you're unfamiliar with gambling.
When you gamble, sometimes you lose.


Technically, it's not gambling. I'm not entering a casino with the
expectation of losing or winning some money. It's a service already paid
for. I don't fly with the belief I am gambling to get knocked off
considering the odds of that are rare.


Like I said, you don't understand gambling. Just because the odds are
"rare" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it could happen to
you.



I fly with the expectation I will
reach my destinations according to the ETA and ETD of the information
printed on my ticket and paperwork which I paid to use. The airline
gambles on statistics and when they lose, they need to be the ones to
pay, not customers.

I agree with that. I think the airline should have just upped the
offer until someone accepted. That was one mistake they made.




How anyone can justify fault in the guy is ****ing astonishing.

He was 100% wrong from the time he refused to obey the commands of
the airline crew and law enforcement. Suppose you were in a hardware
store, had a coupon for 50% off, went to use it, and the store manager
said it's not eligible for the product in question. So, you start
a shouting match, it escalates, the manager asks you to leave the store.
You refuse, demanding that he sell you the product for 50% off.
He calls the police and you refuse their lawful commands to exit
the store. How do you think that would end?


Apples to oranges comparison. For starters, I didn't already pay for a
product or service in the store. A better comparison would be paying for
a product and they refuse to give it to me. In addition, I'm not in
another city waiting to get home.

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

Following that logic, then the police have no right to remove someone
from a store or restaurant when the management has told them to leave,
the police have told them to leave and they refuse. What a brave new
world that would be.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:25:55 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 4:34 AM, Bob wrote:
On 04/11/2017 12:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:12:33 -0700, wrote:

I'd kindly tell the cops; before you put your hands on me, you better
know what the **** you are doing.

This **** could get ugly:-)
The last thing you ever want to do is start a fight with a cop and
that is doubly true at an airport where every little infraction is a
federal crime.

But Oren is super badass, even the feds wouldn't dare to mess with him.
LOL

And FWIW, if you don't want bumped, buy an adult seat up front or
charter a Gulfstream. Airlines only bump the riffraff in coach.

Nobody would get bumped if the airlines didn't **** up with their
overbooking. I'm amazed there isn't a better control of this issue
considering overbooking is common. They waste so much money with
overbooking the need to offset the cost reflects on the rest who fly.

How exactly would you solve it? There is no solution, other than to
not overbook. They overbook based on modeling and statistical analysis.
Usually it works fine, occasionally they don't have enough seats.
And are you willing to pay the increased ticket costs to eliminate
overbooking?


Read my reply below about my belief in the overbooking odds and higher
costs. Corporate always have excuses for higher cost and if you believe
them, you're a fool.

You obviously don't understand economics 101. Higher costs, whether they
are for labor, materials or empty seats, get passed along to the consumer.
In free markets, prices don't get set by excuses, they get set by supply
and demand.

On 4/13/2017 8:49 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

You obviously just don't get it. Suggest you take a course in
microeconomics.

And you take one in humanity.

United apologized for their ERROR. The policemen involved have
been suspended and face charges of battery.
United lost millions, but didn't lose more because of the
virtual monopoly they hold in Chicago (thanks Reagan).
And an elderly person was beaten and is still in hospital. Who
or what race he is has NOTHING to do with the subject. He was a
passenger.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...airlines11.jpg
[]'s


Elderly person was NOT "beaten". I doubt he is still in the hospital,
and if he is that only means his attorneys are ambulance chasers.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:43:49 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
news:5f934908-0fa0-4d9d-85b8-

Also very frustrating are asshole passengers, like the doctor in question.

So if you had been he you would have just stood up, bent over and said,
"Thank you sir, may I have another?"?

I would have nicely and calmly explained that I'm a doctor, pulled out
my credentials and showed them, stated that I have patients to treat in
the morning, etc. If that didn't work, I would have protested. I might
have turned to other people on the plane, made my case to them, to see
if one of them would give up their seat instead. But
when that failed, I would have complied. And if I was dumb enough
to have it result in them calling the police, then for double sure
I would have complied with the police order to get off. It really
is that simple. In addition, I'd have some consideration for the
rest of the passengers in the plane too. I would not want that plane
sitting there for who know how long, others possibly missing their flight
because of me.

On 4/12/2017 8:30 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 7:07 PM, Frank wrote:


That's one of the reasons I called the pilot supercilious. You pay
for the "privilege" to fly and if not in business or first class you
put up with awfully cramped seating and the TSA. I saw them drag a 93
year old woman out of her wheel chair so they could check the chair
and pat her down.

That's sad and abusive. My wife uses a wheelchair at the airport. She
has always been treated very well both in the US and other countries in
Europe. She has never been asked to stand, though she could. I get to
go through security with her and it certainly makes it easier and
bypasses the long lines.

Flying isn't fun any more though.

I seldom found it fun even years ago. I hate to be a captive audience.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:21:53 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 12:04 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 8:45 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Nobody volunteered...tuff
**** for airlines. Put your four extra people in cargo.

The tough **** would be for the hundred passengers in Louisville, KY
that did not have a flight crew, so they had no flight.


It's just over a 1 hour flight, they can stand. I'd volunteer to allow
the hot flight attendant to sit on my lap if it makes them happy but not
to leave if I didn't want to. Again, their mistake



any airplane I've ever flown has indicated they could not push off
unless everyone was in their seat, seat belt fastened. I guess this is
optional, eh?

So now, when they want the rules followed, everyone must obey, but it's
acceptable for them to break the rules. Typical corporate mentality.

The rule that prohibits having more passengers that seats is a
federal safety regulation. If the airline broke that very important
safety rule they would be fined and sanctioned by the FAA. And if
they were stupid enough to do it, you can be sure that there would
be plenty of pics, probably realtime, of them doing it.



That policy is to protect their own asses from a lawsuit due to any
passenger whining about a sprained ankle if they trip and fall
encountering turbulence during takeoff or landing.

Or get injured by passengers with no seats that get thrown around the
cabin during turbulence.

The attendants are
up and walking during the entire flight even during turbulence midair
and when the seatbelt sign is on.

Obviously you don't fly much. Sure, flight attendants do that during
calm air, when it appears safe to leave their seat. I guess you
haven't been on a flight where the captain tells them to stop cabin
service and buckle in because of expected turbulence. I have. When
they put the carts away and put their full harnesses on in their jump
seat, you know it's going to get rough. And where would those 4 extras go?

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:02:01 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:30 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:09:22 GMT, "Tekkie®"
wrote:


They were some kind of transportation police, not very well trained. The guy
should sue because they didn't follow the passenger notification rules so
bzzt you lose. They could have offered more money and someone would have
bit. Now they will pay millions. They could have transported the employees
by ground as the destination is only four hours away. As usual the airline
administration is rudderless.

Somebody tell me there isn't a Limo and a Lear in Chicago. Price is
cheaper than the market loss UAL is taking in the short term.


That was a Limbaugh comment today. Corporate mentality is not to follow
what is right to do but what is least expensive to do. A rental plane
would have only cost a few thousand, not much more than ticket prices
for several people.


As if those peons at UAL that had to handle this could order up
a plane as an alternate solution. Or decide on their own what is
right and what is not. In reality, they probably followed their
training, the UAL rules as they understood them.


United has learned a serious lesson about this as the incident is
costing them millions in losses. First was diving stock price.


Diving stock price? ROFL. The highest it's been recently was 71.5.
The lowest since the event is 69 5/8. And UAL isn't directly affected
by it anyway. Unless they were doing a new offering right now. It
will all be over and forgotten in a few more days.


They have promised never to bump a passenger again so they can save
money transporting an employee.

If so, that's a foolish promise.

On 4/13/2017 9:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:02:01 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:30 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:09:22 GMT, "Tekkie®"
wrote:


They were some kind of transportation police, not very well trained. The guy
should sue because they didn't follow the passenger notification rules so
bzzt you lose. They could have offered more money and someone would have
bit. Now they will pay millions. They could have transported the employees
by ground as the destination is only four hours away. As usual the airline
administration is rudderless.

Somebody tell me there isn't a Limo and a Lear in Chicago. Price is
cheaper than the market loss UAL is taking in the short term.


That was a Limbaugh comment today. Corporate mentality is not to follow
what is right to do but what is least expensive to do. A rental plane
would have only cost a few thousand, not much more than ticket prices
for several people.


As if those peons at UAL that had to handle this could order up
a plane as an alternate solution. Or decide on their own what is
right and what is not. In reality, they probably followed their
training, the UAL rules as they understood them.


United has learned a serious lesson about this as the incident is
costing them millions in losses. First was diving stock price.


Diving stock price? ROFL. The highest it's been recently was 71.5.
The lowest since the event is 69 5/8. And UAL isn't directly affected
by it anyway. Unless they were doing a new offering right now. It
will all be over and forgotten in a few more days.


They have promised never to bump a passenger again so they can save
money transporting an employee.

If so, that's a foolish promise.



yes, and one we will never be able to know when it is broken.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:25:38 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
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.

To begin with, you don't know what his attitude was, what he said,
what words he used. A big part of anger management is how to deal
with things like this, how to not escalate it, how to not have it
turn into a flaming disaster, just because you don't get what you
think you deserve.



He was not the aggressor,

Following that logic, the customer who refuses to leave your store
when you tell them to, who refuses to comply with the cop's order
to leave is not the aggressor either.


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.

Bingo! Which is why he should have settled it there, not escalate it
by refusing to leave the airplane. Following your logic, all kinds
of civil cases would be settled by one party just refusing to leave.
If LEO can't remove them when they refuse to leave, what a world that
would be.

On 4/13/17 12:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:

they put the carts away and put their full harnesses on in their jump
seat, you know it's going to get rough. And where would those 4 extras go?

They certainly wouldn't fit in the overhead bins anymore with so many
people carrying on instead of paying for luggage.