United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

In article
Petzl wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

Maybe the selection priority should have been blacks, Mexicans,
Asians. We could have seen some cops get punched and beaten
before they pulled guns and started shooting everybody.

After this Asian guy wins his lawsuit, United might as well
paint black eyes on each cockpit window because this will never
ever go away.

It's going to haunt them like Pan Am Flight 103.

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

In article
Stitch wrote:

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

Now United and the hateful left-wing racist mass media are going
after this Vietnamese refugee / naturalized American citizen
with a vengeance.

They went and dug up dirt from 50 years ago in an effort to make
him look bad to trivialize the abuse actions by Chicago police
and United Airlines employees.

Talk about two tools of the state. United and AT&T, both
enemies of the American public.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:35:00 -0000 (UTC), Stitch
wrote:

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:

SNIP
He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.


I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart
wrote:

On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:

SNIP
He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.


I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

Latest reports are that the Dr. is filing a lawsuit against the
"Chicago Aviation Police".

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart
wrote:

On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:

SNIP
He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.


I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

They do and did, but are not police, just "airport security"
Chicago real Police are distancing themselves from this
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"