Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 173

Thread: This príck on the United airlines flight.

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe View Post
    The contract was broken by UA. It cannot be broken for arbitrary reasons which is precisely what they did. You cannot use contract law to justify breaking a contract for no reason other than your incompetence. |UA had an obligation to perform which they were shirking.
    If they couldn't legally over-book flights or bump passengers, they wouldn't do it. However, the fact is that they clearly can, since their right to do so (albeit whilst having to provide compensation) is enshrined in their Ts & Cs.

  2. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    I'd definitely have tried to get a dig in as they dragged him past.
    He'd have been getting some filthy looks and tsks from me and no mistake.

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    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.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    If they couldn't legally over-book flights or bump passengers, they wouldn't do it. However, the fact is that they clearly can, since their right to do so (albeit whilst having to provide compensation) is enshrined in their Ts & Cs.
    It doesn't make it right and they wont use this defence publicly because it is clearly unreasonable.

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Vegas View Post
    I had a stopover at Minneapolis. It was quite good it felt like a pub.

    Didn't like Atlanta though had to walk through and endless underground tunnel. Detroit airport was boring though I tried Popeyes chicken there for the first time. I don't understand the combination of chicken and a scone.
    I saw my 1st genuine hill-billy at Atlanta airport, dungarees, mullet, the works. Fascinating individual.

    Also had that thing where a detachment of soldiers comes through the airport and everyone gets up and starts applauding them and singing Star spangled banner. All in all, odd airport

  6. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    It doesn't make it right and they wont use this defence publicly because it is clearly unreasonable.
    Well it does make it right. Acting in accordance with the terms of a contract is pretty much the definition of right.

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    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.

  8. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    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.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    Well it does make it right. Acting in accordance with the terms of a contract is pretty much the definition of right.
    No, it isn't. The fact that a contract exists and was signed is not the legal end game in every instance.

    Not to mention the fact that you are confusing law and justice there. Unless you think that law automatically carries with it the sum of our collective moral judgements as to what is 'right'....

  10. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    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.
    Yes, a chap with some dignity and a regard for the rule of law.

    Sucks to be me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •