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

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.
Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer
tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can
be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of
the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also
include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was
tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
However United Air abused this privilege
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

Petzl wrote in
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
filled.

Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
offer
tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
flight was tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
However United Air abused this privilege

No argument on that point.

--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Petzl wrote in
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
filled.

Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
(UA spin).

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
being Asian.

UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
profitably in China.

Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
offer
tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
flight was tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
However United Air abused this privilege

No argument on that point.

One would expect that removal be done safely?
It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

"Petzl" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Petzl wrote in
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
filled.

Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
(UA spin).

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
being Asian.

UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
profitably in China.

Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
offer
tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
flight was tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
However United Air abused this privilege

No argument on that point.

One would expect that removal be done safely?
It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)

Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
own people is NOT among those circumstances.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx

Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25

It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.

Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.

So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
to comply with the terms of Rule 21.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:


One would expect that removal be done safely?
It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)

Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
own people is NOT among those circumstances.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx

Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25

It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.

Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.

So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
to comply with the terms of Rule 21.

Sounds like you have checked it out
Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians
for ousting?
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3
translated by Google, page 3
https://is.gd/bRb1X1
There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
lottery in this news report.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:04:20 +1000, Petzl wrote:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:


One would expect that removal be done safely?
It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)

Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
own people is NOT among those circumstances.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx

Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25

It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.

Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.

So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
to comply with the terms of Rule 21.

Sounds like you have checked it out
Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians
for ousting?
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3
translated by Google, page 3
https://is.gd/bRb1X1
There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
lottery in this news report.

try translated link again?
https://is.gd/MI1yeu
or yourself
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

Petzl wrote in
:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Petzl wrote in
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
either to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats
are filled.

Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
(UA spin).

Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal that
were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four airline
employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame "overbooked".

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?

The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
being Asian.

I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, however, I do not subscribe to
any Asian newspapers.

UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
profitably in China.

They need to be concerned for more reasons than that.

Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

I have to correct my assumption here. They were not scheduled to work
another flight, they were headed to a meeting the next morning.

or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have
to offer
tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher
which can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to
be the cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the
airport. It could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel
if the later flight was tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants
to? However United Air abused this privilege

No argument on that point.

One would expect that removal be done safely?

Of course.

It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:43:30 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?

Three other Asians complied (not sure of sex)

The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
being Asian.

I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, however, I do not subscribe to
any Asian newspapers.

neither do I but use "goggle news" which offer translation
https://news.google.com.au/
or Asia
Japan
https://news.google.com.au/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ei=KIurV_OhK4H20gSq1Kb4AQ&ved=0 EKkuCAUoBQ&edchanged=1&ned=jp&authuser=0
china
https://news.google.com.au/nwshp?hl=...=cn&authuser=0
or anywhere

translated link
https://is.gd/MI1yeu
or see yourself
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en

"There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
lottery in this news report."

"Our" media are not reporting this which has got the Chinese
Government in a flap

UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
profitably in China.

They need to be concerned for more reasons than that.

China may ban UA from China according to Asian media.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

Petzl wrote in
news
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:43:30 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do
not make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into
them, and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?

Three other Asians complied (not sure of sex)

Fair enough....you have seen media I have not. Oh, well.....



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
Petzl wrote in
:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Petzl wrote in
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:


To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
either to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats
are filled.

Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
(UA spin).

Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal that
were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four airline
employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame "overbooked".

If so, then the "overbooked" passengers that were added at the last minute,
ie the UA employees, should have been the first to be booted per UA own
Contract of Carriage.

After all, check the definitions:

"Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding
valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed
check-in time than there are available seats."

The UE employees were not holding valid confirmed tickets nor did they
check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time. Otherwise, all
the seats wouldn't have been filled by boarded passengers. QED.

Their own Contract of Carriage....which is the legally binding
contract....does NOT allow them to act as they did.


More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

And yet, 'random' isn't an acceptable manner of selection per their own CoC.

Indeed, here's a nice write up on the whole thing as it concerns United's
contract and whether it violated the terms of that contract.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...requent-flyers