United overbooked a flight so they dragged a passenger off the plane

[xenogear3]

I don't understand why there is an argument.

Even the CEO admits that they didn't follow the protocol.

Overbook is common, but kick someone has already boarded is not.

[Allybeboba]

Whys that?
/10 chars

I also enjoy the quotation marks. Do we know more about this guy, or are you just pullin the old male version of a cow?

Don't believe his name has been released. Although it may have by now. Quite unusual in this day and age.
There are all kind of "doctors".

[buck008]

Oh, you mean like their Contract of Carriage you agree to? Gotcha covered.

I'm not saying it wouldn't stand up in court, but contracts are challenged all the time. I could sign a contract that obligates me to be a slave if certain conditions are met, but that contract is unenforceable because slavery is illegal. Even if I signed and agreed to it. Granted, that is a rather extreme example, contracts get picked apart and have their validity challenged every single day.

[lockedout]

It easily can mean, they can say "here is 1350." Now does that mean they cant do anything else?

Of course they CAN offer more but according to government regulation they aren't required to.

[GennGreymane]

Oh, he'll totally win a lawsuit. I suppose United would be the co-defendant for all of the "pain and suffering" they forced him to endure. Realistially that's how he'll win the case, because figuratively and LITERALLY had "pain and suffering", only it was at the hands of law-enforcement.

Potentially. Like I said, things in US law tend to be pretty complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they CAN offer more but according to government regulation they aren't required to.

Which is why I found the point pointless.

They can offer more if they want, which is my point

[Wiyld]

Whys that?
/10 chars

I also enjoy the quotation marks. Do we know more about this guy, or are you just pullin the old male version of a cow?

Because boba wants to smear the guy in order to feel 'right' about what happened

[Wyrt]

This is basically the situation, except United dealt with it worse than they should have. They expect people not to show up so they can cut the rate for everyone involved. If they didn't, every single ticket on the flight would be more expensive.

Personally, I'd say raise the fare and stop with the shitty practice, but we all know the increased fare wouldn't change a damn thing.

But the tickets of people who don't show up are already paid for.

[lockedout]

Potentially. Like I said, things in US law tend to be pretty complicated.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is why I found the point pointless.

They can offer more if they want, which is my point

They aren't required to though, that's THE point.

[sonololo]

This is basically the situation, except United dealt with it worse than they should have. They expect people not to show up so they can cut the rate for everyone involved. If they didn't, every single ticket on the flight would be more expensive.

Personally, I'd say raise the fare and stop with the shitty practice, but we all know the increased fare wouldn't change a damn thing.

And there's also a specific thing that enables them to do that: Sometimes flights to city X with connection to Y are cheaper than direct to X without connection to Y, so some users are exploiting that with buying tickets to Y, and getting off on X.

So flight from X to Y flies with an empty seat. Which is PAID for, and profit-hungry airlines try to fill those seats.

But those seats aren't empty sometimes.

The pricing is fucked up, and that thing is worldwide.

[GennGreymane]

Don't believe his name has been released. Although it may have by now. Quite unusual in this day and age.
There are all kind of "doctors".

Well your tactic for discussion here is pretty much what I described in the quote. It seems instead of a solid argument, you just want to call this guy a whiner, a baby, and discredit his field. Honestly, I expect more.

- - - Updated - - -

They aren't required to though, that's THE point.

And if he does not take the offer, then what? This is why I say law is a bit more complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

Because boba wants to smear the guy in order to feel 'right' about what happened

Pretty much this. its a weak argument

[lockedout]

Well your tactic for discussion here is pretty much what I described in the quote. It seems instead of a solid argument, you just want to call this guy a whiner, a baby, and discredit his field. Honestly, I expect more.

- - - Updated - - -



And if he does not take the offer, then what? This is why I say law is a bit more complicated.

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty much this. its a weak argument

He has to leave regardless.

[I Push Buttons]

Oh, my sweet summer child they are not. Trust me many of them have heaps of stuff that gets trumped by plenty of laws around the globe.

Just look at STEAM getting hit over refunds in different courts around the globe.

Hell even Blizzard's ToS trying to claim it effectively ignore Australia's (or New Zealand's, or Malaysia's, and a few others) consumer protection laws, they try to say that those countries will be bound by US law, which in Australia at least, is not something that they can do.

Just because they put something in a contract doesn't mean it will automatically stand up in a court or when challenged.

How exactly is US video game companies trying to circumvent laws in other countries where they sell games relevant to an agreement between a US business and a US citizen in US court?

[GennGreymane]

He has to leave regardless.

And then we get into the nice messy part.

[skitzin]

And if he does not take the offer, then what? This is why I say law is a bit more complicated.

Well clearly it's not about "friendly skies" but "do what we say or we'll beat you up". You know the same tactic used by criminals.

[GennGreymane]

How exactly is US video game companies trying to circumvent laws in other countries where they sell games relevant to an agreement between a US business and a US citizen in US court?

I saw it as an example of an adhesion contract being shat on by courts. Happens.

- - - Updated - - -

Well clearly it's not about "friendly skies" but "do what we say or we'll beat you up". You know the same tactic used by criminals.

That can be one way to frame it

[skitzin]

How exactly is US video game companies trying to circumvent laws in other countries where they sell games relevant to an agreement between a US business and a US citizen in US court?

You brought it up, specifically with the line: "The "contracts" we sign when hit those accept buttons without reading them are pretty fucking ironclad".

The fact is that seldom is a contract "ironclad" and just because it's electronic doesn't suddenly make it "ironclad".

I have used two easy examples of how a contract requiring you to click agree is not in fact ironclad. Do try to keep up.

[buck008]

He has to leave regardless.

So he legally purchased a ticket. He shows up on time, checks baggage, boards flight. He's in his seat, prepared to head to his destination, and is told that he needs to give up his seat (again, the seat he legally obtained), because the airline overbooked. That's the airline's problem, not the consumers. He isn't trespassing, he broke no laws. There's a solution to this situation that didn't need to involve the police kicking the shit out of him and forcibly dragging him off the plane.

[lockedout]

And then we get into the nice messy part.

That's on the police/security who don't work for UA.

[GennGreymane]

Oh I just had to share this


Honestly Pepsi should be thankful. (I hope I dont get banned due to people who disagree with me reporting me to silence me)

- - - Updated - - -

That's on the police/security who don't work for UA.

You seem to think its all simple.

[Not A Cat]

Overbooking should be illegal if it means forcing someone to get off the plane. It's the airline's mistake, not the paying customer's. What a horrible business practice.