This príck on the United airlines flight.

I don't have a problem with this BUT there seems to be some other stuff that went on which needs to be explained by UA.

Like what happened to him the first time he was taken off and returned all battered and bruised.

-

Similar thing happened to me in Joburg last year...British Airways flight back to London was overbooked and I was told at check in that they fuc ked up and I'll just have to keep checking back to see if there was room or they would compensate me. Ultimately missed the flight but there was leaving an hour later and they bumped me up to Business class at no extra charge. It was pretty sweet..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I can't help but notice that your argument seems to have de-escalated somewhat from 'This is a moral, legal and humanitarian outrage!' to 'This is poor customer relations!', p.

---

Not really. My point is that I might at least respect an airline that publicly declares that it will exercise its rights under a contract and do whatever the hell it likes to you for its own convenience. However, an airline that publicly makes all the right noises in its own PR and then merrily chooses to act like this is thoroughly dishonest. I cannot respect that.

I am not fashioning some moral outrage here. Its just in this instance the airline has acted in a ludicrous fashion and although they can claim to have acted within their rights under the contract, any reasonable person will see this and think it absurd.

If anything I am staggered by their willingness to act like this. Its terrible for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Yes, a chap with some dignity and a regard for the rule of law.

Sucks to be me.

---

Until you fancy a line of coke and a bit of weed, of course. Then the law can go and **** itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Not really. My point is that I might at least respect an airline that publicly declares that it will exercise its rights under a contract and do whatever the hell it likes to you for its own convenience. However, an airline that publicly makes all the right noises in its own PR and then merrily chooses to act like this is thoroughly dishonest. I cannot respect that.

I am not fashioning some moral outrage here. Its just in this instance the airline has acted in a ludicrous fashion and although they can claim to have acted within their rights under the contract, any reasonable person will see this and think it absurd.

If anything I am staggered by their willingness to act like this. Its terrible for everyone.

---

It's profoundly heavy-handed, incredibly bad PR and is self-inflicted at least inasmuch as it has come about in large part as a result of the company's business practices. On that I wouldn't disagree.

Where I don't agree is with any suggestion that this man behaved correctly, was an entirely innocent party or was within his rights to stay on the plane come what may. He wasn't and the company had the legal right to shift him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Yes, a chap with some dignity and a regard for the rule of law.

Sucks to be me.

---

....Aaaaaaannnnnd, The Guardian have decided it was racist. :hehe:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ear?CMP=twt_gu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's profoundly heavy-handed, incredibly bad PR and is self-inflicted at least inasmuch as it has come about in large part as a result of the company's business practices. On that I wouldn't disagree.

Where I don't agree is with any suggestion that this man behaved correctly, was an entirely innocent party or was within his rights to stay on the plane come what may. He wasn't and the company had the legal right to shift him.

---

Bless you awimb - this is exactly the sort of thread I came on here to see today.

ftr United is a **** of a company and anyone writing how they are "reaching out" to the disaffected passenger deserves everything coming to him.

The whole thing seems very infantile anyway

What rubbish. Some of you pretend to be law-abiders by sticking up for an incompetent behemoth who chooses to set thugs on their clients to cover up their incompetence.

Come back to this thread when UA have been forced to make the gigantic payout they will have to make and we'll see who was right.

But you never come back when you've been proved wrong do you? Just airbrush it into another failed trolling episode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's profoundly heavy-handed, incredibly bad PR and is self-inflicted at least inasmuch as it has come about in large part as a result of the company's business practices. On that I wouldn't disagree.

Where I don't agree is with any suggestion that this man behaved correctly, was an entirely innocent party or was within his rights to stay on the plane come what may. He wasn't and the company had the legal right to shift him.

---

He had a legal right to be on the plane. Disputes of this nature are not normally resolved by baseball bats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Bless you awimb - this is exactly the sort of thread I came on here to see today.

ftr United is a **** of a company and anyone writing how they are "reaching out" to the disaffected passenger deserves everything coming to him.

The whole thing seems very infantile anyway

---

And we are 3 points behind them now :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe

What rubbish. Some of you pretend to be law-abiders by sticking up for an incompetent behemoth who chooses to set thugs on their clients to cover up their incompetence.

Come back to this thread when UA have been forced to make the gigantic payout they will have to make and we'll see who was right.

But you never come back when you've been proved wrong do you? Just airbrush it into another failed trolling episode.

---

How did they break the contract?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe

He had a legal right to be on the plane. Disputes of this nature are not normally resolved by baseball bats.

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't have a legal right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe

He had a legal right to be on the plane. Disputes of this nature are not normally resolved by baseball bats.

---

Aircraft. And no, he had no such legal right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

And we are 3 points behind them now :-(

---

FFS Pat - trying not think about that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Aircraft. And no, he had no such legal right.

---

Maybe Mo should read this.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25

in addition

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVQcXR2HVhw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

How did they break the contract?

---

By being racist, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I understand that the airline told him to get off the aircraft and he refused, and then squealed like a pig when they dragged him off?

It's their fúcking aeroplane, mate. If they tell you to get off, get off or expect to be dragged off, surely?

What a grade A ****.

---

I'd be interested to know what the criteria was that resulted in these particular individuals being chosen. Was it last checked in or last to book seats, was it at random or was there another reason?

Regardless, United do come out of this looking like grade A c*nts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's profoundly heavy-handed, incredibly bad PR and is self-inflicted at least inasmuch as it has come about in large part as a result of the company's business practices. On that I wouldn't disagree.

Where I don't agree is with any suggestion that this man behaved correctly, was an entirely innocent party or was within his rights to stay on the plane come what may. He wasn't and the company had the legal right to shift him.

---

I don't think we disagree regarding the legal basis. My argument is more that their approach to resolving a situation that was entirely their own fault and problem was an abysmal way to treat an innocent customer caught in their incompetent cross fire.

I could use stronger words but you get the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

I'd be interested to know what the criteria was that resulted in these particular individuals being chosen. Was it last checked in or last to book seats, was it at random or was there another reason?

Regardless, United do come out of this looking like grade A c*nts.

---

Ticket class (ie how much you paid), frequent flyer status..basically they choose whoever's custom they care about the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Ticket class (ie how much you paid), frequent flyer status..basically they choose whoever's custom they care about the least.

---

In that case what would his options be? Take it on the chin and accept the decision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I don't think we disagree regarding the legal basis. My argument is more that their approach to resolving a situation that was entirely their own fault and problem was an abysmal way to treat an innocent customer caught in their incompetent cross fire.

I could use stronger words but you get the point.

---

I have only seen a clip of him being dragged around. But what else happened before that? I would like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

In that case what would his options be? Take it on the chin and accept the decision?

---

Yes, literally, or it may have been the nose.

I would have taken the money but that is me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

Maybe Mo should read this.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25

in addition

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

---

He didn't. And I cant see where it says they can remove you for their own convenience.

He did as he refused to leave the plane.

it says 'no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:'

Now it's a bit of a grey area if boarding still counts once you are on the plane I admit that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

He didn't. And I cant see where it says they can remove you for their own convenience.

---

It doesn't.. it mentions passengers who were denied boarding, he wasn't deneid as there weren't more passengers than seats, it was UA bumping people for their own staff, so in otherwords their rules don't seem to have any contingency for what happened

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

He did as he refused to leave the plane.

it says 'no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:'

Now it's a bit of a grey area if boarding still counts once you are on the plane I admit that.

---

That was his reaction to being told to leave and thus cannot possibly have been the reason they were asking him to leave. We know why he was being asked to leave and it was nothing to do with his behaviour..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pokster

It doesn't.. it mentions passengers who were denied boarding, he wasn't deneid as there weren't more passengers than seats, it was UA bumping people for their own staff, so in otherwords their rules don't seem to have any contingency for what happened

---

So it seems there is nothing in the contract that gave them the legal right to do it?

This changes things dramatically for a couple of posters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

So it seems there is nothing in the contract that gave them the legal right to do it?

This changes things dramatically for a couple of posters

---

Thank you Rumpole of the Bailey for fully analysing the standard terms and conditions of carriage :hehe:

All carriage is subject to operational requirements. They needed to position staff, that's an operational requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Thank you Rumpole of the Bailey for fully analysing the standard terms and conditions of carriage :hehe:

All carriage is subject to operational requirements. They needed to position staff, that's an operational requirement.

---

I am with you on this one Sir C. He broke the conditions by refusing, I would like to see how he was behaving before cops dragged him off.

And I would imagine in such an industry legal matters and the best lawyers are something they are pretty expert at.

if they give him anything it will be gesture of good will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Thank you Rumpole of the Bailey for fully analysing the standard terms and conditions of carriage :hehe:

All carriage is subject to operational requirements. They needed to position staff, that's an operational requirement.

---

**** me I am not going to plough through all that ****. Have you seen how long the section on ski masks is? :)

I imagine a man with dignity and respect for the rule of law would read them in their entirety.....between tokes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

I am with you on this one Sir C. He broke the conditions by refusing, I would like to see how he was behaving before cops dragged him off.

And I would imagine in such an industry legal matters and the best lawyers are something they are pretty expert at.

if they give him anything it will be gesture of good will.

---

Could have been worse. He could have been wearing leggings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Could have been worse. He could have been wearing leggings.

---

There are loads of technicalities on that long piece of info :hehe:
They can throw you off a plane for being barefoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

**** me I am not going to plough through all that ****. Have you seen how long the section on ski masks is? :)

I imagine a man with dignity and respect for the rule of law would read them in their entirety.....between tokes

---

You're obsessed with drugs, mate. I admit, I may have dabbled in my youth, but, you know... get over it.

A chap of your age banging on about 'weed' and 'tokes'. :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:nod: I have seen people put maple syrup on fried chicken. Actual humans. :shakehead:

There's something deeply wrong with North America, I fear. :-(

---

I'm led to believe it is largely an African American thing.

NTTAWWI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

I have only seen a clip of him being dragged around. But what else happened before that? I would like to know.

---

I only managed a few seconds of a clip but he was making the most appalling noise.

No self-respect, see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I only managed a few seconds of a clip but he was making the most appalling noise.

No self-respect, see?

---

:hehe: :hehe:

sounds like one of my guitar videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I'm led to believe it is largely an African American thing.

NTTAWWI

---

And also menthol cigarettes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

You're obsessed with drugs, mate. I admit, I may have dabbled in my youth, but, you know... get over it.

A chap of your age banging on about 'weed' and 'tokes'. :hehe:

---

I haven't smoked weed since the 90s. Never liked it.

Anyway, its illegal innit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

There are loads of technicalities on that long piece of info :hehe:
They can throw you off a plane for being barefoot.

---

Now that I agree with. These ****s who get on and whip their socks off. Its ****ing vile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I haven't smoked weed since the 90s. Never liked it.

Anyway, its illegal innit

---

Nonsense. These 'laws' with which you appear compelled to comply are merely for guidance for the wise man and the compliance of fools.