MERGED United Passenger Kicked Off/NO FIGHTING

[JustinR]

I WAS discussing principals. Those of the rights of a business and the rights of people that choose to do business with them. YOU chose to make this personal.

But since I'm apparently a member of the fucking gestapo, there's no point in me making any further comments.

[Netpackrat]

I WAS discussing principals. Those of the rights of a business and the rights of people that choose to do business with them.

That ship done sailed a long time ago.... If you doubt it, try refusing to make a gay wedding cake in your bakery based on your religious principles, or otherwise excluding a protected minority that you don't like from your establishment. The rights of a property and/or business owner are whatever society says they are, and unless I am badly mistaken, society is getting ready to dictate new terms to the airline industry.

[Greg]

I WAS discussing principals. Those of the rights of a business and the rights of people that choose to do business with them. YOU chose to make this personal.

But since I'm apparently a member of the fucking gestapo, there's no point in me making any further comments.

That's great. The counter, is that that business claims for itself vast powers that far exceed anything else ordinary people are likely to encounter.

The ordinary people are starting to figure this out.

The ongoing analysis online over the contract issue has been pointing out just how vastly one-sided carrier contracts are, and apparently in United's case they exceeded even that. They broke the contract, such as it is.

This is exactly about the rights of people choosing to do business with airlines. If you tell people they don't have any, what kind of reaction do you expect?

[Greg]

I WAS discussing principals. Those of the rights of a business and the rights of people that choose to do business with them.

That ship done sailed a long time ago.... If you doubt it, try refusing to make a gay wedding cake in your bakery based on your religious principles, or otherwise excluding a protected minority that you don't like from your establishment. The rights of a property and/or business owner are whatever society says they are, and unless I am badly mistaken, society is getting ready to dictate new terms to the airline industry.

This is a real problem.

As annoyed as I might be at airline self-dealing and heavy handedness, the fact that I *do* retain respect for *their* rights as well means that I'm trying to warn them to stop ACTING like Communist border guards before there is a real, increasingly unjust in the other direction, societal backlash to this garbage.

[Greg]

Just thought of something....

To all the property rights absolutists out there - easements are not new.

It is long established law that people other than you, total strangers even, can have (limited) clearly defined and quite enforceable, rights to and on *your* property, whether you consent or not.

[Netpackrat]

The ongoing analysis online over the contract issue has been pointing out just how vastly one-sided carrier contracts are, and apparently in United's case they exceeded even that. They broke the contract, such as it is.

One of our resident lawyers will have a better idea, but per something I read elsewhere, a contract where one side has all of the power and dictates the terms is referred to as a contract of adhesion... If there is any question as to what the terms of such a contract means, vagueness, etc, the courts will interpret those terms to the benefit of the party who does not dictate the terms.

Add that to the fact that United doesn't seem to have honored the contract anyway, and also violated its own internal policies, if this gets to trial they are basically screwed, and the court will essentially get to re-write the airline/passenger relationship instead of lawmakers and/or regulators. Since the airlines can at least have a say (and maybe a big say) in the latter two types of processes, the industry as a whole are probably breathing down United's throat behind the scenes to get them to settle the case ASAP.

This is a real problem.

As annoyed as I might be at airline self-dealing and heavy handedness, the fact that I *do* retain respect for *their* rights as well means that I'm trying to warn them to stop ACTING like Communist border guards before there is a real, increasingly unjust in the other direction, societal backlash to this garbage.

It's a good example of why we can't have nice things. Textbook case of egregious behavior on the part of an unsympathetic actor, causing a public backlash to the ultimate detriment of liberty, and promoting the advancement of government interference in the private sector.

[slowpoke]

Netpackrat, IANAL, but I tried pointing that out in the initial thread. They dont define boarding in the contract, at least nit the one linked. What we have is the actual SOP as practiced likely violates the contracts of carrage and CFR/FAA regulations.

What I was hoping Justin would do is read the contract and point out, chapter and verse, where United got the right to deplane the boarded passanger for thier deadhead crew. I just couldnt see it after I read his link. I was wondering what I was missing. I think I got it figured out above. Its not like its an uncommon event that, well we always do it that way, in every field, and nit realize its a shortcut or wrong. What I saw with the CEOs responses is that it looked like his corp lawyers got to him before his last/third "apology" and he realized how bad they had screwed it up by the numbers from top to bottom.

What I would like to see is reverse auction on bumping and clearer guidelines on crew order lawfulness. What I expect is the Airline lobbyist to try for congressinal hearings and changes in that level to protect them from themselves. Probably try to blame the " Overbooking problem" when thats really not a problem.

I would point out that Ive been flights that had this situation, on another airlines, and seen it handles correctly. One time the flight crew came on the overhead and explained what happened, said the auction starts and started in on the voucher amounts. I took a voucher, ended up booked first class on another flight a bit later. It can be done, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contract employees United had there didnt have the power to do it. They likely had a voucher dollar limit they hit.

[Kommander]

Slowpoke I read that there is a legal voucher limit of about $1400 but that United only went up to $800 before deciding to force people off the plane. This right here offers room for improvement by getting rid or at least significantly raising the limit of vouchers and requiring airlines to go to this limit before forcing people off the plane. The forced off passengers would still of course get the full amount of compensation. It susks that we have to create more laws here but since a true fix for the airline situation in this country is impossible we can at least fix this one little issue.

[Greg]

Slowpoke I read that there is a legal voucher limit of about $1400 but that United only went up to $800 before deciding to force people off the plane. This right here offers room for improvement by getting rid or at least significantly raising the limit of vouchers and requiring airlines to go to this limit before forcing people off the plane. The forced off passengers would still of course get the full amount of compensation. It susks that we have to create more laws here but since a true fix for the airline situation in this country is impossible we can at least fix this one little issue.

That 'legal limit' sounds absurd. More like the most they are obligated to pay, not the most they are allowed to pay. It's their money, after all.

[skb12172]

Every time I start thinking maybe Rush Limbaugh really isn't an asshole, he does something to make me decide, yes he is an asshole. I just heard his greatest hits of the week, which they broadcast locally on Saturday. He was talking about some supposedly new footage from the flight that doesn't make Dr. Dao look so good. I heard him read the whole transcript.

The smoking gun is simply the cop saying "I'm going to arrest you" then, Dao said "you'll have to arrest me" and the cop said "you know how this is going to go right?" Dao responds with "I don't care. I make lawsuit against United." According to El Rushbo, that somehow justifies the police's thuggish overreaction. I think maybe it's time for Limbaugh to retire.