Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
In any business supposedly it is a good faith transaction of an exchange of money for services/product provided.
The rule to allow an airline the benefit of overbooking with their option to bump a person who in good faith paid for the seat their sitting in is wrong on all levels.
If airlines are concerned about not leaving a tarmac fully loaded then there are other ways to deal with the issue.
In this case the reason was a flight crew needed to be somewhere else/ well then its your problem airline so why don't you have a working plan with others such as a helicopter ride for the crew?
It was predicable that if this passenger had any personal discrepancy it would be well publicized because this airline stands to lose millions here.
In law the rule is you take the plaintiff as you find him. what this guy did or did not do has no bearing on the actions of the airline. People ought to be outraged that any person was treated in manner this man was and for such a ridiculous reason . I mean he wasn't a potential terrorist.
United deserves what it is about to get. Lucky for them I will not be on that jury.
Personal Best Regards:
|
Great post and I thank you for putting it in black and white. I was appalled when I saw the news media and posters on here immediately dragging up his past.
IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with how he was treated by this airline. In a court of law his past would not be admissible. He was injured and dragged by his feet off a plane - and that is all we should be concerned with!