- Messages
- 296
- Reactions
- 285
I know it's against the carriage contract but if I were seated in the plane and needed to get wherever, I would resist too. I don't fly much but if I do it won't be UA.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LMAO!!!!I think I found a United Airlines training video.
The airline can do whatever it wants with its paying customers. They can also feel the wrath of people who have not yet purchased a ticket and they can feel the wrath of shareholders who are dumping that stock like hot potatoes. United's market capitalization will take a loss in the hundreds of millions and in a low margin environment they cant avoid the PR storm coming. Companies that want to survive do it with good PR. One stupid decision by a lowest level manager CAN kill a company.
I'll never book a flight on United again. My prerogative.
Some might define that as hijacking a plane and I think that's unlawful. badow!I know it's against the carriage contract but if I were seated in the plane and needed to get wherever, I would resist too. I don't fly much but if I do it won't be UA.
fixed that for yaWhat I take away is this:
In an industry that is completely regulated by the Federal Government, they can use VIOLENCE against you for hijacking a plane.
That's a creepy wide stance havin' airport restroom foot
And you think by simply 'resisting' will get them to take their hands off and suddenly treat you with 'kid gloves' and let you fly on? Resist and you will be considered a 'flight hazard' and most likely handled similarly. I can't believe how many espouse 'resistance' as the right thing to do in this case. A co worker said he would 'be cutting up seats while resisting" - I need to ask him with what.but if I were seated in the plane and needed to get wherever, I would resist too.
There is an exception in the law for what's called an overreaching contract. That is generally considered to be where the terms of the contract are egregiously out of balance due to the relative power of the two parties. There are many instances of courts disallowing boiler plate agreements that are "take it or leave it" statements by one side that has all the power that the other side doesn't have much choice but to accept or walk away, and they have held that people cannot reasonably be expected to walk away from a vital service where there are no alternatives. This case fits the bill. A huge corporation with unlimited power over the individual consumer offers a "take it or leave it" statement in its contract, and the consumer is expected to forego a vital public service if he/she objects. I don't think that would stand up in a court of law.Indeed it is! Or... it would be, had the person not agreed to their policy of doing this when he purchased the ticket.
But honestly, I already avoided United when possible due to The-Bad-Flight-Experience-To-End-All-Experiences -- but now I'll just avoid them flat out. Seriously, this is what they think of their customers.
Well at least we know one of them is...There both messed up in the head