But you more or less imply that overbooking with extra passengers is the price we pay for being able to re-book our flight at the last minute for a $75 fee (I’ve done this a few times :)) rather than lose the entire ticket price, so over time, frequent flyers are going to be on both ends of the deal. Yes, it’s of the airlines’ own making, but the passengers are complicit as well - we’re the willing beneficiaries of it.
The same can’t be said when the passengers are their own crew. They know where these people have to be, and when; they don’t have to worry that these people are going to cancel. Barring flights canceled or massively postponed due to weather (it was a pleasant weekend over most of the country, I believe), they should have these seats set aside well in advance.
Wikipedia gives a more accurate account of what actually happened to the UAL stock price.
So, it seems that what actually happened last time was that there was an abrupt knee-jerk selloff in the stock for a few days after the story broke, but the stock price quickly recovered (and then traded much higher for unrelated reasons).
I would suggest that the market has learned its lesson, that these things have a negligible effect on the bottom line, and that panic selling of the stock is a mistake. So the knee-jerk selloff that occurred last time has simply not occurred this time.
See, Richard Parker, he again is totally ignoring the vast difference in " the rules that both sides have agreed upon"* between “denied boarding” and ‘deplaning’. :rolleyes:
Using eight words rather the the one word “contract”.
If you can find those options listed on the ticket you paid for, or renegotiate the terms of your flight successfully before you get on board, or lobby congress to force them to change the rules in your favor, then…more power to you, and I’ll support you 100% of the way.
Was there a temper tantrum in this case? Did the passenger cause a scene (before being dragged forcibly from his seat, bloodied and possibly knocked unconscious)? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Do you have some you could share with us?
United didn’t have to change the rules to offer more money or more options. There is nothing prohibiting a party to a contract saying, “my bad - I’ll do a bit more than minimally required to make up for my screwup, even though the contract doesn’t say I have to.”
if you can use the term “possibly knocked unconscious”, can I use the term “temper tantrum”? The link provided already shows that he “caused” a scene" by grabbing his seat while screaming and yelling.
That’s good information, thank you. I think it’s too early to see if this new event will cause a similar dip or a rise, is my main point. The fact that the stock rose 1% today probably has nothing to do with this incident - we’ll see in a week or two if there is any lasting effect.
I’ll also add that stock price is not the only indicator to consider. I think many people will think twice about flying on United because of this (whether you think that’s fair or not). I already never fly United based on previous reports I’ve heard about their reliability and service - this is just icing for me. Reputation matters.
They dont. But as Richard Parker points out, the rules allow for a passenger to be "denied boarding’. They dont allow deplaning and the rules differentiate the two.
I also cant show you a ruling that says passengers may not be *beaten ala Airplane!**, given a triple wedgy, or anything else- because the rules *only *allow them to “deny boarding” not triple wedgies. :rolleyes:
“Denied Boarding” is the sole legal remedy the contract allows in the circumstance.
I’d like to know what was going on in Louisville that no one would take the $800 to be moved to a different flight . The guy should’ve followed the directive, but it does seem like extreme measures were taken when he refused. Don’t airlines have other methods of dealing with these situations? He wasn’t a threat to anyone he was just screwing the airline for overbooking.
So you can’t come up with a single case where a passenger was deplaned under a deboarding rule and it was ruled to be unlawful? Over the last ten years there have been a couple of hundred million flights-can you find one case where this problem has come up?
Of course. I wasn’t suggesting that the market had perversely extracted good news for UAL from this. That’s why I posted the airline index for comparison. I was just noting that, so far, there has been no selloff.
According to Jackmannii’s post #135, it looks like the minimum is 4x the one-way fare, or $1350, whichever is less. So we don’t know what the minimum was, unless we know the one-way fare. (Which on most airlines, is about 95% of the round-trip fare. Which varies considerably.)
But you have no reason to believe that United started off by offering the minimum legally required as involuntary compensation. If people are willing to accept less than that of their own volition, that’s certainly no problem with me or them or the law, for that matter. So there’s no reason to assume they’d offered even the minimum at first.
No you can’t, because the video shows evidence* that he was possibly unconscious, as do eyewitness reports, while you have provided bupkis for a temper tantrum. Maybe he did throw one, but I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
Unlawful?:dubious: Who said anything about 'unlawful"? Certainly the Airline can order you off their plane. But unless they follow their end of the contract- you can sue. Man sues airline has 11,900,000 hits. Pretty fucking common.
You were all het up about the guy following " the rules that both sides have agreed upon". Well,* the airline* failed to follow that rule.
The airline had a contractual right to deny him boarding.
. The guy should’ve followed the directive, but it does seem like extreme measures were taken when he refused. Don’t airlines have other methods of dealing with these situations? He wasn’t a threat to anyone he was just screwing the airline for overbooking.