General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)

14. Those passengers are being involuntarily denied boarding to the new smaller plane

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:07 PM

Apr 2017

that they haven't entered yet. That situation isn't comparable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It was NOT an overbooked flight - lawyer explains [View all] Pluvious Apr 2017 OP

There you have it...UA can twist and turn and churn - discredit the victim, oh my - asiliveandbreathe Apr 2017 #1

The whole thing seemed seriously messed up The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #2

Hope all the DU United Airlines Apologists read this... n/m bagelsforbreakfast Apr 2017 #3

United needs to be punished financially and legally so hard IronLionZion Apr 2017 #4

Lawyers should know better FBaggins Apr 2017 #5

Lawyers know how to read contracts. The ticket is a contract and this lawyer is correct. pnwmom Apr 2017 #8

That's nonsense FBaggins Apr 2017 #9

There was no lawyer involved in deciding to eject him from the airplane. pnwmom Apr 2017 #10

Dodging the question? FBaggins Apr 2017 #11

That situation IS specifically provided for in the contract. pnwmom Apr 2017 #12

Read it again FBaggins Apr 2017 #13

Those passengers are being involuntarily denied boarding to the new smaller plane pnwmom Apr 2017 #14

Sorry... nope FBaggins Apr 2017 #16

This was not an emergency situation. No seat was broken. No plane was damaged. Vilis Veritas Apr 2017 #38

When you get off the A321 you are no longer boarded. Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #22

Right...your prior boarding has been denied FBaggins Apr 2017 #24

Who in their right mind is going to sit on a broken airplane? Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #25

bingo bora13 Apr 2017 #37

+1 dalton99a Apr 2017 #44

There were no safety considerations here. DanTex Apr 2017 #19

There don't have to be FBaggins Apr 2017 #20

I don't see why that's true. DanTex Apr 2017 #21

+1. "The other flight is UA's business problem, not the problem of the people who had tickets..." uponit7771 Apr 2017 #27

The people who had tickets are on both ends of the flight FBaggins Apr 2017 #29

You're right there are a myriad of reasons but the one UA gave was bullshit and they're not going uponit7771 Apr 2017 #26

Except that isn't true either FBaggins Apr 2017 #28

Factually correct tavalon Apr 2017 #32

Agreed FBaggins Apr 2017 #36

That's an entirely different scenario. kcr Apr 2017 #46

I'd love to see him own the company and fire the president and all the security people involved. lark Apr 2017 #6

I usually abhor anyone taking corporations for millions .... BUT flying-skeleton Apr 2017 #7

Agree Meowmee Apr 2017 #15

Clearly the airline acted badly discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2017 #23

They have limits to what they can offer tavalon Apr 2017 #33

I really hope this is true and he takes them to the cleaners TNLib Apr 2017 #17

"Including the Governor Of New Jersey?" rocktivity Apr 2017 #18

That was my understanding.. in spite of so many "overbooked" Cha Apr 2017 #30

especially if he can prove libel nt WhiteTara Apr 2017 #31

Yeah, the libel is a lagnappe. tavalon Apr 2017 #34

What a great word! WhiteTara Apr 2017 #39

I don't get to use it much in the real world tavalon Apr 2017 #40

I'm looking for all kinds of ways WhiteTara Apr 2017 #45

I believe that is spelled "lagniappe," though. nt tblue37 Apr 2017 #42

See what happens when you never get to use a word! A special word, in fact the best word! tavalon Apr 2017 #43

Too many people just do NOT BlueMTexpat Apr 2017 #35

This "lawyer" sounds like an idiot Azathoth Apr 2017 #41

How did this passenger act wrongfully? kcr Apr 2017 #47

Because he bought a ticket for passage, not a seat and plane-specific ticket. randome Apr 2017 #49

I'm very curious to see where this goes legally. I have no idea if this self described lawyer is stevenleser Apr 2017 #48