Fook United Airlines

Good article considering the distinction between "Denied Boarding Compensation" and "Refusal to Transport."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/unit...ing-passenger/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Good article considering the distinction between "Denied Boarding Compensation" and "Refusal to Transport."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/unit...ing-passenger/

---

And... would a cop really have qualified immunity in the (thus) illegal enforcement of illegal activity on the part of the airline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinjmpr

Maybe the real issue was that United Airlines didn't offer him his preferred form of "compensation" in exchange for being bumped. ;)

---

Oh, wow, that's funny right there! [LOL]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

I suspect the reason United didn't offer even more to get someone to leave voluntarily is that they are worried about setting a new high bar for the future across all overbooked flights ("are you kidding? $250? I'm not giving up my seat until they offer me $2000.") but it still would have been better to quietly try to get another volunteer with higher compensation than get the PR blackeye they're suffering today.

---

My understanding is they had reached the approved compensation cap that could be offered. The facility staff couldn't raise it anymore. Makes sense that the gate staff is limited so they don't get out of hand with crazy high compensation packages. Hindsight suggests a higher level manager be contacted to exceed the local cap, but of course at the time who knew the guy wouldn't comply, and once the cops were called to escort him, it was out of the airline's hands.

http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/...psr4jwrey2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinjmpr

Makes sense. Outside of maybe a bar or a nightclub anybody whose job it is to put people in handcuffs is likely going to be a sworn LEO. Sworn LEO = qualified immunity.

Doesn't mean they can't be sued, but it means the burden of proof will be higher. And I don't see how UA can be held liable for the actions of a sworn LEO.

---

Internet Hysterics. It's replaced jackson & sharpton , as the new bomb throwers of the 21st century

Kinda of like that HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT bullshit, that spurred who knows how many snowflake attacks on LE and lighter skinned folk..

Which is IMO another reason HRC lost. Her pandering to the BLM / St Swisher's mom at a rally. Embracing BLM put more voters off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_L

http://jumpseatnews.com/2017/4/stand...nited-airlines

---

"Nobody could quickly get inside his mind and know what he was thinking or his true mental state. For all we know, he could have thrown a physical fit, grabbed at and gouged out the eyes of another passenger."

Now, turn that to "Nobody could quickly get inside the mind of a guy with a gun in its holster on his hip. For all we know, he could have thrown a physical fit, pulled out the gun and shot another bystander."

Did the guy do everything right? No, but United did a hell of a lot terribly.

I have kinfolk that work for United. I'll have to give them some grief next time I see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

I have kinfolk that work for United. I'll have to give them some grief next time I see them.

---

It doesn't work that way. They give the grief and you get to take it.

Attachment 70090