Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: United Airlines forceably removes passenger...

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,752
    Quote Originally Posted by dontpanic View Post
    It really was disgraceful, supposedly the 4 seats required were for United crew on their way to service another flight. Personally I would have jumped at the 800 dollars on offer and am quite surprised they couldn't find 4 people willing to delay their flight for that. Fault lies entirely with United, if the flight was overbooked then they should have never been allowed to board in the first place, big difference between blocking someone from boarding and giving them some compensation as well as getting them on the next flight etc and physically removing someone who is not being violent from his seat. Their CEO has changed his tune and is now into a major damage limitation exercise but the passenger in question is now assembling a team of lawyers who will probably get more than 800 dollars compensation!
    Next flight was the next day. How about next to money offering a hotel room.

  2. #22
    Senior Member dontpanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain View Post
    Next flight was the next day. How about next to money offering a hotel room.
    As far as I know the hotel and food and drink are supposed to be a given on top of the compensation(in EU anyway) was not aware there was an upper limit on the amount they could offer. personally I would have jumped on 800 dollars to delay my recent holiday by 24 hours.

  3. #23
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by dontpanic View Post
    As far as I know the hotel and food and drink are supposed to be a given on top of the compensation(in EU anyway) was not aware there was an upper limit on the amount they could offer. personally I would have jumped on 800 dollars to delay my recent holiday by 24 hours.
    Recent holiday
    But it's a Chicago to Louisville flight.
    People have lives, work and all sorts of things to get bacj to.

    I can say for certain 800usd would not be enough for me to stay until 3pm the next day.
    After 3-5 days entertaining for business all I want to do is go home.

    Now if the next flight was early morning I would entertain the offer if it was hotel,food and 800usd
    But it would have to be a good hotel near the airport so no hassle

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,508

  5. #25
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Honestly who gives a damn what she says.

    The point is the airlines in the US have treated their customers like crap over the last 15 years and it's getting worse.

    It doesn't matter if it's "legal".

    Something should change but it won't because they basically have monopolies and the Govt are in their pocket.
    And the Obama administration has a huge fault in that.


    Just today I cancelled a United flight within 24hrs of booking.
    They don't send you any confirmation that you cancelled the flight
    So if they don't refund me, for some reason, I have no proof I cancelled my flight.
    I politely asked the rep how is that possible and that it doesn't make sense
    Of course all I get is attitude.

    They all suck but JetBlue, Southwest and Virgin

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    781
    Well at least the video should be enough for even the dumbest of Lawyers to extract a maximum compensation claim for the doctor.
    When Munoz sent that letter to staff basically saying "The guy deserved it" and the stock dropped you could almost hear the United Board Chairman saying (To Munoz) "You better apologise, or our stock loss is coming out of your bonus!".
    (Or that he'd better fix things or be flying rubber dogshit outta Hong Kong...)

    Now, it looks like this flight was a real short haul domestic one. I bet they don't even allocate seats to names?
    Cheap airlines have a "Free for all" approach to seating. People don't appreciate the difference between this and the generally accepted practice of issuing boarding passes with passenger names and seat numbers on them.
    None of which makes it right. "Come along sir....don't make us Taze you...".
    Last edited by Changone; 13th April 2017 at 19:27.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,508
    Well Paulie, you were barely out of your diapers when the liberals (Democrat Jimmy Carter Adm.) decided to deregulate the airline industry. Their hope was to instill competition in the industry and by doing so, achieve lower airfares, so that everyone could afford to fly. Basically, they wanted to put the bus companies and railroad passenger services...out of business.

    In doing so, they killed what has come to be known as the "Golden Age" of airline travel in the U.S. Those were the days when people paid a fair price and actually dressed up to fly. The service was impeccable in most all cases. And the complaints of "customer service" such you mention, were nearly unheard of.

    I remember a time when our CEO said that the passenger load factor (% of filled seats) that he sought, was around 70%. He reasoned that this would give a comfortable flying experience and allow for 4 star service to be extended to our passengers. (And still make a profit)

    This same CEO was called to testify before Congress, regarding the pending "Airline Deregulation Act". He told them that in his opinion, there would be an ensuing blood bath among airlines, with many going bankrupt and eventually out of business. Hundreds of thousands of airline workers and families would be affected negatively. That airplanes would be packed to capacity and passenger service would greatly decline! And...he stated again, that in his opinion, the end result some 20 or thirty years ahead, would be a consolidation of the surviving carriers (mergers). And the monopolies at that time would allow for companies to charge whatever fares they wished, and so forth.

    I'd say that old Mr. Kelly was pretty "spot on" in his predictions.

    In one sentence, nowadays..."You get what you pay for!" (And you can't pay enough to get prime service, it doesn't exist anymore)

    Check this out, from Wiki...

    In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
    What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up. So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"
    Last edited by Pablo; 13th April 2017 at 10:45.
    TLandHim likes this.

  8. #28
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    In one sentence, nowadays..."You get what you pay for!" (And you can't pay enough to get prime service, it doesn't exist anymore)

    Check this out, from Wiki...

    In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
    What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up. So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"
    The"you get what you pay for" and going back to deregulation talk doesn't hold water anymore when United made 2.3bil net profit last year.

    They are making a shit ton of money at the fares they have now.....so there is zero excuse for how they treat passengers

  9. #29
    Senior Member geir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Ranong
    Posts
    4,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    The"you get what you pay for" and going back to deregulation talk doesn't hold water anymore when United made 2.3bil net profit last year.

    They are making a shit ton of money at the fares they have now.....so there is zero excuse for how they treat passengers
    I think Pablos point was that that's because they can and that's what monopoly does.
    A blowjob is better than no job!!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    Well Paulie, you were barely out of your diapers when the liberals (Democrat Jimmy Carter Adm.) decided to deregulate the airline industry. Their hope was to instill competition in the industry and by doing so, achieve lower airfares, so that everyone could afford to fly. Basically, they wanted to put the bus companies and railroad passenger services...out of business.

    In doing so, they killed what has come to be known as the "Golden Age" of airline travel in the U.S. Those were the days when people paid a fair price and actually dressed up to fly. The service was impeccable in most all cases. And the complaints of "customer service" such you mention, were nearly unheard of.

    I remember a time when our CEO said that the passenger load factor (% of filled seats) that he sought, was around 70%. He reasoned that this would give a comfortable flying experience and allow for 4 star service to be extended to our passengers. (And still make a profit)

    This same CEO was called to testify before Congress, regarding the pending "Airline Deregulation Act". He told them that in his opinion, there would be an ensuing blood bath among airlines, with many going bankrupt and eventually out of business. Hundreds of thousands of airline workers and families would be affected negatively. That airplanes would be packed to capacity and passenger service would greatly decline! And...he stated again, that in his opinion, the end result some 20 or thirty years ahead, would be a consolidation of the surviving carriers (mergers). And the monopolies at that time would allow for companies to charge whatever fares they wished, and so forth.

    I'd say that old Mr. Kelly was pretty "spot on" in his predictions.

    In one sentence, nowadays..."You get what you pay for!" (And you can't pay enough to get prime service, it doesn't exist anymore)

    Check this out, from Wiki...

    In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
    What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up. So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"
    And her I thought right wing people was all for free competition, no regulations, and let the market decide......

    Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,508
    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    The"you get what you pay for" and going back to deregulation talk doesn't hold water anymore when United made 2.3bil net profit last year.

    They are making a shit ton of money at the fares they have now.....so there is zero excuse for how they treat passengers
    Take it up with the C.A.B. then. Their task is to monitor safety, fares, profits, and service levels of the airlines.

    Oh yeah...that went away with the Deregulation Act. 5555




    It's not about how much THEY'RE making, it's how much YOU'RE paying!

    And good for them, successfully transitioning from a Nieman Marcus type of service, to a K-Mart sort of provider. Though they'll never be able to recover the tens of billions of dollars that were lost collectively, adjusting to this system!

    You're paying K-Mart prices, so you'll get that kind of service!

    I don't have much sympathy for people bitching about airline service these days. Being one of the hundreds of thousands of airline employees who bore the brunt of deregulation, and in most all cases subsidizing the cheap fares through our pay and work reductions! Stagnating growth and slow progression while our companies battled to stay in business against the newly up-sprung competitors. All done so that everyone else could enjoy low fares.

    Besides taking a 2 year "layoff" in the early 80's (with a young family and expenses)...for my first twenty years, I don't ever remember getting a pay raise that ever lasted for a year or more. Company always coming back for more pay and work concessions to help weather against the new competition. These upstart airlines had no "senior" personnel, they paid their employees crumbs with few benefits, so as to offer the unbelievable low fares. They had no costly infrastructure, maintenance facilities, reservation systems, pension plans, and such. They came in "on the cheap" and beat the piss out of the long standing companies that did have such costs. I'm still proud and glad that my company is among the survivors.

    Eventually, all the "low cost" upstarts were either picked up and merged with legacy carriers, or went by the wayside in bankruptcy. Now, the surviving carriers have all merged together and picked out their battlegrounds, and are making great profits again. (Just as our CEO predicted and told Congress in 1979) As I said, good for them!

    Remember Air Florida...one of the "darlings" of the new Deregulation Act. The airplane that they sank into the Potomac River 1982 (R.I.P.), was one of my company's airplanes, before we were forced to downsize and start selling equipment. This Air Florida accident happened while I was laid off and struggling along to keep my family fed...while every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" were off for their first airplane rides..."Sheeeit! these airplane tickets is even cheaper than takin' a fcuking bus!"

    I just shook my head finding out that as part of the Act, the government was actually subsidizing unrealistic low cost financing for the upstart airlines! The average prime interest rate was in the mid teens and that time. And major airlines were struggling to acquire any new equipment. But the new upstart airlines were guaranteed rates as low as 4%...to increase competition in air travel!

    Sorry to go off on a rant, but it's a subject that's very near to me!

    I couldn't give a shit about people complaining these days, and at these airfare prices! I'd say to keep up with inflation, you should be paying around 5 or 6 times more for your ticket...then you could bitch!
    Last edited by Pablo; 13th April 2017 at 15:34.

  12. #32
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    Take it up with the C.A.B. then. Their task is to monitor safety, fares, profits, and service levels of the airlines.

    Oh yeah...that went away with the Deregulation Act. 5555




    It's not about how much THEY'RE making, it's how much YOU'RE paying!

    And good for them, successfully transitioning from a Nieman Marcus type of service, to a K-Mart sort of provider. Though they'll never be able to recover the tens of billions of dollars that were lost collectively, adjusting to this system!

    You're paying K-Mart prices, so you'll get that kind of service!

    I don't have much sympathy for people bitching about airline service these days. Being one of the hundreds of thousands of airline employees who bore the brunt of deregulation, and in most all cases subsidizing the cheap fares through our pay and work reductions! Stagnating growth and slow progression while our companies battled to stay in business against the newly up-sprung competitors. All done so that everyone else could enjoy low fares.

    Besides taking a 2 year "layoff" in the early 80's (with a young family and expenses)...for my first twenty years, I don't ever remember getting a pay raise that ever lasted for a year or more. Company always coming back for more pay and work concessions to help weather against the new competition. These upstart airlines had no "senior" personnel, they paid their employees crumbs with few benefits, so as to offer the unbelievable low fares. They had no costly infrastructure, maintenance facilities, reservation systems, pension plans, and such. They came in "on the cheap" and beat the piss out of the long standing companies that did have such costs. I'm still proud and glad that my company is among the survivors.

    Eventually, all the "low cost" upstarts were either picked up and merged with legacy carriers, or went by the wayside in bankruptcy. Now, the surviving carriers have all merged together and picked out their battlegrounds, and are making great profits again. (Just as our CEO predicted and told Congress in 1979) As I said, good for them!

    Remember Air Florida...one of the "darlings" of the new Deregulation Act. The airplane that they sank into the Potomac River 1982 (R.I.P.), was one of my company's airplanes, before we were forced to downsize and start selling equipment. This Air Florida accident happened while I was laid off and struggling along to keep my family fed...while every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" were off for their first airplane rides..."Sheeeit! these airplane tickets is even cheaper than takin' a fcuking bus!"

    I just shook my head finding out that as part of the Act, the government was actually subsidizing unrealistic low cost financing for the upstart airlines! The average prime interest rate was in the mid teens and that time. And major airlines were struggling to acquire any new equipment. But the new upstart airlines were guaranteed rates as low as 4%...to increase competition in air travel!

    Sorry to go off on a rant, but it's a subject that's very near to me!

    I couldn't give a shit about people complaining these days, and at these airfare prices! I'd say to keep up with inflation, you should be paying around 5 or 6 times more for your ticket...then you could bitch!
    I do understand you have a personal stake in all this.

    But I just don't agree with you.
    They would be out of business if they were charging even 3 times what they do now.

    I even stopped flying 1st class because it simply wasn't worth the money.
    Most times the planes were old and shitty so it didn't make sense.
    I bought a full1st class ticket on Delta....sitting in 1st row only to be told I had to wait to order my lunch after the people with more miles ordered.
    I ended up getting 150usd back for that ridiculousness.

    As I said .....US airlines and most airports are an embarrasment
    But they laughing all the way to the bank.....so joke is on us

  13. #33
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    By the way..........as I said, I think in-flight service has vastly improved, and ironically, especially at United.

    Of course, the pilots always do a great job

    It's all the crap outside of that sucks

  14. #34
    Senior Member dontpanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,823
    The get what you pay for thing is a little misleading, if I buy a 20 year old car from an auction with a ton of mileage on it and no warranty well then if it blows up after a month then I have no real comeback. But if I buy a ticket to get me from A to B regardless of form of transport the least I expect is to get from A to B within a reasonable time. What I don't expect is premium service while I am on the plane/bus/train. I don't expect to get fed, to have a tv to watch some movies while I travel, a whole lot of comfort, the staff to be courteous and there to be very few staff in the first place.

    Ryanair have used this model very successfully in the EU with a bare minimum service onboard and charging through the roof for extras like checking in a bag, printing your own boarding card(last time I checked it was 40 Euro if you want check in staff to print it for you!) the food and drink they sell on board is crazy overpriced and their staff aren't entirely pleasant to deal with. EG I was flying back from Spain a few years back with Ryanair and there was problems with the air traffic control in Dublin airport, after about a 3 hour delay we eventually boarded and I asked the stewardess will we be landing in Dublin suspecting that we were going to be diverted to Cork and face a 3 hour coach journey to Dublin. Her answer, I don't know.

  15. #35
    Senior Member Stillearly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    829
    United training film

    Pablo and Changone like this.
    'If it floats, flies or fcuks , it's cheaper to rent"

  16. #36
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Seems this incident may have been the turning point?

    United changing flight staff booking rules
    Delta and United upping the compensation significantly
    That is potentially......the amount is what they can possibly offer


    United changes policy, crew can't displace seated passengers | CTV News

    We will see if things get better for the long haul or just better for a few months

  17. #37
    Senior Member MrDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    Transport them by minibus instead of kicking people off a flight they paid for.
    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    Then, as I said, the staff had to be in Louisville the next day...........they could have put the crew on a minibus.........but they'd rather screw passengers
    Pablo mentioned contract concerning round transportation.
    I think contracts such as that are BS, BUT the is another element that we do not know.
    FAA required rest time.
    Based on Google Maps the surface travel from ORD to SDF is 4 hours and 44 minutes ... without traffic.
    That could mean easily five hours, likely six hours with a bit of Chicago and Indianapolis traffic and on a bad day seven hours.
    Add maybe an hour to hire the proper transportation, making it possibly seven to eight hours.
    Depending on the departure time (next day) and required rest time the flight next day could have been delayed for several hours if not canceled ... even if the crew was there.


    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    They were offering 800 when the limit is 1350........that is criminal
    How the hell do you come up with $1,350 as a limit that can be offered.
    Delta just increased its own limits from $2,000 to $9,950 when a manager is signing off and from $800 to $2,000 when a gate agent is signing of.
    My guess is that United (at the time) had a similar $800 limit concerning the discretion of the gate agents.
    IF the $1,350 you are referring to is criminal you should contact your congressional representatives as the set that amount as a LEGAL limit for maximum required in case of involuntary denial of carriage.
    $800 and $1,350 as figures have NO relation to each other.
    As for Delta the $9,950 is another technical limit; if it was set to $10,000 all kinds of federal paperwork would be involved.

  18. #38
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDK View Post
    Pablo mentioned contract concerning round transportation.
    I think contracts such as that are BS, BUT the is another element that we do not know.
    FAA required rest time.
    Based on Google Maps the surface travel from ORD to SDF is 4 hours and 44 minutes ... without traffic.
    That could mean easily five hours, likely six hours with a bit of Chicago and Indianapolis traffic and on a bad day seven hours.
    Add maybe an hour to hire the proper transportation, making it possibly seven to eight hours.
    Depending on the departure time (next day) and required rest time the flight next day could have been delayed for several hours if not canceled ... even if the crew was there.




    How the hell do you come up with $1,350 as a limit that can be offered.
    Delta just increased its own limits from $2,000 to $9,950 when a manager is signing off and from $800 to $2,000 when a gate agent is signing of.
    My guess is that United (at the time) had a similar $800 limit concerning the discretion of the gate agents.
    IF the $1,350 you are referring to is criminal you should contact your congressional representatives as the set that amount as a LEGAL limit for maximum required in case of involuntary denial of carriage.
    $800 and $1,350 as figures have NO relation to each other.
    As for Delta the $9,950 is another technical limit; if it was set to $10,000 all kinds of federal paperwork would be involved.
    1350 is the cap they are required to pay by DOT

    https://hbr.org/2017/04/airlines-lik...overnment-rule

    So it is relevant.....they could have moved their offer up to 1350 and possibly got more people to volunteer

  19. #39
    Senior Member MrDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by marc26 View Post
    1350 is the cap they are required to pay by DOT

    https://hbr.org/2017/04/airlines-lik...overnment-rule

    So it is relevant.....they could have moved their offer up to 1350 and possibly got more people to volunteer
    You might want to read up.
    The $1,350 maximum compensation is NOT a DOT rule, it is a federal law listed in the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) governing maximum compensation for Involuntary denial of carriage.
    In this case it is 14 CFR 250.
    DOT may be the enforcement agency much a city police may enforce state or federal law.
    Congress set these rules, not DOT and not FAA nor any other agency.
    When it comes to offering compensation for volunteers 14 CFR 250 specifies NO amount, NONE

    § 250.2b
    (a) In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation.


    The airline can offer $1,000,000 if it so sees fit or it can offer $1
    The airline by federal law is free to set its own rules within the given parameters.
    Up and until this event the maximum by most airlines were $800 by a gate agent.
    Did United completely fcuk up?
    100%
    Were any laws broken up and until force was being used ... No.
    The forceful part, civil rights, PR, etc. are all separate issues.
    Aside from loss in market CAP I doubt United will get out of this below $1 Mil, then add loss in revenue and the port authority in Chicago is not out of the woods yet either.

  20. #40
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDK View Post
    You might want to read up.
    The $1,350 maximum compensation is NOT a DOT rule, it is a federal law listed in the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) governing maximum compensation for Involuntary denial of carriage.
    In this case it is 14 CFR 250.
    DOT may be the enforcement agency much a city police may enforce state or federal law.
    Congress set these rules, not DOT and not FAA nor any other agency.
    When it comes to offering compensation for volunteers 14 CFR 250 specifies NO amount, NONE

    § 250.2b
    (a) In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation.


    The airline can offer $1,000,000 if it so sees fit or it can offer $1
    The airline by federal law is free to set its own rules within the given parameters.
    Up and until this event the maximum by most airlines were $800 by a gate agent.
    Did United completely fcuk up?
    100%
    Were any laws broken up and until force was being used ... No.
    The forceful part, civil rights, PR, etc. are all separate issues.
    Aside from loss in market CAP I doubt United will get out of this below $1 Mil, then add loss in revenue and the port authority in Chicago is not out of the woods yet either.
    The use of the word "criminal" wasn't literal

    Just meaning they were being shady

    I think this guy is getting a hell of a lot more than 1mil

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •