United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Even if it is, there must be agents / police accompanying them. How can a single person walking around the plane be a danger for those who are probably armed? Sounds like a bullshit excuse for lousy United crew to me.
If there is a prisoner on the plane then people moving around a lot is a security concern.
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And who would haul prisoners on commercial flights?
How else would you do a transatlantic extradition?
-
@dkf I assume he thinks they should charter a jet in order to move one prisoner instead of popping them on a commercial flight with LEOs on each side of them.
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How is that my problem? And who would haul prisoners on commercial flights?
It's how the Immigration service does deportations, except for a very few places that receive a large number of deportees at the same time, like Mexico. How "prisoner-y" it is depends a lot on the individual being deported.
-
@Polygeekery Nah, you just put a bunch together on one flight.
-
@levicki 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:
If there is a prisoner on the plane then people moving around a lot is a security concern.
Just throw the prisoner in the ocean, problem solved. The benefits of few outweigh the benefits of one and all that.
BTDT:
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Just throw the prisoner in the ocean, problem solved
Perfect opportunity for those fleets of 737-Max!
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Germans are in general more relaxed and forthcoming so any Lufthansa flight I had was a pleasure for me no matter if it was 2 or 12 hours.
I think free wine has something to do with it.
-
Train company is racing to see if they can become as awful as airlines:
Want to bring back 6 bottles of good Belgian beer, a couple of bottles of French wine, or a bottle of nice whisky or gin? Nope.
There is no checked-in luggage on Eurostar and the article clearly says they use the security scanners to locate bottles, so there is no way to avoid this. Oh sorry, actually there is one way, which is to use their "EuroDespatch" service, which "charges a minimum fee of £30 per item".
Well fuck you Eurostar.
-
@remi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Well fuck you Eurostar.
On the other hand, they were probably having a problem with seriously drunken idiots on their trains… (Asshats: spoiling good things for everybody.)
-
@dkf I know that they do, I've witnessed it first hand. Well not totally drunk people, but seriously drinking on board, and being very loud and very annoying for the rest of the carriage (usually it's hen parties). I wouldn't mind if they put some restriction on alcohol consumption on board for that reason. I'm pretty sure there must already be some kind of generic restriction on "annoying behaviour" or similar, but of course asking a train manager to actually confront drunken idiots on board is a bit too much to ask.
But since you cannot check-in your luggage, they have to extend this restriction to all luggage, and this really is a dick move. I hope that they will implement this in a sensible way, i.e. don't bother people who have one bottle neatly packed in the middle of their suitcase (yes this would be an easy to fool system, but now that the policy is known, how long before drunken idiots simply fill in a water bottle with their booze?) rather than slinging it from a handbag, but idiots being idiots, I have little hope for that.
Depending on how clearly this is said when you buy a ticket (and TFA says it's actually in their policy since a few months and no one really noticed it, and I haven't seen it last time I booked, so I'm inclined to think it's hidden in their 42 pages terms & conditions), I suspect you could try to fuck with them by arguing that their T&C are not valid (i.e. too restrictive, not what you can expect from a train company, and not legible enough). French courts are fairly sympathetic to the consumer, so you might have a real case here... if you're ready to spend months and thousands to get there!
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Lufthansa
Unfortunately, they have a code sharing agreement with United, so you have to be really careful if you don't want to be severely disappointed.
-
@remi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I suspect you could try to fuck with them by arguing that their T&C are not valid
I had a quick look and I definitely think you can tell them to fuck off, if you are pugnacious enough to get to courts over a bottle of whisky. Their T&C (French because I believe French consumer law to be more suitable for that, but the English version is probably very similar) does not fix any limit, just says that they can fix limits:
[Prohibited items include:]
45.6 boissons alcoolisées au-delà des limites que nous annonçons et/ou désignons lors de toute période (qui peut inclure une interdiction totale de boissons alcoolisées).
I've tried booking any journey and I can get up to where I fill in my CC number to pay (so the very last step before that sale becomes a binding agreement between them and me) and there is a link to the T&C but absolutely no other mention of that restriction (and absolutely nothing about luggage generally). So even doing my homework and reading the T&C, I cannot know what the restriction is before buying a ticket (I did manage to find the restriction mentioned on their website, but I really had to look for it very hard).
So I'm fairly certain that a French court would rule that they are imposing conditions that are not known at the moment you enter a contract with them, and that is contrary to common practice (so you can't really be expected to know about it), and/or that is an unneeded restriction to your freedom of, uh, transporting stuff (?), and that these conditions are therefore not valid (there are lots of precedents here of courts throwing out bits of T&C).
EDIT: re-reading what I wrote, it's even worse. I can (with some work) know what are the restrictions currently but I have no way to know what they will be at my travel date, and the T&C clearly indicate that the restrictions can vary according to time ("limits that we announce and/or indicate during any period", my translation). So you would have to agree in advance to unknown restrictions, which I think it a big no-no in French consumer's law.
-
United, back in the news again.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
United, back in the news again.
For USian scale...that's like getting sent to Boston when you should have gone to Chicago, right?
(Complete ass pull guess.)
-
@Karla It is a two hour direct flight, so yeah.
-
@Karla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
For USian scale...that's like getting sent to Boston when you should have gone to Chicago, right?
With a different carrier too…
-
@Karla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
For USian scale...that's like getting sent to Boston when you should have gone to Chicago, right?
Probably, but with this kind of mistake, it doesn't really matter if the cities are 2 hours away or half-the-world. It's a monumental fuck-up which absolutely should never have happened, but it actually doesn't really have much direct consequences because a 14yo can handle himself for a few hours and airports aren't really dangerous places (there is always staff around, various facilities & lounges etc.).
-
@remi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
14yo can handle himself for a few hours and airports aren't really dangerous places (there is always staff around, various facilities & lounges etc.).
I wouldn't bet on it if they haven't got a powerbank with them. Also, wireless data speeds are usually quite shit, so they might have to find another seat a few times
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I wouldn't bet on it if they haven't got a powerbank with them.
The main reason a lone 14yo will have problems is that they've not got access to the financial resources of an adult. Giving them their own credit card would be
Being able to charge their phone? Lots of airports have facilities for that!
-
@dkf said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Being able to charge their phone? Lots of airports have facilities for that!
But they'd have to find these facilities and - well, it depends on how imposing is the 14yo - fend off a bunch of [insert description] squatters that have built a fort using their bags and leeching off all the leccy they can possibly manage. So I've never had the luck. Ok, perhaps Stansaid isn't a very good example of how things should be run...
The main reason a lone 14yo will have problems is that they've not got access to the financial resources of an adult.
KEVINNN!!
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Ok, perhaps Stansaid isn't a very good example of how things should be run...
Well yes.
-
-
@boomzilla first off, I wasn't aware that flight attendants had a limit? Sure, fire them if they are drunk. But a legal limit? It is not as though they are pilots.
And why the hell is there a flight from Chicago to South Bend? It has to be quicker to drive. How can there be much of a need for such a thing?
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But a legal limit? It is not as though they are pilots.
They at least have evacuation responsibilities.
-
@boomzilla Quite a few of their responsibilities are safety related, from evacuation to dealing with unruly passengers to making sure the doors are properly latched. Even beverage service can adversely affect safety if stuff isn't secured properly during takeoffs, landings, and severe turbulence.
-
@HardwareGeek said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
severe turbulence
-
@dkf said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I wouldn't bet on it if they haven't got a powerbank with them.
The main reason a lone 14yo will have problems is that they've not got access to the financial resources of an adult. Giving them their own credit card would be
My girlfriend's daughters, 13 and 16, each have a debit card. The 13 year old is really good at spending any money instantly but the 16 yo has a lot of money saved though.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It has to be quicker to drive.
Have you never seen Chicago traffic? Also, I wouldn't want to break down in Gary or the South Side...
-
@lolwhat 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:
It has to be quicker to drive.
Have you never seen Chicago traffic? Also, I wouldn't want to break down in Gary or the South Side...
My drive (in Silly Valley) last Wed took 1hr51min to go 21 miles. This
didn't help... (yes, I was going south)
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Have you never seen Chicago traffic? Also, I wouldn't want to break down in Gary or the South Side...
I have. Far too many times.
It is still not as bad as airport parking, security, waiting to board, getting stuck on the runway, waiting to deplane, finding a cab or rental car, etc.
-
@lolwhat Chicago traffic isn't as bad as Boston traffic.
-
@dcon If only that were the biggest load of shit out of Mountain View
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And why the hell is there a flight from Chicago to South Bend?
It might be flying between a whole series of small airports. It also makes sense for people connecting at a hub (such as Chicago) since the time to get through the airport (security, etc.) can be a lot less at a small airport. And it's way easier to let someone else
drivefly than do it yourself, especially given the traffic near Chicago (which was so bad it reminded me of home, but with wider roads).
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@boomzilla first off, I wasn't aware that flight attendants had a limit? Sure, fire them if they are drunk. But a legal limit? It is not as though they are pilots.
In Europe the law is the same for cabin crew as for pilots: no more than 0.02% (88 ugl) alcohol, and no drinking from 10 hours before the start of the flight (*).
The rules in the US are similar, but I'm not sure if they are exactly the same.(*) Start of the flight is considered the moment the doors close with the intention of taking off. So that includes taxi etc.
-
@nerd4sale yeah, it makes sense when I consider safety responsibilities.
Fun fact: If you have a Commercial Driver's License in the USA, your threshold for DUI gets cut to 0.02BAC. This is regardless of whether you are driving a commercial vehicle or not.
At least that was the case 20 years ago when I had a CDL.
-
We hate Delta, too:
-
-
Spreading the virus stories...this is the closest thing to an airlines thread we have:
-
@boomzilla That's assuming the distance keeping guidelines go down. Keeping 6ft distance will take more than just leaving the middle seats empty.
-
Wrong airline, but creating a new thread just for that:
-
@Zerosquare All airlines have a policy of “don't be rowdy on the plane” and have had since forever in order to deal with, especially, seriously annoying drunks (since such idiots have been known to try to open plane doors in flight, set fire to stuff, and other things that put everyone on board at risk). When people get rowdy anyway despite being told to quieten down (typically several times), for whatever reason, the pilot will divert to the nearest practical airport, possibly summon the police, and get the assholes off his or her plane. And the airline will support their staff utterly.
Getting dumped in the middle of Buttfuck Nowhere, Kansas, will be good for those idiots. If they're not being arrested too, they can count themselves very lucky.
-
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with what the pilot did (and props to his employer for supporting him instead of throwing him under the
busplane to appease the customers). Just that the airline didn't match the one mentioned in the thread title
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@nerd4sale yeah, it makes sense when I consider safety responsibilities.
Fun fact: If you have a Commercial Driver's License in the USA, your threshold for DUI gets cut to 0.02BAC. This is regardless of whether you are driving a commercial vehicle or not.
At least that was the case 20 years ago when I had a CDL.
Has your level ever been that low?
-
@dkf said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
the pilot will divert to the nearest practical airport, possibly summon the police
If they're sufficiently rowdy that they're interfering with the flight or cabin crew, that's a Federal offense, so yeah, police will be called — either FBI or local police to hold the person until the FBI can get there.
49 U.S. Code § 46318. Interference with cabin or flight crew
An individual who physically or sexually assaults or threatens to physically or sexually assault a member of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft, or takes any action that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $35,000.
49 U.S. Code § 46504. Interference with flight crew members and attendants
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
-
@dkf said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Getting dumped in the middle of Buttfuck Nowhere, Kansas, will be good for those idiots.
In the middle of a Red state. They won't have any problem getting support in that case. Now if it was a rowdy democrat, that would be the perfect place to dump them.
-
-
@Zerosquare mail fraud? Reminds me of something
-
-
@Zerosquare does it cover guitars?