71–80 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because handbook says a certain amount is the maximum they can offer, and likely the crew offering more would risk their job. Following this fiasco, Munoz said they will expand the handbook. We'll see.
Also, I think there's actually a government regulation which caps it at $1300 or so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, passengers don't know their rights but pilots and other administrators should. So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. I found the argument interesting that United should have lied and just invented a plane swap with a smaller body. Would have left the affected passengers is a weak position. There is so much wrong on all levels including the r…
> So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. From what I've read, they weren't in a grey area, they were doing something that was specifically illegal. A grey area is when it may or may not be illegal. This wasn't grey.
(I'm not implying it would, I'm curious to read an analysis that covers it)
I've been saying for years that the only thing holding back massive disruption in the airline industry is the FAA. American and United are two of the most poorly run mega-corps in the US. Customers hate them, but need to fly. Warren Buffet thinks they're notoriously bad investments. Why?
Get rid of the FAA and it's only a matter of time before what was illegal ends up taking down a full airliner, killing hundreds or even thousands of people and ruins flying for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.
If you look in the /r/aviation threads you'll see various people who are airline crew claiming they can fly jumpseat but it's beneath them and they want their regular-seat privileges enforced at basically any cost.
The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure that it's virtually certain for a corporate lawyer to find some justification somewhere for almost anything. The corporate employees and the police both operate on this assumption. As a customer, your only recourse is to meekly accept whatever treatment is comi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article suggests that the airline was the one breaking the law and not the passenger. So in this case the police helped the airline commit a crime. Is this nowadays what means to have a police force?
There are currently 18 mentions of 'police' on this page, but they were security, not police. That's a crucial detail.
There's room for them to have different authority than other Chicago police, I haven't found anything in a couple minutes of looking, but they aren't private security or anything like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. From what I've read, they weren't in a grey area, they were doing something that was specifically illegal. A grey area is when it may or may not be illegal. This wasn't grey.
Any of those explain why force majeure would not apply? (I'm not implying it would, I'm curious to read an analysis that covers it)
The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure that it's virtually certain for a corporate lawyer to find some justification somewhere for almost anything. The corporate employees and the police both operate on this assumption. As a customer, your only recourse is to meekly accept whatever treatment is comi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article suggests that the airline was the one breaking the law and not the passenger. So in this case the police helped the airline commit a crime. Is this nowadays what means to have a police force?
The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't ) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill .
Instead they chose a side to favor by force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article suggests that the airline was the one breaking the law and not the passenger. So in this case the police helped the airline commit a crime. Is this nowadays what means to have a police force?
The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't ) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill .
Your position strikes me as compatible with an authoritarian police state. And that is not the system of government we have in the U.S.
It is part of the job description for police to, at all times evaluate the legality of what they're doing. Otherwise, they are just hired thugs, might makes right, let a judge sort it out. And if they are merely hired thugs, that makes them untrustworthy by default as civil servants, and will even be viewed as capricious. What's the standard of the moment?
And in fact, that's why Black Lives Matter is even a thing. The police aren't trusted in some communities, because they have so often simply reacted with force. That's what the politics requires, and is a betrayal in those communities. Use force now, sort out the injustices later (maybe). That's a recipe for loss of trust, other than, do what they say or they will beat your ass. That's not justice in any possible sense of a civil society.