Re: Not the best way to handle overbooking
Apr 12th, 2017'Fly the unfriendly skies': Twitter users mock United after disturbing viral vid
United stock drops $1.4 billion following passenger beatdown | REPORT | World |
Does doc’s rep excuse United?
Regardless of what the existing policy is right now (for any airline), when someone purchases a ticket they should be guaranteed a seat on the plane they purchased that ticket for.
Period.
Nope. In fact Air Canada not only does it, they engage in a form of racketeering while they do it. You buy your ticket in a show of good faith by both sides and then they "suggest" you buy seat insurance to make sure you can actually get on the flight you just paid for.
Just like the mafia who won't outright rob you for protection money but "can't be held responsible if something happens" if you don't pay it, Air Canada "won't be responsible" if you are unable to board your flight because you didn't pay them extra and above for your seat.
You can fly Allegiant and get just a seat frame until a tech comes along and brings cushions if you complain.
The captain didn't say get off his plane. The desk supervisor isn't the captain of the aircraft. The Chicago Aviation Division goon squad isn't the captain of the aircraft.
Lol
Seriously though, is this an unintended consequence of America's hyper capitalism?
The whole premise that led to this scenario seems completely absurd to me.
Why is overbooking even a problem?
This is FUKKED
Lol
Seriously though, is this an unintended consequence of America's hyper capitalism?
The whole premise that led to this scenario seems completely absurd to me.
Why is overbooking even a problem?
This is FUKKED
They both are! The rule is if John Wayne used it in a cowboy movie, it's a good gun.
If John Wayne used it in a war movie, it's a mean scary deadly killer assault rifle.
![]()
The crew or captain. It doesn't make any difference. He was told to leave. He was breaking federal law by refusing.
Because people make reservations and then miss their flights, often because connecting flights are late, or they got held up in a security screening line, or just change their minds because a kid gets sick or there's something else that stops them at the last minute. The alternative to overbooking is either the airplane flies with empty seats, which means less profit, which means they have to raise prices, or the airline charges you for that seat whether you made the flight or not.
Bottom line is if the airplane doesn't belong to you then you have no right to be in it if the representatives of the owners say they want you gone. You don't get to refuse to leave. This man child acted like a whiny two year old and got dragged out like a whiny two year old.
Because people make reservations and then miss their flights, often because connecting flights are late, or they got held up in a security screening line, or just change their minds because a kid gets sick or there's something else that stops them at the last minute. The alternative to overbooking is either the airplane flies with empty seats, which means less profit, which means they have to raise prices, or the airline charges you for that seat whether you made the flight or not.
Yeah, when corporations screw you it's because that is a feature of capitalism. Air travel is a maturing business with little room for customer growth. But capitalism demands constant growth, not continued profits but increasing profits. And when you can't expand your market you squeeze costs and rip off your customers.
Amazingly people who would never complain about capitalism lose their minds when airlines do this. Sometimes they get very near to the truth and complain about corporate greed.
Does that mean that any gun made after John Wayne died can't be labelled an assault rifle? The John Wayne loophole?
In this case, not enough people were willing to take the money United Airlines offered, so they had to call in the state to enforce their profits.
Actually, it does. The privileges of the captain are a matter of international law. The crew, not so.
International law? So what you're saying is that this guy should be hauled before the International Criminal Court with all the other international belligerents: Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet.
To be fair, corporations are supposed to be greedy. That's their purpose, to make money. In some countries, like Germany (I don't know about Canada), corporations are permitted to do certain things for social good, but not hyar in Murka! If a corporate officer or board does something good that costs the corporation money, they can be personally liable to the shareholders for the $$ loss.
Actually, the definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" (by which I mean the actual definition, not the shrieking armwaver definition) includes "selectable semiautomatic and automatic fire." Which means it has been illegal to manufacture or import them in the U.S., except for the military or law enforcement, since 1986, and private ownership is highly regulated (and damned expensive). Since 1986, one homicide has been committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, i.e., an assault rifle.
That's my point. ****ing customers is a feature not a bug.
Unless you buy it at the annual North by SouthEast Kansas John Wayne Convention and Corn Dog Eating Contest. The government doesn't need to worry about any terrists or darkskinned people attending.
Yep. Then we could send the Navy SEALs to free him, which we've promised we'd do if any American was ever brought before the ICC.
Tomahawks on The Hague! Captain, you are hereby authorized to go full-on stupid! Make America Great Again!
You're wrong on this (aside from the snark, which is actually pretty dead-on), but I don't expect things like facts to change your mind.
Corporations don't just treat customers like that, they also treat their employees like that.
Heck you could go to work one day, get called up to the supervisors office, get laid off and have security escort you off the property.
I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.
I'm wrong on what?
Proponents of trickle down economics say that more corporate profits means more jobs, but corporations don't want jobs, they want profits. So reality is the other way around. They will only create jobs if that means more profit. What happens when less jobs and lower wages mean more profit?
Be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Aside from the carnage, I mean.
But just you believe me, missy, the U.S. Navy SEALs can kill WAAAAY more people than some "self-radicalized" wannabe crashing an SUV into pedestrians!
Or even a drunk, washed-up former teenage movie star crashing an SUV into pedestrians.
I'm losing track, to be honest. We're fighting about refugees and guns, and pretty much agreeing on corporations and the notion that, legal though it may be, dragging a paying customer off a plane semi-conscious and bleeding and calling it "re-accommodation" probably isn't the best idea ever.
I'll try to keep my threads straight.
I take it that question is rhetorical. Further, the stats have shown over and over that the middle class circulating its money produces far more jobs and far more wealth than the rich and corporations "investing."
We aren't really disagreeing about guns. You posted something about gun specifications, which is all just gibberish to me, so I said something about assault rifles to annoy you. Whenever there's a gun debate people get overly specific about the definitions of gun types and I think it's silly. All you gotta say is "assault rifle" and you trigger a gun nut.
Yup, and income redistribution is better for the economy than corporate tax cuts. Best to give welfare recipients more money with less strings and then make CEOs piss in a cup for the salaries.
Or an anti-gun nut.
The solution to the U.S.'s gun problem is simple. Go after the handguns. Screw the "assault weapons;" long guns are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides and less than 10% of all gun deaths. Further, you can get around the Second Amendment because a handgun is not a military, therefore "militia," weapon. As a practical matter, it's a little tough to tuck a hunting rifle, or even an "assault weapon" in your waistband under your jacket.
Downside is that cops would have to come up with another reason for killing unarmed kids.
Nah, make 'em drink the cup. Not that they wouldn't, mind.