Hey. I heard you booked this flight legally. GET OFF THE F***ING PLANE!!!!
- Thread starter Parasondox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Basically they do it because they're cheapskates, they didn't offer the volunteers that much because they generally don't offer cash reimbursements for volunteers, last time years ago, I voluntarily got off an American Airlines flight that was overbooked they gave me a voucher reimbursement that was only good for future plane tickets, I have a relative that got even more screwed and was given individual vouchers that couldn't be used together so it was basically just a bunch of "$100 off your next flight" coupons. Don't remember what airline he was on but now he basically tells everyone to never volunteer to get off the plane unless you get some verification that the payment is cash/check/ or at least a lump sum voucher, or wait for involuntary expulsion so you can at least be legally guaranteed some kind of monetary payout.Nielas said:
Here, let me help you.Parasondox said:
A post was made on United Airlines forcibly removing a passenger, and a somewhat intelligent discussion emerged as to whether or not that was an illegal action. Then Jiub jumped in, complaining about millennials, despite the fact that the passenger was 69 years old, and therefore a member of the baby boomer generation, and that the US is being sold to the dogs because of those "damn milllenials," and there should be forced military service, and blackjack, and hookers, and people disagreed about that, and were therefore authoratarian leftists because they had a different opinion and...well, that's what happened.
Shame, really - the circus was fun while it lasted.
That's good to hear. Apparently he was initially offered $400, then $800 [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/united-airlines-passenger-break-law-david-dao-dragged-off-overbooked-flight-3411-a7678716.html]. Two of the four accepted the $800. That's 3/5 of what he was eligible for, it seems, under law.Nielas said:
Even though according to the "my plane my rules" law of the captain, Dr. Dau was technically breaking the law [http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-video-overbooking-chicago-louisville-security-passenger-denied-boarding-a7677601.html] by refusing to leave. Yet I'd love to see United even try to bring this guy to court. United's beleaguered PR team would resign en masse if they took that route. Plus they used the term 'voluntarily' which meant he would legally have the option of declining to leave 'voluntarily'. My lawyer credentials are based on old episodes of Better Call Saul, but even I think I'd have a decent chance defending the good doctor in court.
How gloriously satisfying. Internet tears are just as salty as real tears, after all.Jiub said:
Not a great year to fly, what would new TSA rules about social media accounts being looked at, and airlines increasing being horrible to paying consumers.
What happens if you don't have social media that can be linked to you? I don't have Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc... There is going to be a day whereif you don't have any social media public to all that will raise flags of its own. Even the uni was pushing that I get social media so that they can put my face to their host of friendly researchers and staff as part of their marketing and 'proponency' of direct social engagement.Gergar12 said:
Fuck that noise. If it's something I have to deal with in my private time, they can pay me for it. If not, then fuck'em.
10 years ago, my manager was telling me not to say anything even remotely attached to work on social media. Now they're demanding you should have it and welcome demands towards you performing unpaid marketing duties. Social lifestyle media is garbage.
OT: Stock price drops will only work once the shareholders demand heads roll for it. But it won't solve overbooking, merely change where refusals occur (at the gate rather than in the plane) ... because it's profitable.
Okay so I saw news that Dr man once got busted for trading drugs for sex. That was the wrong thing to do, but how is it relevant to him being beaten and dragged off a plane? The dude could have been a convicted murderer and it still wouldn't matter as long as he was legally traveling! Which, from what I can tell, he totally was.
Past crimes don't mean nothing illegal will ever happen to them.
Past crimes don't mean nothing illegal will ever happen to them.
Welcome to whats wrong with the news media. They want to look for the bad side to everyone and sell it as expensive crap. They want to turn a normal everyday person into the villain they want us to hate. They did it to the guy who discovered the kidnapped women and now him. Fuck them with a mouldy wooden spoon. They just want ratings and a story they can sex up.Silentpony said:
That is kind of immaterial, however. Stock market is sentiments of potential profits. 4% drop... man, see if I was s traveler on that plane and saw all the camera phones viewing it... the near instant profits you could make with a quick phone call to some short selling fund.pookie101 said:
0% div yield, 3.8% profits in a day. Short selling is dangerous, however... but with such negative press... fan the flames by talking to someone you know queued up to discuss the matter on a televised news network(s) who pushes a narrative of where politicisns "were thinking" of tackling overbooking and enforcing customer standards of care in law.
Really make them hurt before you have to rebuy. Funnily enough, the CEO, COO, CFO and Board might have profited in a similar fashion. With a 0% div yield, the only people owning stock are day traders, short sellers, officers in the company, etc. Fact of the matter is they'll be a whole lot of people who saw depreciated UAL stock are those who were interested only in immediate profits (or losses in the case of those being demanded to providr covering for short selling).
So a lot of drop might be day traders trying to cut their losses. No one would buy UAL stock for a long term investment. Like, as an Australian example, RIO gives me fully franked 3.66% DivY.
Far better investment.
Can't help but notice it's only ever a circle jerk when you don't agree with it. Funny how that always works.Jiub said:
Recap
United Airlines created a shitty situation through poor planning.
United Airlines staff did not lay hands on anyone. From the footage I've seen theyre not even present at that stage, having deferred to the relevant authorities.
An aviation officer under the purview of the department of aviation made a decision to use excessive force.
No one was beaten. The footage clearly shows the man landed heavily on his face while offering passive resistance to excessive force. He flopped into the armrest of an adjacent seat face first while going limp. While this is a direct result of excessive force being used, there is still a significant difference between beating someone and inflicting accidental harm. This isnt to say the officer was right, his use of excessive force still resulted in injury, but context matters.
What the passenger has done over his life before this incident means jack shit, and its poor form to be going through that past in headlines.
This is a crap situation but a huge win for the actual offending organization who are getting barely any attention as everyone fixates on United.
United Airlines created a shitty situation through poor planning.
United Airlines staff did not lay hands on anyone. From the footage I've seen theyre not even present at that stage, having deferred to the relevant authorities.
An aviation officer under the purview of the department of aviation made a decision to use excessive force.
No one was beaten. The footage clearly shows the man landed heavily on his face while offering passive resistance to excessive force. He flopped into the armrest of an adjacent seat face first while going limp. While this is a direct result of excessive force being used, there is still a significant difference between beating someone and inflicting accidental harm. This isnt to say the officer was right, his use of excessive force still resulted in injury, but context matters.
What the passenger has done over his life before this incident means jack shit, and its poor form to be going through that past in headlines.
This is a crap situation but a huge win for the actual offending organization who are getting barely any attention as everyone fixates on United.
Excessive force is one of those loaded terms that while the actions it represents can vary quite a bit in severity, it tends to evoke a more extreme interpretation in the layman. Basically people are likely to see "beating" and "excessive force" as synonymous.Elijin said:
Anyway, I hear[small](no source, just reading unverified comments on the internet)[/small] the officer is under a temporary leave while an investigation is underway. I'm wondering how much blame the officer will bare if it's found that calling him there in the first place was against proper procedure.
Smearing the victim makes the crime look less bad. "He's no angel", "Amber Heard is bisexual" and so on.Silentpony said:
I'm suprised they didn't offer 1st class seats on the next flight for those that cancel. THat might have gotten 4 people to cancel. Hell, I'd wait a few hours for a first class seat as long as I wasn't connecting.bastardofmelbourne said:
Or, they could have just found another flight to put those employees on.