In other news today...
-
-
Presented without comment, because is any really needed?
-
@Zecc said in In other news today...:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html
Full support here. Leggings are underwear; someone made pantyhose a few shades darker and started telling women, "sure, you can totally go out in public wearing nothing but this on your lower half." You shouldn't. They're still underwear; wear something over them -- a skirt, or a top that's long enough to serve the purpose (I could say shorts, but shorts over leggings looks dumb and tacky, right?).
And the comment about the dad's shorts is just plain idiotic. Covering the knees is not anybody's criteria unless maybe we're talking about some religious private school. When was the last time you saw women's shorts that reached the knees; how is that an appropriate comparison? Leggings are inappropriate because they don't provide adequate coverage of the woman's ass and vagina, not her knees. And if a man tried to board a flight wearing pantyhose with nothing over them, I'd expect him to be turned away also.
Also, I notice that they were United employees/dependents traveling for free, just like the extra passengers who bumped mr. screamer off that other flight. The fact that those girls tried to board in their underwear and were turned away might be the only reason some fragile doctor didn't have to be dragged off the flight screaming bloody murder. Damned if they do, damned if they don't...
-
-
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
(I could say shorts, but shorts over leggings looks dumb and tacky, right?).
I think cutoff black jean shorts with tights could look cute.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Leggings are underwear; someone made pantyhose a few shades darker
False. The leggings I have in front of me are 92% cotton, 8% spandex; that makes them more similar to sweatpants than pantyhose (which is traditionally made of nylon).
You can tell pantyhose are underwear because they have a double-padded cotton crotch to catch any secretions. This is a feature common to panties and lacking from outerwear... and also lacking from leggings. Leggings have only a single seam at the crotch, indicating that you need to wear panties under them; to prevent cameltoe, full-coverage panties are recommended, making it no more obscene than any other tight pants.
-
@Yamikuronue sweat pants are opaque, though. Leggings usually look opaque right about until someone actually tries to wear them, and then the fabric is stretched out enough that they aren't opaque anymore.
If you have to match the color of the underwear to the color of the leggings (or your skin), you're probably not wearing pants.
-
@Yamikuronue said in In other news today...:
making it no more obscene than any other tight pants
But, they don't really leave any space for imagination
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Leggings usually look opaque right about until someone actually tries to wear them, and then the fabric is stretched out enough that they aren't opaque anymore.
That means they're too small. They're not supposed to stretch that much.
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
There are things that can't legally be put in a contract and enforced, due to being unconscionable. I hope this story gets enough press to make this one of them.
Yeah, for all the people rushing to United's defense, I seem to remember something about a judge being able to throw out contracts he doesn't like or something. Might be jurisdiction-based. The key is to be in a jurisdiction that favors individual rights over those of businesses.
I'm eagerly awaiting this guy's lawsuit, as I'm sure his patients who had appointments the next day are.
-
@obeselymorbid said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Overselling is legal
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
All the airlines I've used have either non-refundable non-changeable tickets or alteration fees or some combination of it. Economy premium tickets usually have one datetime change (at least 24h before the previously planned flight)included in the price which seems reasonable enough.
I think that is a much better solution to customers not showing up for their flight than overbooking.Nonsense. Airline seats are like stale bread!
“A bakery doesn’t want to have a lot of extra pastries at the end of the day they have to throw out,” said Seth Kaplan, managing partner at Airline Weekly, an industry publication. “To an airline, an empty seat is basically the same thing as stale bread. It’s something they can never sell again.”
-
@Groaner False analogy. The stale bread can never be sold again because it was never sold. Those seats did get sold, and if someone doesn't show up to claim what they paid for, well, that's not the airline's problem, now is it? They've already been paid for it, and they ought to be content with that!
This is simply greed: trying to get paid twice for the same merchandise, and then doubling down and resorting to violence to enforce that greed when it backfires on them.
-
@masonwheeler
Uh wut?Bakeries try to bake as little as possible so that they don't throw out stale bread.
Airlines try to ensure their sales account for no-shows so that they don't fly planes with empty seats. There're several well established procedures for balancing things when the algorithm goes wrong and sells more actual-shows than seats on the plane: people can pre-volunteer (fly standby) for a lower initial price rate, accepting the risk they don't get to fly on a given specific flight, people can accept an offer for a voucher and rebooking onto a later flight, or the airline has to follow the FAA process for involuntary bumping (including reimbursement up to 400% of the cost of the ticket or $1350, and rebooking onto another flight).
From what's been presented so far, it looks pretty cut and dried that United didn't fully follow the FAA process for involuntary bumping, and they're going to wind up paying for it in court. But the process for handling overbookings isn't fundamentally flawed - this was just a gate agent or flight crew that was in a hurry and didn't handle this specific situation correctly.
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
@Groaner False analogy. The stale bread can never be sold again because it was never sold. Those seats did get sold, and if someone doesn't show up to claim what they paid for, well, that's not the airline's problem, now is it? They've already been paid for it, and they ought to be content with that!
This is simply greed: trying to get paid twice for the same merchandise, and then doubling down and resorting to violence to enforce that greed when it backfires on them.
In addition, aren't there cancellation fees and/or non-refundability clauses? That's what makes his statement so egregious.
-
@izzion You don't seem to understand. I'm not saying that their process for handling overbookings is fundamentally flawed; I'm saying that the practice of overbooking itself is fundamentally fraudulent, and therefore I reject any logic predicated upon it being legitimate.
-
@masonwheeler
Given that the contract of the ticket clearly states "you can be removed from the flight for reasons up to and including overbooking", there's no fraud occurring. Ignorance of the buyer is not fraud on the part of the seller.Edit to add: If they overbooked you and then just shredded your ticket because there wasn't a seat available for you, yes, that would be fraud. Clearly telling you ahead of time "we might cancel your seat on this specific flight" and reimbursing you for more than the cost of your flight is an entirely different kettle of fish.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
From what's been presented so far, it looks pretty cut and dried that United didn't fully follow the FAA process for involuntary bumping, and they're going to wind up paying for it in court.
I'd say the passenger received quite the involuntary "bumping," based on his bleeding and unconsciousness.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
Given that the contract of the ticket clearly states "you can be removed from the flight for reasons up to and including overbooking", there's no fraud occurring. Ignorance of the buyer is not fraud on the part of the seller.
Just because the contract states that doesn't mean that it isn't
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
fundamentally fraudulent
It's just not technically.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@Yamikuronue said in In other news today...:
making it no more obscene than any other tight pants
But, they don't really leave any space for imagination
Some tights are thinner than other tights. And what Yami said about being too small.
Though a search on Amazon for tights displays items closer to panty hose.
Leggings,, OTOH, are definitely not underwear.
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
tights
@Karla said in In other news today...:
panty hose
Over here, those terms are synonymous (and we only use the first)
-
@RaceProUK said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
tights
@Karla said in In other news today...:
panty hose
Over here, those terms are synonymous (and we only use the first)
I'm sure the word tights is used in some cases to mean leggings (at least in the US).
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
I'm sure the word tights is used in some cases to mean leggings
When the leggings are too tight
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
This is simply greed: trying to get paid twice for the same merchandise
Ticket prices are calculated so as to make a profit for the airline. If they weren't allowed to oversell, they'd have to raise ticket prices to compensate. Customers would be forced to spend more money to travel on planes that weren't filled to capacity.
And even if all airlines were mandated to sell exactly as many seats as each plane had for every flight, inevitably there are flights where the original plane is grounded for mechanical reasons, and the airline has to substitute another plane instead -- possibly a smaller one.
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
then doubling down and resorting to violence
The security officers who responded were employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not United Airlines.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
The security officers who responded were employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not United Airlines.
They should get fired, regardless of who they work for.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler
Given that the contract of the ticket clearly states "you can be removed from the flight for reasons up to and including overbooking", there's no fraud occurring. Ignorance of the buyer is not fraud on the part of the seller.Edit to add: If they overbooked you and then just shredded your ticket because there wasn't a seat available for you, yes, that would be fraud. Clearly telling you ahead of time "we might cancel your seat on this specific flight" and reimbursing you for more than the cost of your flight is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Why's everyone going on about overbooking? That's not what appears to have happened in this instance.
They'd apparently fully boarded the plane with passengers before the other crew that needed to fly turned up/made their presence known.
Hence trying to find four empty seats while the passengers were sitting in them.
Had the 2nd crew turned up before boarding or even checkin, then there might not have been a problem.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
The security officers who responded were employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not United Airlines.
They should get fired, regardless of who they work for.
Last I checked, one of the guys is on leave.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
From what's been presented so far, it looks pretty cut and dried that United didn't fully follow the FAA process for involuntary bumping
In what way? Sure, the incentive they offered for passengers voluntarily surrendering a seat didn't meet the requirements for involuntary bumping, but I wouldn't expect it to.
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
The security officers who responded were employees of the Chicago Department of Aviation, not United Airlines.
They should get fired, regardless of who they work for.
I agree, their behavior was unacceptable. But that's not terribly surprising, from cops, when dealing with an individual who refuses to comply with lawful commands. A lot of them tend to react... badly... with people who try to oppose their authority.
The guy was a complete moron, by the way. Protip, when you're dealing with the cops: do what they say, especially if they're legally authorized to tell you to do it; let the lawyers sort out any objections you might've had later. In particular, if you're on private property (like an airplane), and the authorized representatives for that property's owner have ordered you to leave, you need to leave; and if you don't and they call the cops to come and remove you by force if necessary, you really need to leave!! They can and they will remove you by force if you don't comply with their orders. The fact that you believe that they're in breach of contract -- a civil matter -- does not grant your right to trespass -- a criminal one.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
In what way?
From what I read there, his take was that United should have presented the bumpee with written information about why he was getting bumped and what was going to happen next (compensation, rebooking, etc) before evicting him from the plane.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Protip, when you're dealing with the cops: do what they say,
I don't totally agree. A lot of cops will step on your rights if you just comply with whatever they say.
I've had cops ask me for my papers, and I kept answering : Am I under arrest or can I leave ?
When they realize that you know your rights, they usually go bother someone else
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
I've had cops ask me for my papers, and I kept answering : Am I under arrest or can I leave ?
AM I BEING DEPLANED?
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
From what I read there, his take was that United should have presented the bumpee with written information about why he was getting bumped and what was going to happen next (compensation, rebooking, etc) before evicting him from the plane.
I'd have expected it to be reasonable for them to verbally instruct him and escort him back to the ticket agent at the gate who'd provide him with whatever they were supposed to provide in writing, so that the flight didn't have to be delayed any longer. But really, we don't know what they told him or showed him; all we know is that he refused to leave the plane. The video didn't show what United employees told him or showed him prior to the aviation security officers arriving; it just shows the altercation that happened after they showed up.
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
Though a search on Amazon for tights displays items closer to panty hose.
"tights" in my dialect (Northern California native) means pantyhose. I bet Amazon assumes the same.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G59JnM4JKNQ
Shortly before the song when they're distributing gear they refer to the tights as "pantyhose" so take that as you will.
-
@Yamikuronue Google images returns the same thing for both terms. Dunno what's the other possible meaning.
-
-
Is this real?
*edit
It gets even better
-
@DogsB Some people love to read way too much into kids' stories
-
@wharrgarbl This woman is wearing pantyhose:
As I said before, they're usually made of nylon.
This one is wearing leggings:
They're made of cotton.
-
@Yamikuronue and tights == leggings == "yoga pants"?
-
@wharrgarbl "tights" is the term under contention here; regionally, some use it to mean pantyhose and some leggings. Otherwise, yes, you're correct.
-
-
I wonder if it works on this forum's brand of jelly potato
-
-
-
Here's my solution: impound everyone's cars and tell them they can have them back when they stop being petulant crybabies and actually work out a solution.
Or, y'know, remove the grass verges as the article suggests.
-
@RaceProUK Do they not have tow trucks in the UK?
-
@hungrier Yeah, but they're not generally used for sorting out residential parking squabbles
-
@RaceProUK What else would they be used for?
-
@hungrier Normally, turning up an hour late to tow broken down vehicles to wherever they need to go