Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #165

maxerickson wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it wasn't also overbooked? They pulled passengers to fly crew, but that doesn't mean it wasn't overbooked.

They claimed it was overbooked but that has not been substantiated with any evidence other than the company making that claim and using it to pre-empt those passengers in favor of their dead-headers. The proof that they are bullshitting is that the passengers were already on board when suddenly the plane was declared overbooked. Which to me sounds like UA using an excuse to bump passengers off a flight they are alrea…

Post by bobwaycott » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

arca_vorago wrote: post #139

The real outrage in the airline industry is the fact that we allowed security theatre in the form of TSA to get so damn powerful in the first place. There is no reason to be allowing naked x-ray vision scans, pat downs that border on or actually are assault, etc. As Bruce Schneier said, the one thing they did right after 9/11 was to make the cock-pit doors reinforced and locked from the inside. Do you think rich peop…

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

tylerjd wrote: post #260

jacquesm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They claimed it was overbooked but that has not been substantiated with any evidence other than the company making that claim and using it to pre-empt those passengers in favor of their dead-headers. The proof that they are bullshitting is that the passengers were already on board when suddenly the plane was declared overbooked. Which to me sounds like UA using an excuse to bump passengers off a flight they are alrea…

That's exactly what they did. Someone up the chain made a mistake. Other airlines board must-ride passengers (i.e. crew deadheading to the next destination) before passengers, but this did not happen. Due to FAA regulations, the movement and sleep requirements of crew is enforced big time. In this case, they had a higher priority than a full-fare passenger (Must Ride), and even though it's morally wrong, it is well w…

Post by wnevets » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

hdhsbshs wrote: post #180

danso wrote: post #142

Surprised that people here are taking this at face value. Why would Twitter remove these tweets from random users while leaving the vast majority of negative tweets in place? No proof has been given. Indeed, this Jay Beecher's allegedly deleted tweet is visible as far as I can tell: https://mobile.twitter.com/dancow/status/851808188567388161 edit: To be fair, Beecher says that my tweet refers to tweets he sent out af…

My tweet from last night is gone. It's not "alleged".

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

daveguy wrote: post #242

maxerickson wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I agree it is just a claim. But they overbook most flights, so it isn't really hard to believe. They could have paid some other passengers already to not board, prior to deciding that they wanted to fly the crew and needing to pull more passengers. That leaves the overbooking claim as misdirection, which isn't any better than a lie that they were overbooked, but it's a different situation. (sorry about the edit…

If it was overbooked those excess passengers weren't on the plane. United wanted to fly 4 of their own employees (who showed up after everyone was boarded and seated) and "asked" for 4 seats from boarded paying customers. Without the employee passengers they were not overbooked or any overbooked passengers were not on the plane and we're irrelevant to the situation. I have flown plenty of times with other airlines wh…