I don’t know what the penalties are for violating this clause, that’s why I asked.
I take it you don’t know the answer either.
Just as united can offer passenger’s money for being unseated, they could offer the crew money for working extra hours, as well as paying out to settle any fines.
This is in response to those in the thread who think that the airline will pay out an infinite amount of money for their seat, if they just hold out for more.
My point in this is that the airline has other options, and I was simply asking how viable one of them would be.
That has been suggested by absolutely no one, whereas “Just break the contract and pay the fine-no big deal” has been brought forward as an viable option.
Do try to keep up.
I totally agree. Again nobody has come up with plausible reasoning why this problem, whether actually overbooked or employees need to fly, would not be overcome in an extremely high % of cases by simply continuing the auction until the price reaches a level where enough people volunteer to get off.
The only govt action I can see is 1) removing any reference in regs to any absolute $ limit (though it’s not a mandatory limit even now) and 2) require it to be cash for purposes of transparency. But neither of those is even absolutely necessary. Even UAL, with its obviously toxic culture, it is indeed a terrible airline, is probably going to just do this, at least part 1).
The overconcentration of the industry, as in UAL’s too large dominance at Newark (though more like 50’s% per some other sources) is a different problem. The govt overreacted in allowing too many airline mergers after a period of unprofitability and that can only be undone the hard way, by forcing divestitures now. Trying to re-regulate every aspect of their behavior will not fix it.
You mean my sarcastic suggestion that was meant entirely as a joke wasn’t suggested seriously by anyone else?
Shocking!
By the way, I’m still curious about your possible psychic powers (or other abilities) that have enabled you to determine the exact nature of the conversation between the flight crew and law enforcement.
The world would, IMO, be a vastly better place in a variety of ways if Hillary Clinton had won the election, but this exact same shit would still be going on. In fact, it is precisely Clinton’s type of corporate-friendly Democrats who have helped create and sustain a world where growing concentration and oligopoly means that companies can treat their customers like shit without any real consequences.
You can’t threaten to take your business elsewhere, because either there is no “elsewhere” to take it (see: the cable internet industry in most of the US), or there are only a few key players, they all treat their customers like crap, and they all have arbitration clauses that prevent you from seeking legal remedies (see: just about every large industry left in the country).
Chris Christie trying to take advantage of a big story to hop back on the populist bandwagon. What a fucking ass that guy is.
I’m willing to believe that the doctor himself was in fear, and that some of this could have been the result of the general political climate.
But i don’t think this would have gone any differently, even if Trump were not part of the political landscape. Airlines have been treating their customers like cattle (at best) and terrorists (at worst) since 2001, mainly in the interests of corporate profit rather than safety. Having received about $18 billion in government compensation and loan guarantees in 2001, the airlines got back on their feet with public money, and have managed to earn record profits from a flying population that needs the service they provide but, for the most part, hates their guts for the way they provide it.
After breaking free from law enforcement, running back onto the plane and hiding in the back, is there anyone here who would want him to stay on the plane?
Well, yeah - but this is what TokyoBayer is saying, if I read him right. “It’s $1,350 in cash if that is what the bumped passenger wants,” because if the passenger wants $1350*, and won’t get off for less, then it’s an involuntary bump at any lesser offer, and that means $1350.
*Yes, we know: only if the one-way fare is at least $337.50; if not, it’s 4x the one-way fare. Can we assume without loss of generality, as we math geeks say, that it is, and only deal with the case where it’s less than that if it really makes a difference besides the number?
I’m not sure what you’re saying is at all coherent.
Here’s how it works:
They put out a general call for volunteers and say “Hey, this is what we’re offering, if it’s good enough for you then great!” They don’t ask specific individuals to volunteer–it’s essentially a cattle call at this point.
If they don’t get enough volunteers, then they start picking people (by whatever procedure they happen to use) to be removed involuntarily. Those people are given the legally-mandated amount automatically.
And no one familiar with the situation is saying that in this event, those who were removed involuntarily were given any less than what was legally mandated.
“We’re not going to put a law enforcement official … to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger,” United Continental Holdings Inc Chief Executive Officer Oscar Munoz told ABC News on Wednesday morning. “We can’t do that.”
IOW “we f*cked up”. The discussion of whether UAL was right or wrong is over: wrong. In the world of business if you admit you’re wrong, you’re wrong, end of story. ‘Right on principal’ is an irrelevant concept in that sphere. And the pay out coming to Dr. Dao while perhaps big for him would never be that big for UAL. This kind of statement by the CEO ends the argument ‘UAL did nothing wrong’.
It doesn’t make Dao a great guy, OTOH that’s not the point as I see it. It also doesn’t settle what disciplinary action if any should be taken against the cops involved, unknown facts and witness accounts there. But again the battle of the you must comply with ‘LEO’s’! people, as if the prime directive of life, and those with a more skeptical view of the cops, can often be worked around by finding ways to settle things without calling the cops.
Lesson learned: With enough histrionics, public pressure and a wee bit of pressure from a foreign government threatening a boycott(gee-I wonder if I put those in the right order of importance?), anything is possible!
I don’t see any need for sarcasm. It seems to me pretty obvious that it’s perfectly right that businesses should be susceptible to the pressure of public opinion. United should be forced to change policies that people consider outrageous. There’s no injustice in that.
No, I am not assuming any such thing one way or another, since I have no evidence. If you do, please let us know. If you do not, why did you bring it up?
Yeah, people can’t make up their minds. Last time there was this much public pressure on the airlines to change their ways, it was because the crew wouldn’t let the passengers leave their seats while sitting on the tarmac for hours, and now people get upset that the crew makes them leave their seats before the plane ever even leaves?