Who is willing to defend United Airlines?

USFREEDOM911 said:
Why, I didn't bring it up?
Click to expand...
Yea. You did. Would we be having this discussion if the cops were capable of controlling their rage? Sometimes, it takes a bit of time to deal with an agitated individual. Using heavy handed violence shouldn't be the first action taken.
 
Althea said:
Yea. You did. Would we be having this discussion if the cops were capable of controlling their rage? Sometimes, it takes a bit of time to deal with an agitated individual. Using heavy handed violence shouldn't be the first action taken.
Click to expand...

You trying to bring in Police in civilian areas and correlate it what happened on the United flight.
By the way, Universal Security handles security operations for the City of Chicago Department of Aviation at O’Hare and Midway airports.

And then, there's this:

What are the Chicago aviation police?

Q: Are aviation police part of the Chicago Police Department?
A: No. They're with the Chicago Department of Aviation.
Q: How many aviation officers are there?
A: About 300. Working at the city's two major airports, they are a mix of part- and full-time cops, and some work as police in other departments, said Adam Rosen, a spokesman for Service Employees International Union Local 73, which represents them. Full-timers earn between $50,000 and $88,000 a year and cost the city about $19 million a year.
Q: Do they have the same training and powers as CPD officers?
A: Aviation police must meet the same minimum standards as other local cops, according to a city website. That includes passing fitness testing and psychological examinations. Aviation officers can "temporarily detain and take people into custody until Chicago police arrives," said city spokeswoman Jennifer Martinez. But only Chicago police can file an arrest report, she said. Some training and qualification standards for Chicago police go beyond the state's minimum standards, and it is unclear what the Aviation Department requires of officers beyond the minimum.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
would you expect a different result than if you didn't pay taxes so you'd have freedom from oppression?
Click to expand...

You are legally required to pay taxes, police sometimes order people to do thingsthey are not required to do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No. UA fucked up because they violated Federal Law. Ticket purchasers on airlines have contract of carriage rights. An airline can refuse boarding to a customer for any number of reasons but if they are bumping a passenger than they are required by Federal law of offer a minimum of 200% of the price of the one way portion of their flight if the delay to the next flight in under an hour and a minimum of 400% if it's over two hours delay. Which the passenger is well within their rights to refuse. It is then incumbent upon the airlines to negotiate an equitable settlement, before boarding! The airlines can delay boarding as long as they want until a resolution is achieved.

However once boarding begins and a passenger is seated the contract of carriage laws are quite specific and the airlines are required to provide a
Click to expand...

you are such a sanctimonious piece of human garbage that is in rapture with your own fucking voice. I LITERALLY SAID THE SAME FUCKING THING LIKE 3 TIMES IN THIS FUCKING THREAD. I LITERALLY HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT ONCE THE GUY WAS BOARDED THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT THEY DID. FUCKING PAY ATTENTION YOU FUCKING IDIOT
 
Sailor said:
That is not federal law Mott. I read through United's Contract of Carriage rule 21 and do not see where they to provide a notification in writing. Not disagreeing with you here but you can point out the para? I just do not see it.
Click to expand...
Well I told you I couldn't site the USC but I got news for you. If it's in the CFR's then it's going to be in USC or it wouldn't be in the CFR. Just another note....United's Contract of Carriage is not Federal Law either.
 
Hot girls in my avatar said:
the contract allows everything up to preventing people to board due to overbooking but once the person is on the plane they dont account for that in the fine print
Click to expand...

Hot girls in my avatar said:
well where UA fucked up is apparently they did not put in the fineprint that they were allowed to take people off the plane once they had boarded. So that is why they will lose. I am just answering jarods hypotheticals and moral questions. In this specific instance UA was wrong, but not for the reasons jarod believes. Jarod thinks they are wrong because of his feels and because people should be able to enter into contracts and break them whenever they want. My argument is, UA fucked up and didn't add one extra line of fine print.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Oh, so its not just blanket cooperation.

So did this guys ticket say he had to give up his seat if they needed it for employees?
Click to expand...
^ me in response:
Hot girls in my avatar said:
no​ it didn't.
Click to expand...

Followed by:

BaVKPpl.png


Mott the Hoople said:
It is then incumbent upon the airlines to negotiate an equitable settlement, before boarding! The airlines can delay boarding as long as they want until a resolution is achieved.

However once boarding begins and a passenger is seated the contract of carriage laws are quite specific
Click to expand...
 
Hot girls in my avatar said:
you are such a sanctimonious piece of human garbage that is in rapture with your own fucking voice. I LITERALLY SAID THE SAME FUCKING THING LIKE 3 TIMES IN THIS FUCKING THREAD. I LITERALLY HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT ONCE THE GUY WAS BOARDED THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT THEY DID. FUCKING PAY ATTENTION YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Click to expand...
Yea....sure you did you spastic ass piper...sure you did. You state was somebody said that somebody else told you was on a contract you pulsating sperm bandit!
 
I am beginning to see a trend with most liberals on this board. It doesn't matter what you say, their preconceived notion of you determines what they want to see, not what you actually said.

Mott and Thingy are the leaders in this.
 
Yaya said:
I am beginning to see a trend with most liberals on this board. It doesn't matter what you say, their preconceived notion of you determines what they want to see, not what you actually said.

Mott and Thingy are the leaders in this.
Click to expand...
That's only because you have the reading comprehension skills of a gerbil...granted that places you on a higher level than Grinds writing skills but NOT BY MUCH!
 
Jarod said:
I don't know the answers to your questions. The facts as I understand them are that United needed four seats on the full plane for employees who had to be at work the next day early. They asked for volunteers offering a night in a hotel and $400 later $800. Not enough people took the offer so they randomly picked this man for removal as the terms of the small print on his ticket allow them to do. He refused so they called the police. The man continued to refuse politely, and so the officer forcefully removed him, knocking him down in the process, knocking out two teeth and breaking his nose.

If those are the facts....

What are your thoughts on United's policy?
What are your thoughts on the police enforcing United's policy?
What do you think they should have done.

I think the rights of a individual overrule the rights of a corporation in most circumstances.
A passenger should be forced to leave only when he poses a danger or when they have delivered him to his legal destination, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No Jared the fine print did not allow him to be removed.
Had he not already been seated then it would have been legal.

Let's be real clear on this please.
 
Hot girls in my avatar said:
I would defend them for all the obvious reasons but I just saw a compelling case the other day by some youtuber lawyer that UA actually didn't account for this situation in their airline contract. It's a fine print thing. But under normal circumstances I would absolutely defend them.
Click to expand...

Correct.
His forcible removal was illegal.
For this reason the Dr. also has a case against the police.
 
NOVA said:
So the ticket means nothing if the airline has the final say in accommodating you, ie, they have the right to use their discretion in allowing you on the plane....

Interesting ain't it ?

Airport security or airport 'police' have no authority outside the airport do they ?
Click to expand...

Regular police are often at airports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top