Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Scrolling up took me to the top of this page where you had no posts, no less one with a statute number.Correct. That's why Dao is wrong in so many ways. I have cited the laws he broke. Scroll up.You said he violated law. That goes well beyond the terms of that contract.
Had that been true, you would have easily been able to cite the law he violated that led the airline to involve security.
That you can't cite it reveals you're full of shit.
Mundane.Wind may have a problem coming up with a valid argument.Terms of the Contract of Carriage which Dao agreed to when he bought his ticket.What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?No. Why would I want to be a fucking politician or a fucking lawyer?Are you, "running for Congress"? They cannot tell the difference between the common offense and the common defense.
There was no exigency requiring that passenger be forcibly removed; only the "bottom line".
Disagreed, as I've pointed out, but unlike you, I won't rush to judgment, browbeat people with an uninformed and completely wrong opinion. I'm content to let this play out over the summer.
Just so we're clear and more fucking morons don't go high and left with exaggerated claims, I disagree with the way the O'hare aviation officer handled this. There were better and smarter ways to get Dao off the aircraft.
BULLSHIT.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844, after having posted an analysis thereof in post 842. >NOWHERE< does it provide any pretext for what the airline did. NOWHERE.
Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.
Shakedown Cruise1.1%. How much do you want to bet it'll be back up this time next week?United stock took a huge dive today
I've long thought their service sucked.
The usual sucker play at the Wall Street casino. House money creates a panic to drive down the price, buys low, and smirks as the price goes back up to a natural value.
Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....Correct. That's why Dao is wrong in so many ways. I have cited the laws he broke. Scroll up.You said he violated law. That goes well beyond the terms of that contract.
Had that been true, you would have easily been able to cite the law he violated that led the airline to involve security.
That you can't cite it reveals you're full of shit.
Apparently the Wind's new strategy is to claim "I already cited that, you missed it'.
That's why I put a post number on mine. Which he's avoiding as inconvenient.
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
are there no extra crew seats available for larger crews?The plane was not overbooked per United.The law says United was wrong.It depends on whether that is a business norm or not. In this case, passengers all agree to contracts of carriage. Most are about the same. Airlines do their best to avoid bumping passengers and try to make the best of it. In Dao's case, he violated the law and the law was called in...then they fucked it up.How long are you going to keep your customers by telling them what they don't want to hear?No they're not, I am certain I could find hundreds of times the average consumer is wrong, including you, want to bet?
No it doesn't, the FAA clearly says UA can and they did!!
§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Dr Dao had already boarded.
(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boardingto other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.
United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.
§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.
United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.
No.are there no extra crew seats available for larger crews?The plane was not overbooked per United.The law says United was wrong.It depends on whether that is a business norm or not. In this case, passengers all agree to contracts of carriage. Most are about the same. Airlines do their best to avoid bumping passengers and try to make the best of it. In Dao's case, he violated the law and the law was called in...then they fucked it up.How long are you going to keep your customers by telling them what they don't want to hear?
No it doesn't, the FAA clearly says UA can and they did!!
§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Dr Dao had already boarded.
(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boardingto other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.
United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.
§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.
United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.
how about, standby standing harnesses that can be attached to a bulkhead?No.are there no extra crew seats available for larger crews?The plane was not overbooked per United.The law says United was wrong.It depends on whether that is a business norm or not. In this case, passengers all agree to contracts of carriage. Most are about the same. Airlines do their best to avoid bumping passengers and try to make the best of it. In Dao's case, he violated the law and the law was called in...then they fucked it up.
No it doesn't, the FAA clearly says UA can and they did!!
§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Dr Dao had already boarded.
(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boardingto other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.
United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.
§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.
United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.
Isn't that enough?Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....Correct. That's why Dao is wrong in so many ways. I have cited the laws he broke. Scroll up.You said he violated law. That goes well beyond the terms of that contract.
Had that been true, you would have easily been able to cite the law he violated that led the airline to involve security.
That you can't cite it reveals you're full of shit.
Apparently the Wind's new strategy is to claim "I already cited that, you missed it'.
That's why I put a post number on mine. Which he's avoiding as inconvenient.
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
Europe's Ryanair and China are already looking at something like that: The SkyRider perching saddle --enjoy your flight!how about, standby standing harnesses that can be attached to a bulkhead?No.are there no extra crew seats available for larger crews?The plane was not overbooked per United.The law says United was wrong.
No it doesn't, the FAA clearly says UA can and they did!!
§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Dr Dao had already boarded.
(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boardingto other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.
United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.
§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.
United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.
Geez. I expect trolling from the usual twits, but not you Daniel. Shame on you.Mundane.Wind may have a problem coming up with a valid argument.Terms of the Contract of Carriage which Dao agreed to when he bought his ticket.What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?No. Why would I want to be a fucking politician or a fucking lawyer?Are you, "running for Congress"? They cannot tell the difference between the common offense and the common defense.
There was no exigency requiring that passenger be forcibly removed; only the "bottom line".
Disagreed, as I've pointed out, but unlike you, I won't rush to judgment, browbeat people with an uninformed and completely wrong opinion. I'm content to let this play out over the summer.
Just so we're clear and more fucking morons don't go high and left with exaggerated claims, I disagree with the way the O'hare aviation officer handled this. There were better and smarter ways to get Dao off the aircraft.
BULLSHIT.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844, after having posted an analysis thereof in post 842. >NOWHERE< does it provide any pretext for what the airline did. NOWHERE.
Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.
That's not trolling. He's right. You ridiculously claim Dao broke a law which prompted the airline to call security to come in and remove Dao from the plane; But you're incapable of citing the specific statute number you claim he violated. So no, you don't have a valid argument. You know it like everyone else here knows it.Geez. I expect trolling from the usual twits, but not you Daniel. Shame on you.Mundane.Wind may have a problem coming up with a valid argument.Terms of the Contract of Carriage which Dao agreed to when he bought his ticket.What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?No. Why would I want to be a fucking politician or a fucking lawyer?
Disagreed, as I've pointed out, but unlike you, I won't rush to judgment, browbeat people with an uninformed and completely wrong opinion. I'm content to let this play out over the summer.
Just so we're clear and more fucking morons don't go high and left with exaggerated claims, I disagree with the way the O'hare aviation officer handled this. There were better and smarter ways to get Dao off the aircraft.
BULLSHIT.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844, after having posted an analysis thereof in post 842. >NOWHERE< does it provide any pretext for what the airline did. NOWHERE.
Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.
No, the bottom line is not a reason to use force; unless you are in Teapot Dome.Isn't that enough?Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....Correct. That's why Dao is wrong in so many ways. I have cited the laws he broke. Scroll up.You said he violated law. That goes well beyond the terms of that contract.
Had that been true, you would have easily been able to cite the law he violated that led the airline to involve security.
That you can't cite it reveals you're full of shit.
Apparently the Wind's new strategy is to claim "I already cited that, you missed it'.
That's why I put a post number on mine. Which he's avoiding as inconvenient.
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
You claim I'm deranged, so why do you keep caring what I say?That's not trolling. He's right. You ridiculously claim Dao broke a law which prompted the airline to call security to come in and remove Dao from the plane; But you're incapable of citing the specific statute number you claim he violated. So no, you don't have a valid argument. You know it like everyone else here knows it.Geez. I expect trolling from the usual twits, but not you Daniel. Shame on you.Mundane.Wind may have a problem coming up with a valid argument.Terms of the Contract of Carriage which Dao agreed to when he bought his ticket.What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
BULLSHIT.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844, after having posted an analysis thereof in post 842. >NOWHERE< does it provide any pretext for what the airline did. NOWHERE.
Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.
You're fucking deranged.
Who said force? Besides you, I mean. You asked "No, the bottom line is not a reason to use force; unless you are in Teapot Dome.Isn't that enough?Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....Correct. That's why Dao is wrong in so many ways. I have cited the laws he broke. Scroll up.
Apparently the Wind's new strategy is to claim "I already cited that, you missed it'.
That's why I put a post number on mine. Which he's avoiding as inconvenient.
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
I enjoy the practice, just for fun.You claim I'm deranged, so why do you keep caring what I say?That's not trolling. He's right. You ridiculously claim Dao broke a law which prompted the airline to call security to come in and remove Dao from the plane; But you're incapable of citing the specific statute number you claim he violated. So no, you don't have a valid argument. You know it like everyone else here knows it.Geez. I expect trolling from the usual twits, but not you Daniel. Shame on you.Mundane.Wind may have a problem coming up with a valid argument.Terms of the Contract of Carriage which Dao agreed to when he bought his ticket.
BULLSHIT.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844, after having posted an analysis thereof in post 842. >NOWHERE< does it provide any pretext for what the airline did. NOWHERE.
Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.
You're fucking deranged.
Because, you are simply being disingenuous.Who said force? Besides you, I mean. You asked "No, the bottom line is not a reason to use force; unless you are in Teapot Dome.Isn't that enough?Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....Apparently the Wind's new strategy is to claim "I already cited that, you missed it'.
That's why I put a post number on mine. Which he's avoiding as inconvenient.
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger" and listed "the bottom line". I agreed.
Four people were removed from the flight for "the bottom line". Only one was removed forcibly and I've repeatedly stated that wasn't a good way to handle it. I've repeatedly stated there were better means resolve the situation. I've repeatedly stated that it wasn't United, Republic or the crew who removed Dao by force, but aviation officers working for the City of Chicago. Do you disagree that I've repeatedly posted those things?
No, it's "the bottom line" to sell every seat available. On some aircraft, there are "jumpseats" that are open and can accommodate a flight attendant or two and all airliners have a cockpit jumpseat for the FAA. When it's not in use by the Feds, then a pilot can ride it to work. In this case, the crew was assigned to fly to SDF.are there no extra crew seats available for larger crews?The plane was not overbooked per United.The law says United was wrong.It depends on whether that is a business norm or not. In this case, passengers all agree to contracts of carriage. Most are about the same. Airlines do their best to avoid bumping passengers and try to make the best of it. In Dao's case, he violated the law and the law was called in...then they fucked it up.How long are you going to keep your customers by telling them what they don't want to hear?
No it doesn't, the FAA clearly says UA can and they did!!
§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Dr Dao had already boarded.
(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boardingto other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.
United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.
§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.
United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.
Disagreed, but fine. Since you feel that way, I'll stop responding to your posts on this thread.Because, you are simply being disingenuous.Who said force? Besides you, I mean. You asked "No, the bottom line is not a reason to use force; unless you are in Teapot Dome.Isn't that enough?Nothing but diversion instead of a valid argument, is quite, mundane.Wind.How old are you? 20ish? Because you act like this kid....
"we have a handful of extreme left wing members here who feel that if they get the last word in, that they've won some kind of victory. I call them "mic drop Liberals". They'll deny every fact, every link presented and when someone gives up on them as a lost cause, these "mic drop Liberals" declare victory by default and drop their mic.
They seem to truly believe that if they say something long enough, that it becomes true. Odd, yes, but that's what they do."
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger, under our form of Capitalism, besides the "bottom line"?
What exigency was there to forcibly remove a passenger" and listed "the bottom line". I agreed.
Four people were removed from the flight for "the bottom line". Only one was removed forcibly and I've repeatedly stated that wasn't a good way to handle it. I've repeatedly stated there were better means resolve the situation. I've repeatedly stated that it wasn't United, Republic or the crew who removed Dao by force, but aviation officers working for the City of Chicago. Do you disagree that I've repeatedly posted those things?
