United Airlines

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54396
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by GORDON »

And before peeps write 2 pages of argument, I'll just state now, again, they they will never convince me that people aren't the problem and if they would just stop flying for a month this shit would all take care of itself and we would all be better off. But nope. The taste of boot leather just isn't that bad.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

It was argued here that the airline should have just started a bidding war and upped their offer until someone took it. I just heard yesterday that they are capped at $1350. By the federal government.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

United Airlines

Post by Malcolm »

If I get to pick the month, I'm in.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

GORDON wrote: And I know much of the "necessary" business flights could be handled with a day of travel in a rental car, and would likely be cheaper for the company. But nah... It is different when someone else is paying for your air travel, you get to pretend like you're outside the problem.
Oh, you take a personal shot, but us folks who travel for work aren't allowed to respond because you're so "right"? Did they teach you that when you attended Berkley?

You're leaving out some details in your argument that are kind of important. You don't punch a clock, so it's easy to tell other folks, who do, that they just need to spend more time traveling. But it's not realistic.

First, at face value driving might seem cheaper, but you're not factoring in mileage, gas, more food stops, more need for hotel visits, etc. Don't forget about who is paying for the car. Wear and tear isn't free! Even pizza delivery guys get paid wear and tear allotments.

Second, who's paying for the employee's additional travel time? Do you expect them to do that for free? Either the employer is paying for it or you're fucking over the employees.

Third, fuck his/her family, right? I mean, who gives a shit if their kids ever see them?

Fourth, what do you do for those guys who need to be in multiple cities in a single day? Fuck their business or you allowing them to fly?

Fifth, compare road deaths annually with airline deaths.

And since you want to call us boot lickers, allow me to point out that you're not being a good example. Are you boycotting something to stand up for your beliefs? Yes, and that's great. However, is your protest insanely ineffective, and probably weird to others? Yes. "Son, I don't fly anywhere because 'The Government'! They won't have me licking their boots! Now excuse me while I obey laws and pay taxes."

Listen, we get it. The folks here get your boycott and it's commendable. However, if you think that gives you some sort of moral high ground to shit on those of us who still fly, you're delusional.

End of the day, you're doing nothing to correct what you see as a problem, which isn't a big deal, until you start insulting other people who cross your imaginary line in the sand. See, there are other ways you could be fighting the TSA, but you're not. Start a change.org petition. I'll sign it right now! Write your representatives! Write opinion pieces for MSM outlets. That's the system. That's the only way to get the change you want, but you're not doing any of that. You think your solo, unannounced boycott will deliver results to an industry that's 5.1% of the U.S. GDP.

And if you want to get technical, you're not boycotting those you're fighting against, you're boycotting airlines. Airlines aren't the TSA. Airlines have nothing to do with the TSA. If you wanted to directly attack the people responsible, instead of the innocent people caught in the crossfire, you'd be boycotting paying your taxes. That's where the funding for the TSA comes from. Or you could start supporting airports that have dumped the TSA. That'd send a far bigger message than not flying.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

United Airlines

Post by Malcolm »

If only my city had competing airports.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

I re-read my post, and it comes way meaner than intended. I assume Gordo was being snarky, and that was my intent as well. I've had a rough, rough day. Think I'll go hide from society for until tomorrow.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54396
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by GORDON »

I was being snarky. I have a funnier response to it later when I am at an actual keyboard.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

Saw the presser by this guy'd lawyers. They did a number on him.

Still think it was embarrassing how he screamed like a little girl when they went to grab him though.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

The fact that they have a priority customer list proves that this was a discussed policy, so the doctor should win easily. Also, the FAA, if they're worth a damn, should be punishing United as this policy clearly breaks the law.

Reminds me of the old lady who sued McDonald's after she spilled her coffee on herself. Her lawyers used internal McDs documents to prove they knew the coffee was being served at unsafe temperatures.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

Intersting blog here. I suspect he would win in a civil court suing United (though they had little to do with his beating), but he clearly broke federal law.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

She argument is sound until this point:
Because if you choose to take advantage of the services the airport provides, you play by their rules.
Again:
Image
That's assuming this is 100% factual...

She's right in that he technically has to comply, however the airline broke the law first.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A similar example I can think of is cops aren't allowed to break the law to give you a ticket for breaking the law. So, let's say it's night time, and this will vary by local laws, but a cop around here can't sit with no lights on. That creates a safety hazard. So if he was sitting in the dark with no lights, and then gave you a ticket, it could be thrown out of court. Same as searches without warrants or probable cause.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53716
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

United Airlines

Post by TheCatt »

Vince wrote: It was argued here that the airline should have just started a bidding war and upped their offer until someone took it. I just heard yesterday that they are capped at $1350. By the federal government.
You're kinda misunderstanding that. The $1,350 cap is what you are ENTITLED to, by law. Airlines have all the leeway in the world to exceed that amount.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

Leisher wrote: She argument is sound until this point:
Because if you choose to take advantage of the services the airport provides, you play by their rules.
Again:
Image
That's assuming this is 100% factual...

She's right in that he technically has to comply, however the airline broke the law first.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A similar example I can think of is cops aren't allowed to break the law to give you a ticket for breaking the law. So, let's say it's night time, and this will vary by local laws, but a cop around here can't sit with no lights on. That creates a safety hazard. So if he was sitting in the dark with no lights, and then gave you a ticket, it could be thrown out of court. Same as searches without warrants or probable cause.
I'm glad you threw in the "assuming this is 100% factual". From the viewpoint of someone that has no dog in this fight, this outrage is starting to remind me of "Black Lives Matter". I'd call it "Flight Lives Matter". All of the frustration of flyers is being directed at at United over this incident.

If the pilot's wife is right and the FAA is pretty strict about getting flight crew moved to keep the schedules on time, I suspect the FAA will say United was in the right. If she's wrong about that, rather than bribing everyone I probably would have just said that the plane can't take off until one more person agrees to leave. So we might be here a few hours. And you're screwing up travel plans for a few hundred people down the line from you. But hey, your choice.

Your example of the cop can't break the law to give you a ticket for breaking the law. Where this analogy goes wrong is that United was not the law enforcement agency that removed the passenger. The airport police did that. If it was illegal to remove a passenger that was already seated, the police broke the law. United just asked them to do so. Now did they knowingly ask the police to break the law? Like you said, will be interesting to see how this plays out. Lots going into this.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

TheCatt wrote:
Vince wrote: It was argued here that the airline should have just started a bidding war and upped their offer until someone took it. I just heard yesterday that they are capped at $1350. By the federal government.
You're kinda misunderstanding that. The $1,350 cap is what you are ENTITLED to, by law. Airlines have all the leeway in the world to exceed that amount.
I'll give you that.

How much leeway are you given to give away your employer's money? Not trying to be snarky, but everyone is super willing to give away United's money when it isn't their job on the line for doing so. Yes, this will cost them much more, but 20/20 and all that. How was United to know dude would go batshit crazy and the airport cops would go Rodney King on him?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

If the pilot's wife is right and the FAA is pretty strict about getting flight crew moved to keep the schedules on time, I suspect the FAA will say United was in the right. If she's wrong about that, rather than bribing everyone I probably would have just said that the plane can't take off until one more person agrees to leave. So we might be here a few hours. And you're screwing up travel plans for a few hundred people down the line from you. But hey, your choice.

Your example of the cop can't break the law to give you a ticket for breaking the law. Where this analogy goes wrong is that United was not the law enforcement agency that removed the passenger. The airport police did that. If it was illegal to remove a passenger that was already seated, the police broke the law. United just asked them to do so. Now did they knowingly ask the police to break the law? Like you said, will be interesting to see how this plays out. Lots going into this.
No, the cops didn't break the law. They aren't required to know air law. That's United's responsibility, and they're the ones that instigated the entire situation by breaking the law. Point being the law was broken the minute they threw out the couple BEFORE they asked the doctor to leave.

Meanwhile, United has a new problem.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

United Airlines

Post by Vince »

Leisher wrote: No, the cops didn't break the law. They aren't required to know air law.
Bwahahahaha!

Edited: Okay... sorry, but I had to come back to this. Earlier you argued against the police breaking the law in order to enforce the law. These were not regular beat cops. These were airport police. Not really sure what all goes into airport police training, but at any rate... if the police did not break the law by removing the passenger, then they were perfectly within their duties to do whatever bodily harm they did after the crybaby in question went running back on board the plane after having been removed.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

Vince wrote:
Leisher wrote: No, the cops didn't break the law. They aren't required to know air law.
Bwahahahaha!

Edited: Okay... sorry, but I had to come back to this. Earlier you argued against the police breaking the law in order to enforce the law. These were not regular beat cops. These were airport police. Not really sure what all goes into airport police training, but at any rate... if the police did not break the law by removing the passenger, then they were perfectly within their duties to do whatever bodily harm they did after the crybaby in question went running back on board the plane after having been removed.
Normal cops don't need to know maritime or the laws according to the FAA. Not their jurisdiction.

If those were regular cops, they didn't do shit wrong. Except not protecting his head from hitting an armrest.

If those were sky marshals or TSA, then they were 50/50 right and wrong. They would be right to remove a disruptive passenger, and that's the story they heard and encountered. However, they should have known he was within his rights.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54396
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by GORDON »

GORDON wrote: I was being snarky. I have a funnier response to it later when I am at an actual keyboard.
I was going to say this even before it came out you were in a foul mood:

Leisher: "MM MMee mm im imm mmm mm mm-inng mmm mm MM-MM mm mm-mm mm mm MM-MM-MM mmm."

Translation: "The only thing I like more than sucking cock is tossing the salad of a TSA guy," because he currently has a penis in his mouth.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

United Airlines

Post by Malcolm »

Leisher wrote: Meanwhile, United has a new problem.
The article alternates between his being "bitten" and "stung." One part is where the venom comes from and one ain't. It's not hard. Get it the fuck right.
Leisher wrote:
If those were sky marshals or TSA, then they were 50/50 right and wrong.
The TSA is always wrong.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65250
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

United Airlines

Post by Leisher »

GORDON wrote:
GORDON wrote: I was being snarky. I have a funnier response to it later when I am at an actual keyboard.
I was going to say this even before it came out you were in a foul mood:

Leisher: "MM MMee mm im imm mmm mm mm-inng mmm mm MM-MM mm mm-mm mm mm MM-MM-MM mmm."

Translation: "The only thing I like more than sucking cock is tossing the salad of a TSA guy," because he currently has a penis in his mouth.
Might want to check that IM to see why I was in a foul mood.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Post Reply