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.
That observation of mine was quite the eye-opener for you, huh?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.
Translation: Divine.Wind can't confirm the nonsense he posts, so he will stop responding to those who challenge him on his fallacious claims.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.
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?
Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
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.
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.
Now, because of the "Dao Effect", airlines may be directed by law from selling all seats just in case a crewmember needs it. Of course, the costs will be passed to the customers much to the appreciation of commuting crewmembers and other airline employees. Thanks Dao!
The crew was not following an illegal order. If you think it was, then please explain why you think so.I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
The police followed an illegal order. The flight was not overbooked nor was their a safety issue involved.The crew was not following an illegal order. If you think it was, then please explain why you think so.I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told..... Who the fuck do these crew people think they are taking /my/ god damn seat?!? ...
Let me guess...you are going to declare victory and run away.View attachment 122005
LOL
"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."
Disagreed. They followed a legal order but the plainclothes officer may have carried it out illegally. The courts will decide.The police followed an illegal order. The flight was not overbooked nor was their a safety issue involved.The crew was not following an illegal order. If you think it was, then please explain why you think so.I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.Employees doing as they were told.
No. I'm waiting for the courts to resolve this issue. I've cited FAA regs, corrected people on the differences between United and Republic employees versus City of Chicago employees, cited the United Contract of Carriage and numerous other facts on both this thread and the other one covering this event. Despite this, we have some people who ignore all of that and keep asking for me to cite facts. How many times am I supposed to post the same links, facts and other information?Let me guess...you are going to declare victory and run away.View attachment 122005
LOL
"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."
Let me guess...you are going to declare victory and run away.View attachment 122005
LOL
"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."
I posted what the law said. United and the cops they sent acted outside of the law. It is no different if I sent cops to remove you from a sporting event just because I didn't want you there.Disagreed. They followed a legal order but the plainclothes officer may have carried it out illegally. The courts will decide.The police followed an illegal order. The flight was not overbooked nor was their a safety issue involved.The crew was not following an illegal order. If you think it was, then please explain why you think so.I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?Just following orders.
Still waiting for someone to prove the crew did anything illegal.
We shall see if you are correct that United acted illegally.I posted what the law said. United and the cops they sent acted outside of the law. It is no different if I sent cops to remove you from a sporting event just because I didn't want you there.Disagreed. They followed a legal order but the plainclothes officer may have carried it out illegally. The courts will decide.The police followed an illegal order. The flight was not overbooked nor was their a safety issue involved.The crew was not following an illegal order. If you think it was, then please explain why you think so.I know not to follow illegal orders....without them being written....amazing how those giving illegal orders back down if they have to put it in writing.Yes. Don't you? Or are you retired, unemployed?
Still waiting for someone to prove the crew did anything illegal.
Why not install more jump seats for more crew? To simple and not too expensive, right winger.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.
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.
Now, because of the "Dao Effect", airlines may be directed by law from selling all seats just in case a crewmember needs it. Of course, the costs will be passed to the customers much to the appreciation of commuting crewmembers and other airline employees. Thanks Dao!
He is claiming the bottom line of private persons constitutes an exigency that necessitates the coercive use of force. That is not capitalism.Translation: Divine.Wind can't confirm the nonsense he posts, so he will stop responding to those who challenge him on his fallacious claims.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?
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?
some on the left believe it is merely institutional forms of class warfare that help the rich get richer faster while the poor get poorer. there should be no limits on compensation for passengers from any policy meant to secure the bottom line.View attachment 122005
LOL
"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."
Why should he get off?
He was in his seat and did nothing wrong.
I already posted that Contract of Carriage --- in its entirerty --- in post 844
