To Protect and to Serve II

#2,651
#2,651
n_huffhines said:
Overbooking is a strategy that an economist came up with like 20 years ago and it's worked very well in terms of making airlines operate more efficiently and passing savings onto consumers.

It's not really a mistake to overbook. They fully intend to do it. The mistake was how they chose to deal with the overbooking.

All they have to do is make the flight vouchers more enticing. I did it once for like a $400 voucher and I wish I hadn't. There is fine print bull**** that makes it not as good as it sounds.
Click to expand...

yeah...just like doctors...sumbeeches

thing is, it wasn't overbooked....United needed to move a flight crew to another city and chose to bump passengers, which is w/in their rights but they also chose to handle it poorly. Should have been done in the terminal instead of on the plane.
 
#2,653
#2,653
utvols88 said:
I was referring to the fine print bulls**t in the voucher.
Click to expand...

I can't remember everything, but I specifically remember we had to use it that year and whatever airline it was didn't even fly to the places we needed to travel to that year. I think it was Frontier Airlines.

I specifically remember that they gave us a $25 food voucher. I ask my wife, "are you hungry?" she says no. I go to use the voucher and I'm finishing up grabbing my $10 food and they say "you have to use all $25 now or it's gone." WTF. A little warning would be nice.

Not totally pertinent, but hilarious...my wife spilled sweet and sour sauce all over my jeans and I had an incident on my flight where the dude behind me was purposefully kicking my chair, and an old man *****ed at me about where I put my suitcase. I hate being the guy who complains about travel, but that was a unique trip.
 
#2,654
#2,654
n_huffhines said:
I can't remember everything, but I specifically remember we had to use it that year and whatever airline it was didn't even fly to the places we needed to travel to that year. I think it was Frontier Airlines.

I specifically remember that they gave us a $25 food voucher. I ask my wife, "are you hungry?" she says no. I go to use the voucher and I'm finishing up grabbing my $10 food and they say "you have to use all $25 now or it's gone." WTF. A little warning would be nice.

Not totally pertinent, but hilarious...my wife spilled sweet and sour sauce all over my jeans and I had an incident on my flight where the dude behind me was purposefully kicking my chair, and an old man *****ed at me about where I put my suitcase. I hate being the guy who complains about travel, but that was a unique trip.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Murphys law can get the best of us at any moment.
 
#2,655
#2,655
n_huffhines said:
Overbooking is a strategy that an economist came up with like 20 years ago and it's worked very well in terms of making airlines operate more efficiently and passing savings onto consumers.

It's not really a mistake to overbook. They fully intend to do it. The mistake was how they chose to deal with the overbooking.

All they have to do is make the flight vouchers more enticing. I did it once for like a $400 voucher and I wish I hadn't. There is fine print bull**** that makes it not as good as it sounds.
Click to expand...

Anyone that has flown more than a few times knows that the vouchers are worthless. Pay me cash and I'll stand up and take the offer. They don't offer cash.
 
#2,656
#2,656
JC61 said:
may have been, but probably a better way to do it....if I was in his shoes I'd been very pissed off, but don't think I'd chose to make my stand in this instance. Stakes would have to be much higher to chose to resist, for me at least.
Click to expand...

The guy isn't the guilty party here. He didn't take a stand. A stand was taken against him. Big difference.
 
#2,657
#2,657
Well I just heard on the radio two more of the responding officers have been suspended. So somebody thought they used excessive force.
 
#2,658
#2,658
Rasputin_Vol said:
The guy isn't the guilty party here. He didn't take a stand. A stand was taken against him. Big difference.
Click to expand...

He was told to get off which is within the airlines legal right. When he refused, he was trespassing. He didn't go when asked nicely so he had to be dragged out like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. The guy might get a settlement but it will not be anything substantial.
 
#2,659
#2,659
Rasputin_Vol said:
The guy isn't the guilty party here. He didn't take a stand. A stand was taken against him. Big difference.
Click to expand...

partially agree....the airline handled it poorly, no doubt about it. He made a stand by refusing to comply with the directive given. Once he refused, he became part of the problem.

Either side could have diffused the situation, but it is becoming part and parcel to the typical scene between two sides bent on demonstrating how "right" they are...which in most instances isn't the "right" way to handle it.
 
#2,661
#2,661
utvols88 said:
He was told to get off which is within the airlines legal right. When he refused, he was trespassing. He didn't go when asked nicely so he had to be dragged out like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. The guy might get a settlement but it will not be anything substantial.
Click to expand...

Again, just because it is legal, doesn't mean that it is right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,667
#2,667
Carl Pickens said:
It doesn't really. I was just shocked by his scared for his life freak out. I bet if that had been you in that position you wouldn't have pissed your pants the way he did.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I probably would have taken the $800 to get off the plane, unless I was going to a funeral or some other important event. And even then, I mean we're talking about Chicago to Louisville, not Chicago to ATL.
 
#2,668
#2,668
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just saw an interview by the United Airlines CEO. He said one of the things he will need to re-address is the use of law enforcement. LOL, you think? Getting law enforcement involved (as can be seen by these two Protect and Serve threads) will only increase the risk of a situation escalating and getting our of control.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk7MU-4Nqvg[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I want some of the boys in blue to explain why this guy is now so hellbent against using law enforcement to handle a situation like this in the future. I mean, are you guys going to defend your fellow LE officers in this case with the same level of zeal that you would if a LEO had shot someone in the street? No cries of "wait for the facts to come out"? No "just following orders" or "that is how we are trained"?
“We are not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off the aircraft. To remove a booked, paid, (seated) passenger — we can’t do that.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,669
#2,669
Rasputin_Vol said:
Slavery was legal. Abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

Just because you disagree with a law, doesn't mean you get to break it arbitrarily. Again, if you don't like it, get it changed. Once the guy said he's not getting up, he is trespassing. If he does not comply, he is breaking the law and physical force is within the law. I don't see what argument he really has in a lawsuit.

In regards to Uniteds decision to boot paying customers for an indirect crew, no I don't think that is right morally but it is within their right as a business. Is it a bad situation? Yes. But AT THIS POINT it is what it is. You don't get to choose the laws you follow.
 
Last edited:
#2,671
#2,671
utvols88 said:
Just because you disagree with a law, doesn't mean you get to break it arbitrarily. Again, if you don't like it, get it changed. Once the guy said he's not getting up, he is trespassing. If he does not comply, he is breaking the law and physical force is within the law. I don't see what argument he really has in a lawsuit.

In regards to Uniteds decision to boot paying customers for an indirect crew, no I don't think that is right morally but it is within their right as a business. Is it a bad situation? Yes. But AT THIS POINT it is what it is. You don't get to choose the laws you follow.
Click to expand...
Or if the people don't like it, they pay for it with blood to get it changed. How many people had to lose their lives for certain laws in this country to change? Hell, how much blood was spilled to get us away from England.

There is either the peaceful way you suggested or the violent way.

My hope is that this guy is the only one that has to pay in blood, when something like this could be sorted out very easily with a little common sense.
 
#2,675
#2,675
n_huffhines said:
***, dude is an animal

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/vi...s-head-shows-why-people-are-scared-of-police/
Click to expand...

In cases such as this, why does there even need to be an investigation while the officer is "reassigned?"

The video itself is very clear-cut. The officer stomped on the head of a restrained suspect. He should be discharged immediately and charged with assault. Now the department will likely drag out this "investigation" until the incident is largely forgotten, at which point the officer will be placed back on regular duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top