United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But it's probably okay, after all, it wasn't the government which did the beating.
...do you think that a bunch of flight attendants roughed him up? You are off in your own reality.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery Y'know, for all the Ra-Ra-Freedom you guys shout, sometimes you really go in the complete opposite into what we Germans call "Obrigkeitshörigkeit" - slavish obedience to superiors.
are you fucking droning on about now? The only freedom that should be violated here was his freedom once he broke a federal law and caused such a fuss. If not for the fuckhead passenger, this would just be a story of an airline bumping passengers, which would not be a story at all.
Once again: This was wholly UA's doing. The passenger merely contributed. Let's not confuse cause and effect, shall we? After all, it takes two to Tango and someone has to do the first step.
I'm done with your particular slavish obedience.
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Once again: This was wholly UA's doing.
Yes, they did this just so the flight attendants could beat up a passenger. At least that is what happened in your alternative reality.
-
@Polygeekery They did it because they needed four seats and didn't care that they were screwing over their customer. Fuck United. They don't deserve anybody's business.
-
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They did it because they needed four seats and didn't care that they were screwing over their customer.
That is one way to look at it, sure. But also, if those 4 people did not get to the other location in time, an entire flight's worth of passengers would have been delayed for hours as it would not have had enough crew to take off.
They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. But I put most of the blame for almost all of this on Dao.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They did it because they needed four seats and didn't care that they were screwing over their customer.
That is one way to look at it, sure. But also, if those 4 people did not get to the other location in time, an entire flight's worth of passengers would have been delayed for hours as it would not have had enough crew to take off.
They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. But I put most of the blame for almost all of this on Dao.
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime. It's possible - if Delta can do it United can do it. (My experience was similar w/Delta)
-
@Captain also, if they did not care, why did they offer the passengers $800 to take a later flight? That seems pretty generous. The average American household makes that in a week.
-
@brianw13a
. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ58-FinalRule.pdfBut yes, United can just pay the overtime, we don't have any overbearing government regulations that prevent them from working their staff like dogs.
-
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
So United can just shit employees now? No. There are regulations on how much time they can spend in the air. It is entirely possible that there was no one else.
But sure, let's blame United for his concussions and facial injuries even though they did not do it and that is all a consequence of his own actions.
-
Caveat, this is the first time I have run across thestreet.com. I have no idea what they are on about and if they are a neo-Nazi propaganda outlet I disavow all responsibility. But this piece seems to offer a good counterpoint to the rest of the media on the incident.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
But sure, let's blame United for his concussions and facial injuries even though they did not do it and that is all a consequence of his own actions.
Did I do that?
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So United can just shit employees now? No. There are regulations on how much time they can spend in the air. It is entirely possible that there was no one else.
It's possible but I'd wager they never explored the option. Some douche made a mistake and this was how they corrected it. It's shitty
They can and do find others when these things happen - I've seen it firsthand. Maybe this time was different but for my money, someone screwed up and bumping this guy was how they corrected it.
My problem is more about how easily they bump passengers with tickets that were bought and paid for. Overselling and lack of planning is bull.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
That is one way to look at it, sure. But also, if those 4 people did not get to the other location in time, an entire flight's worth of passengers would have been delayed for hours as it would not have had enough crew to take off.
They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.This is one of those situations where, if someone asked me what I would have done in the situation, my answer would have been: "I wouldn't have allowed myself to get into that situation." If you find out you need to put 4 employees on a plane after it's already boarded, things have already gone drastically wrong. So, yeah, they deserve to be damned either way.
By the way, I do wonder about the other people on the plane. I would have taken the $800 and free hotel stay in a heartbeat.
-
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
My problem is more about how easily they bump passengers with tickets that were bought and paid for. Overselling and lack of planning is bull.
I do not disagree with you, but anyone who is flying in 2017 knows that this happens and that it could happen to you. But if you disobey anyone on the flight crew, and act as though this man did, you will be removed. If you do not cooperate, bad shit happens to you. United deserves blame for nothing beyond the bumping of the passengers. They should not get all the bad PR of this video. Chicago Airport Authority does, and the doctor himself does.
-
@antiquarian said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This is one of those situations where, if someone asked me what I would have done in the situation, my answer would have been: "I wouldn't have allowed myself to get into that situation." If you find out you need to put 4 employees on a plane after it's already boarded, things have already gone drastically wrong. So, yeah, they deserve to be damned either way.
Accounts widely vary. Some reports say that passengers were told before they boarded that there were not enough seats. If that is so, how they boarded the flight is also very weird.
@abarker was right, the whole thing was a clusterfuck. But only part of that clusterfuck is to blame on United. Everything beyond that is Dao's blame. He would not be in the shape he is if he had complied with the flight attendants, or the officers sent on the plane to remove him. He acted like a petulant child.
-
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Fuck United. They don't deserve anybody's business.
Also, Toby Faire, none of the airlines deserve anyone's business. They are all pretty much fetid shit.
-
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
b) The condition of the guy after being forcibly removed, with him being dragged down the lane like a sack of potatoes. Such images also don't go down well with the public. Plus for the guy.
@loopback0 said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
United deserves none of the vitriol for how he was removed. That is on him, 100%.
It's also on the security team removing him.
Employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not of United Airlines. UA merely called them; the responsibility fell upon them to deal with the situation in a professional manner. Their unprofessionalism was not UA's fault.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not of United Airlines. UA merely called them; the responsibility fell upon them to deal with the situation in a professional manner. Their unprofessionalism was not UA's fault.
Yes, but UA is the one being convicted in the court of public opinion for the actions of those officers, because idiots like @Rhywden believe what they wish.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Did you actually read the answers? The 2nd one from the top specifically references the case in question, gives citations, and concludes that the doctor did nothing wrong and they had no legal right to treat him the way they did.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Rhywden yes, but once he disobeyed a flight attendant he had violated federal law and there was really no choice but to remove him.
Overbooking flights and bumping people is a dick policy. Removing him after him being seated was a shit thing to do. Doing it because they needed to ferry their people is also shitty.
But, the customer violated federal law and airport security removed him. United deserves none of the vitriol for how he was removed. That is on him, 100%.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's a violation of federal law to assault a flight attendant. (Not sure why that's specifically a thing, since it's a violation of federal law to assault anyone, but that's what the code says.)
The airline had the right to prevent him from boarding. They did not do that. After he's seated, they had no right to forcibly remove him unless he posed a safety threat to the plane or the people on board, which he did not.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The 2nd one from the top specifically references the case in question, gives citations, and concludes that the doctor did nothing wrong and they had no legal right to treat him the way they did.
It looks like he did a lot of research. However, he's not a lawyer.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
After he's seated, they had no right to forcibly remove him unless he posed a safety threat to the plane or the people on board, which he did not.
Lay off the Twitter. He got argumentative and abusive at the flight attendants.
-
@Polygeekery They tried to illegally remove him from a flight after he had boarded. He asserted his rights. This is not "abusive," it's simple common sense.
-
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime. It's possible - if Delta can do it United can do it. (My experience was similar w/Delta)
They may have been in a situation where just "paying the overtime" could have put them in violation of pilot flight time regulations. Many people are aware that truck drivers are only supposed to drive so many hours in a given 24 hour period. Less well known is that there are limitations on airline pilots, ranging from minimum rest periods before and after duty periods, to limitations on duration of a continuous duty period. One of the interesting things to note is that there are restrictions on both duty periods and flight time, indicating that the two are not the same. The regulations are not written only for continuous time periods, either, but there are also limits on flight time based on calendar quarters and calendar years.
ETA: d
-
@antiquarian said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The 2nd one from the top specifically references the case in question, gives citations, and concludes that the doctor did nothing wrong and they had no legal right to treat him the way they did.
It looks like he did a lot of research. However, he's not a lawyer.
This person is:
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery They tried to illegally remove him from a flight after he had boarded. He asserted his rights. This is not "abusive," it's simple common sense.
He asserted his rights by yelling at the flight attendants, causing a scene and refusing the lawful orders of airport security??
Alright then.
-
@abarker That may well be, but if they didn't have any standby crew available, then they already screwed up a few weeks ago when the schedules were drawn up.
Also, just using a small private plane to fly the employees there separately would have probably been expensive... but it would undoubtedly have been far less expensive than the bad press they're getting, the millions they've already lost in market cap, and the revenue hit they're going to take over the next several months.
You would think that, of all the people on our forum, the self-styled "entrepeneur" could be expected to understand the concept of a cost-benefit analysis...
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@abarker That may well be, but if they didn't have any standby crew available, then they already screwed up a few weeks ago when the schedules were drawn up.
Also, just using a small private plane to fly the employees there separately would have probably been expensive... but it would undoubtedly have been far less expensive than the bad press they're getting, the millions they've already lost in market cap, and the revenue hit they're going to take over the next several months.
You would think that, of all the people on our forum, the self-styled "entrepeneur" could be expected to understand the concept of a cost-benefit analysis...
You're fucking retarded. Jesus Christ man, it's not like I said something disparaging about Elon Musk.
-
@Polygeekery What lawful orders?
What part of "they had the right to deny him boarding, but not to remove him after boarding" do you not understand?
-
@abarker all the more reason to not oversell the flight. Besides, it's entirely possible to find a flight crew that wouldn't be in violation of the regulations.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery What lawful orders?
What part of "they had the right to deny him boarding, but not to remove him after boarding" do you not understand?
Where is that a law or regulation? Citation please.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
(Not sure why that's specifically a thing, since it's a violation of federal law to assault anyone, but that's what the code says.)
Just a quibble, but it's not actually against federal law to assault people (except for certain federal officers). States have laws about assault. Some cities do. It's typically "always" illegal to assault someone when you're in the US because every state has such a law. But it's unclear which state's laws to apply at 35,000 feet. Which is why they made a federal law about assault.
Also, a "government's police" is only legally entitled to enforce it's government's laws. This is a big deal, because even if, say, Ohio's assault law applied while the flight was over Ohio, there wouldn't be any Ohio police to arrest anybody in California (when they hypothetically land). This is one of the reasons local police departments are saying no to helping ICE. Local police departments aren't entitled to (or budgeted for) enforcing federal law.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Where is that a law or regulation? Citation please.
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Also, just using a small private plane to fly the employees there separately would have probably been expensive... but it would undoubtedly have been far less expensive than the bad press they're getting, the millions they've already lost in market cap, and the revenue hit they're going to take over the next several months.
Ok, maybe this was a scheduling screw-up, but I suspect that it was probably a last minute change. All sorts of logistical issues could come up to explain this: a sick flight crew that needed to be replaced, a plane down for repair leaving a crew stranded a connection short of where they were supposed to be, or any one of dozens of other scenarios. This probably had nothing to do with poor scheduling and everything to do with Shit Happens™.
So why didn't they use a small private jet? Well, for one, United doesn't have a fleet of small, private planes. It doesn't make business sense for them to maintain a fleet of small jets like that just for this kind of situation. And as for chartering a plane, that's typically not something you can just do on the spur of the moment. Most charters have to be done in advance, and on the charter pilot's schedule, meaning that this flight crew wouldn't have been where they needed to be when they needed to be there. Of course United shoved this crew onto a plane that was headed to the right place. It was probably the only viable option.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery What lawful orders?
What part of "they had the right to deny him boarding, but not to remove him after boarding" do you not understand?
The plane is property of United Airlines. It is that company's private property. If they do not have the right to ask someone to leave their private property, then you do not have the right to ask someone to leave your home once you have invited them in.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The plane is property of United Airlines. It is that company's private property. If they do not have the right to ask someone to leave their private property, then you do not have the right to ask someone to leave your home once you have invited them in.
They had a contract and the doctor guy didn't violate any of its terms.
This is kind of how like Home Depot can't take your money and kick you out of the store without giving you what you paid for.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Where is that a law or regulation? Citation please.
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
That is contract law. They offered to pay the penalty.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
From Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage:
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:
…
C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.That seems to easily cover this scenario, especially since we don't entirely know the circumstances behind why the flight crew needed to be on that plane.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Where is that a law or regulation? Citation please.
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
That is contract law. They offered to pay the penalty.
Just because they offered doesn't mean he has to accept. You know that.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The airline had the right to prevent him from boarding. They did not do that. After he's seated, they had no right to forcibly remove him unless he posed a safety threat to the plane or the people on board, which he did not.
Where in the law or the airline's contract of carriage does it say that where the passenger is or whether they have boarded is in any way relevant to whether the passenger can be involuntarily bumped?
I mean, sure, the ideal time and place to stop someone is prior to them boarding, because it causes the least disruption and delay to all of the other passengers; the plane can begin the departure process while you're holding them there in the terminal. But as far as I can tell, being boarded and claiming a seat doesn't give you some guarantee that your paid ticket didn't already give you.
-
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Where is that a law or regulation? Citation please.
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
That is contract law. They offered to pay the penalty.
Just because they offered doesn't mean he has to accept. You know that.
I would be very surprised if there is not a "reasonable compensation clause" in there.
-
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
Sure there is. The fact that he's laid claim to a seat and sitting in it does not mean that the seat is in fact available for him, any more than the fact that he had a paid-in-full ticket.
In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available.
No. It attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport, which reduced the number of available seats for passengers. The number of seats available decreased, resulting that it had sold more tickets than there were seats available.
In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
...which just proves that whoever wrote it is full of , because passengers can and are refused transport for oversold situations. It's just defined and detailed in a different section of their contract of carriage.
-
@anotherusername #UnitedDidNothingWrong
-
#PetulantPassengersLivesMatter
-
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This is kind of how like Home Depot can't take your money and kick you out of the store without giving you what you paid for.
This situation was more like Home Depot taking your money and kicking you out of the store without giving you what you paid for, but giving back 2x-4x what you paid in compensation for the inconvenience, because there's a law that specifically says that they can kick you out, but if they do, they must compensate you that much.
Oh, and letting you come back as soon as they had more of what you originally bought, to pick one up, free, in addition to giving your money back several times over.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
That is contract law. They offered to pay the penalty.
No they didn't. The required penalty was significantly higher than what they offered to pay.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
That is contract law. They offered to pay the penalty.
No they didn't. The required penalty was significantly higher than what they offered to pay.
Horseshit.
-
@Polygeekery If they're going to get you there more than 2 hours late, as was the case for the doctor in question, they're required to pay 4x the cost of the original ticket, up to $1350. Offering $800 obviously does not clear that obligation. (When's the last time you saw a $200 commercial airline ticket?)
I refer you to the First Rule of Holes...
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery If they're going to get you there more than 2 hours late, as was the case for the doctor in question, they're required to pay 4x the cost of the original ticket, up to $1350.
No.