WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13636
mrkelley23 wrote:
The $1600 would not be legal, at least according to what I"m reading. Thanks to wonderful government regulations (nice how they can regulate compensation to passengers, but not anything wrt liability of the companies) the cap is set at $1350 for maximum inconvenience, i.e., a rebooked flight that doesn't leave until the next day.


Not exactly.

The $1350 is what you are entitled to under Federal regulations. There is nothing that prevents an airline from being more generous. And that also applies to an involuntary bumping (what the passenger eventually received). There are no regulations about voluntary bumping (what the airline first attempted); they can go as high as they want.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
mrkelley23 wrote:
The $1600 would not be legal, at least according to what I"m reading. Thanks to wonderful government regulations (nice how they can regulate compensation to passengers, but not anything wrt liability of the companies) the cap is set at $1350 for maximum inconvenience, i.e., a rebooked flight that doesn't leave until the next day.

That's the maximum compensation for denied boarding. That has nothing to do with an airline offering compensation for volunteers.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Image

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:23 pm 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8418
Location: Garden Grove, CA
I read somewhere that United has a new "one free carry-off" policy!

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:23 am
Posts: 653
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
I just can't let this go. I rarely seethe. Here's another possible solution:

A few years ago there were an inordinate number of flights just sitting for unending hours on the tarmac. The federal government instituted a very, very severe penalty if passengers are kept on the tarmac in a sealed plane for more than three hours. The penalty was HUGE. The problem virtually disappeared over night.

Fast forward, fine the airline $25,000 for every passenger involuntarily denied boarding (in addition to whatever compensation they will receive). This problem will go away. This fine would incentivize the airline to find ways to convert involuntary passengers to voluntary passengers. It will mean the airlines will occasionally pay out higher compensation in order to avoid the penalty. This situation just doesn't arise all that often so the effect on the bottom line will be negligible (but the airlines will howl and scream anyway). The upper limit of compensation would probably be the cost to the airline to charter a private plane, which would also have been a feasible solution to this particular Chicago-Louisville incident (admittedly that's not always an option).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2836
Location: Lacey, Washington
bazodee wrote:
I just can't let this go. I rarely seethe. Here's another possible solution:

A few years ago there were an inordinate number of flights just sitting for unending hours on the tarmac. The federal government instituted a very, very severe penalty if passengers are kept on the tarmac in a sealed plane for more than three hours. The penalty was HUGE. The problem virtually disappeared over night.

Fast forward, fine the airline $25,000 for every passenger involuntarily denied boarding (in addition to whatever compensation they will receive). This problem will go away. This fine would incentivize the airline to find ways to convert involuntary passengers to voluntary passengers. It will mean the airlines will occasionally pay out higher compensation in order to avoid the penalty. This situation just doesn't arise all that often so the effect on the bottom line will be negligible (but the airlines will howl and scream anyway). The upper limit of compensation would probably be the cost to the airline to charter a private plane, which would also have been a feasible solution to this particular Chicago-Louisville incident (admittedly that's not always an option).


Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:23 am
Posts: 653
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
bazodee wrote:
I just can't let this go. I rarely seethe. Here's another possible solution:

A few years ago there were an inordinate number of flights just sitting for unending hours on the tarmac. The federal government instituted a very, very severe penalty if passengers are kept on the tarmac in a sealed plane for more than three hours. The penalty was HUGE. The problem virtually disappeared over night.

Fast forward, fine the airline $25,000 for every passenger involuntarily denied boarding (in addition to whatever compensation they will receive). This problem will go away. This fine would incentivize the airline to find ways to convert involuntary passengers to voluntary passengers. It will mean the airlines will occasionally pay out higher compensation in order to avoid the penalty. This situation just doesn't arise all that often so the effect on the bottom line will be negligible (but the airlines will howl and scream anyway). The upper limit of compensation would probably be the cost to the airline to charter a private plane, which would also have been a feasible solution to this particular Chicago-Louisville incident (admittedly that's not always an option).


Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.


For market forces to work, it requires competition (limited) and transparency (virtually non-existant). Keeping the government out of it is how we arrived at the current state of affairs. For a true contract to work, both sides of the contract have to have some leverage. The current Contracts of Carriage are incredibly lopsided against the customer and give the customer virtually no recourse.... which would be OK if you could just choose another airline, but they all impose the same rules on the customer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13636
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.


"Market forces" may work in this case because the conduct was so outrageous and there were cameras recording it. Thousands of other people get bumped and just have to live with it. And, as bazodee pointed out, in this case all the airlines operate under the same rules. Time after time, businesses would rather cut corners and hope that something doesn't come back to bite them later on. Because stock prices and bonuses depend on what the business does this quarter. If disaster hits down the road, it's someone else's problem (almost all the people who okayed those disastrous subprime mortgage security transactions were gone from their original employers (taking fat bonuses with them) before the market collapsed). That's the mentality that led to the Gulf oil spill and numerous other disasters.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8762
Location: In Texas of course!
A good article summing up the legal mistakes by United.

United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger

A couple of my thoughts posted elsewhere:

BiT elsewhere wrote:
Overbooking is a fact of life. It can be eliminated by having a hard "no refund/no change" policy once the ticket is purchased. Then airlines would be guaranteed their full fare even if the seat is empty. What happens now is someone buys a ticket two months in advance, then wants to change flights two days before, or even the day of, not allowing the carrier the opportunity to put that seat for sale to the full market (other folks who wanted the seat weeks prior purchased somewhere else).

I think consumers prefer to have some flexibility, even if it means incurring a fee and a possibility, though remote, of being bumped.

As it is, if you miss your flight, through no fault of your own, most airlines will not force you to abandon the entire purchase amount of the ticket. If overbooking is not allowed, that will not continue to be the case. "You bought that seat and that seat is already in the air. Sorry".



and

BiT elsewhere wrote:
Fair competition can only be achieved where pricing and service offerings are transparent across the providers. Just as there are laws regulating how gas stations can advertise their prices and consumer packaged goods must accurately label package contents and weights, so should airlines when displaying pricing for flights. A Southwest ticket includes checked baggage, includes overhead storage of carry-on bags, but does not include a reserved seat, but no additional charge for getting a window, aisle, or exit row if available. United's new (proposed) Basic Economy includes none of that and has extra charges for baggage checked, carry-on checked (overhead is not available) and you don't get an assigned seat and will likely be put in a middle seat and your party split up.

As a consumer,it is very difficult to compare fares across providers. And the airline industry is allowed the most one-sided sales contract of any industry (essentially they are not committed to anything the consumer is buying). Airlines are allowed to charge extra fees (sometimes in excess of purchasing a new ticket) when the purchaser changes his/her plans, but the airline may, with little penalty, change theirs on a whim, changing departure and arrival times, canceling flights, bumping paid passengers, etc.


It's complicated.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15511
Location: By the phone
Emirates Airlines has a new commercial up. Karma's a bitch. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
BackInTex wrote:
A good article summing up the legal mistakes by United.

United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger

A couple of my thoughts posted elsewhere:

BiT elsewhere wrote:
Overbooking is a fact of life. It can be eliminated by having a hard "no refund/no change" policy once the ticket is purchased. Then airlines would be guaranteed their full fare even if the seat is empty. What happens now is someone buys a ticket two months in advance, then wants to change flights two days before, or even the day of, not allowing the carrier the opportunity to put that seat for sale to the full market (other folks who wanted the seat weeks prior purchased somewhere else).

I think consumers prefer to have some flexibility, even if it means incurring a fee and a possibility, though remote, of being bumped.

As it is, if you miss your flight, through no fault of your own, most airlines will not force you to abandon the entire purchase amount of the ticket. If overbooking is not allowed, that will not continue to be the case. "You bought that seat and that seat is already in the air. Sorry".



and

BiT elsewhere wrote:
Fair competition can only be achieved where pricing and service offerings are transparent across the providers. Just as there are laws regulating how gas stations can advertise their prices and consumer packaged goods must accurately label package contents and weights, so should airlines when displaying pricing for flights. A Southwest ticket includes checked baggage, includes overhead storage of carry-on bags, but does not include a reserved seat, but no additional charge for getting a window, aisle, or exit row if available. United's new (proposed) Basic Economy includes none of that and has extra charges for baggage checked, carry-on checked (overhead is not available) and you don't get an assigned seat and will likely be put in a middle seat and your party split up.

As a consumer, it is very difficult to compare fares across providers. And the airline industry is allowed the most one-sided sales contract of any industry (essentially they are not committed to anything the consumer is buying). Airlines are allowed to charge extra fees (sometimes in excess of purchasing a new ticket) when the purchaser changes his/her plans, but the airline may, with little penalty, change theirs on a whim, changing departure and arrival times, canceling flights, bumping paid passengers, etc.


It's complicated.

I agree with you completely. That article nailed it. I've been saying the same things since I heard about the incident.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 6129
Victim's lawyer reports that they will be suing.

Says Victim had 2 teeth knocked out & his nose broken; will require reconstructive surgery. Victim says this was worse that the circumstances under which he left Vietnam.

Program I heard yesterday gave bs from United about how when you call the police in, which United did, the police are to blame for any hurt.

And what did they tell the police about the target here?

I witnessed a similar situation many years ago, but without the physical violence. Lot of yelling, though. Mainly the passenger yelling "but I paid for my seat". No other passengers got an explanation. Either they didn't even offer for others to give up seats or I didn't take it because I had to be where I was going on time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2836
Location: Lacey, Washington
bazodee wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
bazodee wrote:
I just can't let this go. I rarely seethe. Here's another possible solution:

A few years ago there were an inordinate number of flights just sitting for unending hours on the tarmac. The federal government instituted a very, very severe penalty if passengers are kept on the tarmac in a sealed plane for more than three hours. The penalty was HUGE. The problem virtually disappeared over night.

Fast forward, fine the airline $25,000 for every passenger involuntarily denied boarding (in addition to whatever compensation they will receive). This problem will go away. This fine would incentivize the airline to find ways to convert involuntary passengers to voluntary passengers. It will mean the airlines will occasionally pay out higher compensation in order to avoid the penalty. This situation just doesn't arise all that often so the effect on the bottom line will be negligible (but the airlines will howl and scream anyway). The upper limit of compensation would probably be the cost to the airline to charter a private plane, which would also have been a feasible solution to this particular Chicago-Louisville incident (admittedly that's not always an option).


Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.


For market forces to work, it requires competition (limited) and transparency (virtually non-existant). Keeping the government out of it is how we arrived at the current state of affairs. For a true contract to work, both sides of the contract have to have some leverage. The current Contracts of Carriage are incredibly lopsided against the customer and give the customer virtually no recourse.... which would be OK if you could just choose another airline, but they all impose the same rules on the customer.


I think government regulations are majorly to blame for the culture of the airlines today. I used to fly a lot in the 1990's. Back then it was not a 'pleasure' to fly. but it was a lot more customer oriented than it is today. If I completed a job early, I could easily change my flight from one day to another, and the airlines really cared about their customers. After 9/11, it changed. The TSA and the substantial government regulations and requirements really put the airlines in financial turmoil. That is what made the airlines focus on every penny, and impose all kinds of internal rules that made it hell for the customer but made them profitable again.

We had to do something because of the threat of terrorism. But after 16 years, is it possible to reassess the effectiveness of TSA and the way we perform security to make it more effective and less wasteful?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
bazodee wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.


For market forces to work, it requires competition (limited) and transparency (virtually non-existant). Keeping the government out of it is how we arrived at the current state of affairs. For a true contract to work, both sides of the contract have to have some leverage. The current Contracts of Carriage are incredibly lopsided against the customer and give the customer virtually no recourse.... which would be OK if you could just choose another airline, but they all impose the same rules on the customer.


I think government regulations are majorly to blame for the culture of the airlines today. I used to fly a lot in the 1990's. Back then it was not a 'pleasure' to fly. but it was a lot more customer oriented than it is today. If I completed a job early, I could easily change my flight from one day to another, and the airlines really cared about their customers. After 9/11, it changed. The TSA and the substantial government regulations and requirements really put the airlines in financial turmoil. That is what made the airlines focus on every penny, and impose all kinds of internal rules that made it hell for the customer but made them profitable again.

We had to do something because of the threat of terrorism. But after 16 years, is it possible to reassess the effectiveness of TSA and the way we perform security to make it more effective and less wasteful?

Fortunately, I did most of my business travel in the 70s when they were still trying to make it fun.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15511
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
bazodee wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Let's please keep the government and more regulations out of it. The result of this solution will be what every other government regulation results in. Higher prices for US. You see the backlash against UA? That's called market forces. Let us all use our voices and our dollars to change things.


For market forces to work, it requires competition (limited) and transparency (virtually non-existant). Keeping the government out of it is how we arrived at the current state of affairs. For a true contract to work, both sides of the contract have to have some leverage. The current Contracts of Carriage are incredibly lopsided against the customer and give the customer virtually no recourse.... which would be OK if you could just choose another airline, but they all impose the same rules on the customer.


I think government regulations are majorly to blame for the culture of the airlines today. I used to fly a lot in the 1990's. Back then it was not a 'pleasure' to fly. but it was a lot more customer oriented than it is today. If I completed a job early, I could easily change my flight from one day to another, and the airlines really cared about their customers. After 9/11, it changed. The TSA and the substantial government regulations and requirements really put the airlines in financial turmoil. That is what made the airlines focus on every penny, and impose all kinds of internal rules that made it hell for the customer but made them profitable again.

We had to do something because of the threat of terrorism. But after 16 years, is it possible to reassess the effectiveness of TSA and the way we perform security to make it more effective and less wasteful?
You seem to have cause and effect exactly backwards. Substantial airline deregulation has occurred since the 1990s. Perhaps that's what needs to be re-evaluated.

I have no problem with evaluating whether TSA employs the proper mix of security and efficiency. But I think that has bupkiss to do with airlines' generally declining standards of customer service. I think that has much more to do with consolidation among airlines sharply reducing competition. For example, if United is the only airline servicing a particular route, it doesn't really matter (to those customers) how bad its service is. As with cable companies, if they're the only game in town, customers are stuck. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/scorpion-bite-united-airlines-calgary-houston-richard-bell-1.4067154

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
United still has not learned anything:

http://www.whas11.com/news/nation-now/bride-groom-kicked-off-united-flight/431676431

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:32 pm 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8418
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob Juch wrote:
What should they have done differently with this BS story?

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15511
Location: By the phone
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
What should they have done differently with this BS story?
Installed a video in the cabin so that we know who's telling the truth. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
What should they have done differently with this BS story?

They could have either left them alone or let them pay for the upgrade they requested.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:29 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8418
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob Juch wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
What should they have done differently with this BS story?
They could have either left them alone or let them pay for the upgrade they requested.
Nowhere does it say they wanted to/were willing to pay for the upgrade. I don't believe the flight crew is able to handle such a transaction. They should have made their request at the gate.

This is not the whole story. I believe most any flight crew would bend over backwards, within reason, to accommodate a couple of newlyweds on their way to their honeymoon. I'd bet they acted like a couple of Hohls.

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Estonut wrote:
What should they have done differently with this BS story?
They could have either left them alone or let them pay for the upgrade they requested.
Nowhere does it say they wanted to/were willing to pay for the upgrade. I don't believe the flight crew is able to handle such a transaction. They should have made their request at the gate.

This is not the whole story. I believe most any flight crew would bend over backwards, within reason, to accommodate a couple of newlyweds on their way to their honeymoon. I'd bet they acted like a couple of Hohls.

Yes, it does say they offered to pay for an upgrade. I've seen others do that in the past so United should have been able to accommodate them.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 304
What about Rip Van Winkle over there who was taking up three seats? Did anything happen to him?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15511
Location: By the phone
K.P. wrote:
What about Rip Van Winkle over there who was taking up three seats? Did anything happen to him?
That's one of the things I find fishy about the passengers' account. No way does the flight crew leave him sprawled across three seats during takeoff. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20552
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Bob78164 wrote:
K.P. wrote:
What about Rip Van Winkle over there who was taking up three seats? Did anything happen to him?
That's one of the things I find fishy about the passengers' account. No way does the flight crew leave him sprawled across three seats during takeoff. --Bob

They weren't taking off.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.