General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

24. Right...your prior boarding has been denied

Reply to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:13 PM

Apr 2017

The question is how they get you if the plane under the claimed interpretation. Apparently nothing in the contract allows them to get you off until the plane lands at your destination.

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