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

"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"