This príck on the United airlines flight.

[Sir C]

It isn't remotely difficult to grasp. As far as I am aware those clauses are inserted for legal reasons to cover the airline in the event of genuine emergencies and so forth. THey are not designed to be a convenient fall back to help with their own administrative and operational needs.

Our contracts with students allow us to remove a student from their course at any time without explanation. It goes without saying we have never done it and never will. Falling back on these clauses in a contract is the act of an utter ****.

And I have now used the term plane about 5 times. Will you please take the ****ing bait!

Those clauses are in the contract for whatever reasons the airline decides. On this occasion I believe the issue was positioning some crew, an operation requirement which, according to the terms of the contract, takes precedence over some pleb taking up a valuable seat.

How you treat your schoolchidren is entirely up to you, but has no bearing on how an airline should run its business.

I have explained to you many times the difference between a heavier-than-air flying machine and a tool used in carpentry; I am afraid it is now for you to choose to be right, or to be wrong.

[Peter]

Those clauses are in the contract for whatever reasons the airline decides. On this occasion I believe the issue was positioning some crew, an operation requirement which, according to the terms of the contract, takes precedence over some pleb taking up a valuable seat.

How you treat your schoolchidren is entirely up to you, but has no bearing on how an airline should run its business.

I have explained to you many times the difference between a heavier-than-air flying machine and a tool used in carpentry; I am afraid it is now for you to choose to be right, or to be wrong.

That is a dreadful attitude for a company to take towards its customers and directly contradicts the customer service they espouse. Thus they are liars who are deliberately misleading the public. They may not be breaking the law but you clearly see this as the be all and end all- I don't.

We shall just have to agree that you are who you are, regrettable as that may be.

[Burney]

That is a dreadful attitude for a company to take towards its customers and directly contradicts the customer service they espouse. Thus they are liars who are deliberately misleading the public. They may not be breaking the law but you clearly see this as the be all and end all- I don't.

We shall just have to agree that you are who you are, regrettable as that may be.

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.

[Peter]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[Luis Anaconda]

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

[Pat Vegas]

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

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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.

[Pat Vegas]

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.

[Sir C]

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.