United - Who is ready to fly?

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by redaddiction

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!

You and me both pudnah!!

[Matt G]

Seems legit Sammich. The employees did not have confirmed reserved space and should have never been factor in the "overbooking." United was clearly in violation of the law........ Sorry W.

? 250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.

? 250.1 Definitions.
Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a ?zero fare ticket,? and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger


Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests.

["W"]

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by "W"

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding. If that's their policy, they should have denied boarding for the employees as all seats were filled and no one volunteered to give up their seat.

You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

["W"]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding.



You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

Does not matter ... they had the right to refuse him by the Radom selection process
Which United did correctly

Again no one has prove anything was done illegally yet

Until TSA or United says that it was done illegally
Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LMAO there is no denying that it was a "successful removal" You finally got one right dude!!! HOORAY W!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wait nevermind, you're still wrong. It was a "successful re-accommodation"

["W"]

Another note
It has not been stated anywhere other than "opinions " who don't matter
Any laws were broken

Zero conformation from TSA or United , or O Hare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

["W"]

What was FFA report ?
Can you please post me some facts of illegal doings by United
Need a legal source
From
FFA
TSA
United
CPD
FBI
Etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcjaredsandwich]

I think he's just trolling now.

[Matt G]

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Matt G

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

Well since he cannot comprehend, ur wasting ur time. He's posting policies that support my argument lmao

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

["W"]

Originally Posted by Matt G

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

So
Where is the
FFA or FBI charges against United ?
You break a federal law your getting charged ?

Has United been charged ?
I keep up with news and markets by the hour

Have seen ZERO info where United was charged by breaking Federal laws of the FFA?

Are you getting some news I'm not ?

To say it's was illegal there must be some charges or atleast filed ?

[Jcredeur]

Originally Posted by Matt G

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

Now I have not really cared to look further into the situation than what I have seen on the news. I've been asked to volunteer my seat before and did. I was fairly compensated for my inconvenience and made it to my destination 30min later.

Now somewhere online I saw a blog from a pilots wife, it said something about a federal aviation law that permitted this if the crew was on board the flight to Amman a flight from the destination of this flight. Something about keeping the flow of air travel if the crew on the flight they were going to was unavailable. She went on to say if they were just going home then employees have last priority and often have to wait for the next available which pushes their time home way back.
Have y'all seen this stipulation in any research?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

["W"]

Love how you say they broke the law

Lmao

Not 1 of you can show proof they have broken any laws where the FFA has charged them with breaking Federal laws

I'll keep waiting

In mean time Trump Bombing the **** out of ISIS

[rodeo red]

["W"]

Just saw on FOX
News
They have a hearing Monday
And this will say if any laws were broken
So if Federal laws were broken by the FFA
United will be charged Monday

Good day to buy its stock because it will drop at open


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

I break the law every day and don't get charged LMAO. Don't mean I ain't broke any laws. I mean Hillary a prime example of breaking the law but not get charged. Comey said so

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[youmyboyblue]

Am I the only one who could give a rats arse about this dude getting pulled off the flight?

[mriguy]

Originally Posted by youmyboyblue

Am I the only one who could give a rats arse about this dude getting pulled off the flight?

Nope

[Feesherman]

The law is clear. Just read the law

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk