Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 424

Thread: The United debarcle

  1. #61
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Oh no. Idiots stay idiots. Regardless of age, regardless of the billion dollars that are (fictitious) on their bank account.

    And definitely regardless of how many stripes they wear on their shoulders.

    Four? So WHAT?!
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  2. #62
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    I said before 9 or 18 months, you should better pick another opponent.

    But you do not f* listen. Well that's ur choice!
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  3. #63
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    now THIS would be a money maker for sure! false imprisonment, assault, battery, breach of contract... can you say punitive damages?

    i get that we live in this new and very effed up world of which you speak and we all live in. but it's one thing to have a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER give you a LAWFUL ORDER which you question and argue about. it's another thing entirely when some corporate goon tries to force you to do something unlawful. NOTE: 2 of the law enforcement officers involved in the untied debacle have been placed on leave. why? cuz they violated the law themselves. they committed assault and battery on a non-threatening, non-law violating citizen. they should be charged criminally, prosecuted, and jailed, just like you and i would be if we did the same thing.

    the effin terrorists have won. they no longer need to hijack or bomb. they've got us so frickin scared we are assaulting each other, and going ape shit over absolutely nothing. a dark skinned dude gets on a plane and says a prayer and he gets booted and detained, the entire plane gets unloaded and searched yad yada, while a christian can cross himself and say 58 hail marys, 23 stations of the cross, and 42 our fathers and no one says or does shit.

    oh, and about this ty-wrap crap, WTF?!?!?! did someone go and deputize flight and cabin crews while the world slept? total horseshit in my book. but, it's one thing to restrain some knucklehead that loses it, even if it's a result of a few too many drinks. but to think that you believe you have the power and right to restrain a person for monetary reasons is proof that you have no comprehension of the law, which may be no fault of your own. maybe some corporate jerkoff told you you could do it. but let me tell you, not untied, aa, delta or atlas will do the time if you get convicted of a crime related to illegally restraining someone. that i PROMISE you. it will be your aging backside in the cell.
    I know another "couple" here on the JP platform, if you and the Bo baby were ever been able to be called partners.

    I talk about me and all JP members who are older than me but which share my home airport with me. Afaik, there is only one man who fulfils this criterion. And I pay respect to him.
    Not due to his age, or due to his "stripes on the shoulder".

    This Bo baby almost seems to be resistant to any form of respect. But he shares his home airport with you. Can't you find out his (...) and say a brief and short hello to him? Why is this one of my ideas. Well. You definitely are wiser if not also older than him.
    Probably this'd be too much. But with 3WE, I agree, that the bobo baby should no longer be accepted here in this forum.

    I have found evidence that he definitely is not 65 years old. But let's say he is 35. My respect does not depend on age, but on good manners, sometimes an honest word, and definitely not on insults against people who enrich this forum much longer or with much more useful entries... !

    Greetings.

    PS: Btw, you really share one airport with that person? I definitely don't envy you.
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Well, I supposed 3WE has gone off to make more popcorn... I'm trying to figure out what the hell this argument has to do with a passenger who was not endangering the safety of a flight in any way, or even being 'unruly'. He was just refusing to give up his seat since, as the airline had his money, he felt entitled to sit there. BoeingBobby, I completely agree that no passenger should defy the order of the flight crew on any issue that is not a violation of basic business ethics and human dignity, but this was. If I was in his place I'm pretty sure I would have deplaned and taken it up with the gate agent (who would probably have split by then), but then, I think this guy was a bit more courageous than I am, or than anyone of us is. It always takes someone courageous enough to stand up to injustice before injustice can be overcome.

    And guess what happened? Injustice was overcome. United has announced that they will not longer bump seated passengers. Would they have made this change without a guy having to get beaten up first? Never. His actions have been justified.

    HIstory is full of lessons like this. When we talk about our rights and our 'freedoms', we should know where they came from and be grateful for those who had the courage to defy the law when it was unjust.

    BoeingBobby, if you zip-tied this guy, you would be on the wrong side of history. But hey, feel free to zip-tie 3WE whenever you want.

  5. #65
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Probably popcorn is not the worst idea. I don't yet know on which side of the history you are.

    But I am on TeeVee's side:
    WTF?!?!?! did someone go and deputize flight and cabin crews while the world slept? total horseshit in my book.
    I have not heard of such a crap since I am on this planet. Thus, Republic Air has to pay what the colleagues of TeeVee tell them to pay!

    Nevertheless, I'll say two or twenty or twohundred words against that bobo baby. I don't accept insults, not by anyone, and not against anyone. And if I read him again here with such an insult, that has consequences!
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  6. #66
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Better read this and then I will accept your apology. I think ATL crew will back me up as well being he is also a 121 pilot. And we do carry ty-wraps for just that reason.

    https://travel.stackexchange.com/que...by-flight-crew
    sorry, parlor talking websites don't end the debate.

    49 uscs 46318:
    Interference with cabin or flight crew

    (a) General rule. An individual who physically assaults or threatens to physically assault a member of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft, or takes any action that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $ 25,000.

    (b) Compromise and setoff.
    (1) Compromise. The Secretary may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under this section.
    (2) Setoff. The United States Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty imposed or compromised under this section from amounts the Government owes the person liable for the penalty.

    14 CFR § 125.328 Prohibition on crew interference.

    No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

    14 CFR § 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.

    No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

    having said all of that, there is NO LAW specifically prohibiting a pax from disobeying a crew member. what has been deemed to be a VIOLATION (resulting ONLY in civil penalties) is disobeying crew member instructions which pertain to safety, e.g., no fastening seatbelt, sitting down etc.

    i have not found a single case where a pax was fined for refusing to leave an a/c, let alone was charged with a criminal act.

  7. #67
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    ...49 uscs 46318:...14 CFR § 125.328...14 CFR § 91.11...
    Thank you.

    If I assault, threaten, interfere, intimidate, or refuse safety orders of ATL crew (or other competent pilot), I invite him(them) to zip tie me. (If anyone else does that to ATL crew (or other competent pilots), I will offer my assistance IF reasonable to do so).

    As for old, senile, power-mad people with Napoleon complexes, who think that modern tickets have legal language on the back, who randomly go nuts and flame different forum members, who want to personally zip tie me for asking any question at all whatsoever, and who has said enough stupid things over the years displaying some big holes in their aviation knowledge that I'm not really sure they actually fly an airplane...that's why the cell phone recorder will be on.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #68
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Interesting. I always thought they certified the RJ with a MTOW that included a full flight AND full fuel tanks...

    Offload some cargo. Cargo doesn't fight back.
    No...I have personally seen overweight situations on ERJ's twice.

    Once on a stormy day like I described (No-shows or volunteers solved that problem) and once when the pilots started up the engines and sat at high idle for about 10 min to burn off excess fuel when a bunch of extra passengers were loaded.

    While I concur that cargo offloading would be preferred, I am not sure that is always available as a solution...I think enough butts and suitcases and gas can still overload a number of aircraft.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #69
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    sorry, here is the criminal statute....

    49 uscs § 46504.*Interference with flight crew members and attendantsAn individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

    (this applies only to "aircraft in flight which is defined as: "aircraft in flight" means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding--(A)* through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or(B)* until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft. 49 uscs 46501

  10. #70
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    I have found evidence that he definitely is not 65 years old. But let's say he is 35.

    Well now you sound like our new President. You have "evidence" let us see it!

  11. #71
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Who think that modern tickets have legal language on the back.
    Next time you fly, get your boarding pass at the gate, don't print it at home or use your smart phone. Flip it over and..... Oh my there it is!

  12. #72
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    No...I have personally seen overweight situations on ERJ's twice.

    Once on a stormy day like I described (No-shows or volunteers solved that problem) and once when the pilots started up the engines and sat at high idle for about 10 min to burn off excess fuel when a bunch of extra passengers were loaded.

    While I concur that cargo offloading would be preferred, I am not sure that is always available as a solution...I think enough butts and suitcases and gas can still overload a number of aircraft.
    I think the plane was designed before overweight America happened. It's not the butt count, it's the butt dimension.

  13. #73
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Next time you fly, get your boarding pass at the gate, don't print it at home or use your smart phone. Flip it over and..... Oh my there it is!
    I doubt today's 'contract of carriage' would fit on twenty boarding passes in .00001 point type..

  14. #74
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Next time you fly, get your boarding pass at the gate, don't print it at home or use your smart phone. Flip it over and..... Oh my there it is!
    Will do. Yeah, I am old enough to remember getting a near-booklet of red 'carbon-paper' and paper slips on top of paper slips and tear outs and stapling and all that good stuff...but you seemed a bit behind the times that the print-your-own and smart-phone-'bar-code' revolution means that folks are not really given a COC summary...instead, it's just an obscure link at the website.

    After I get my boarding pass, I'll also check to see if it prohibits the videoing of senile crewmembers with self-control issues.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I doubt today's 'contract of carriage' would fit on twenty boarding passes in .00001 point type..
    But a summary would:
    • Whatever we want, we get.
    • Whatever you want you do not get, with a few exceptions if you pay.
    • If you behave and we're in the mood, we might take you somewhere.
    • The previous statement may or may not also apply to your luggage. If it does, we do not promise to take you and your luggage to the same place at the same time.

    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  16. #76
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I think the plane was designed before overweight America happened. It's not the butt count, it's the butt dimension.
    Indeed.

    ***Off topic*** I've been tempted to start another thread on the topic of 'Average Passenger Weight 2017'. Given all the modern electronic wizardry (load cells in/around the gear?...a scale on a taxiway somewhere for research?), I would think there's some newer, fairly-accurate and real-time-ish data on what folks & aircraft actually weigh. Hopefully Brian will not zip-tie us for going off topic.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  17. #77
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Will do. I'll also check to see if it prohibits the videoing of senile crewmembers with self-control issues.

    It never was meant as a personal attack, it was supposed to be hypothetical.

  18. #78
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    It never was meant as a personal attack, it was supposed to be hypothetical.
    Boeing Bobby…My pet peeve is people who refuse to acknowledge two valid sides to things…well, that and saying that you are out to personally zip tie me, not the other passengers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boeing Bobby in Post #48
    Not any of the other passengers, just you.
    Please be aware that about 20 miles from where I live, a man was walking down the middle of the street and shot and killed by a policeman of another race. There was much media coverage.

    This raised a lot of valid questions and dealt deeply with related issues about pertinent facts, and not-so-pertinent facts and facts vs. testimony…you name it, it’s complicated!

    Is it wrong for a person to be shot just for walking down the street? Yes. Is a cop justified in shooting you if you present a reasonable threat to his health safety and life? Yes. If a cop (who carries a gun) is wrong/tells you something wrong, is it better to comply and work it out later? Yes (see asterisk). Are there bad cops who treat innocent citizens disrespectfully and illegally..and in SOME cases racial profiling happening on top of that? Yes. When a cop rightfully shoots someone can there be witnesses who testify otherwise? Yes. Are there witnesses who lie in those cases? Yes. Are there cases where the police are two quick to shoot? Yes. Are there very difficult cases where the shoot/no-shoot decision can be questioned. Yes. Should they be questioned…(that’s a question to you).

    *I still believe it’s rightful to politely ask the cop, to state the charges and have video available (without appearing as if you are reaching for a weapon, of course...this is complicated.). Of course, instead of acknowledging that maybe this is valid, you start with the zip-tie talk.

    Do I know the final rulings on this specific case and a fair amount of critical, somewhat complex evidence as to who was right and wrong in this case? Yes. Does that mean that right and wrong may fall differently on other cases (depending on facts)? Yes. And regardless of the facts in this case, what would have happened if the dead person had simply complied with the policeman...Yeah, he'd be better off..I get the concept.

    Do I support law enforcement? Yes. Is Law enforcement a crappy job with crappy pay that may give someone a bad attitude? Yes. Is this a 100% race issue? No. Is there a valid concern with race bias in these cases. Yes, bias is evident in some cases.

    And finally, do police wearing body cameras not 1) help the police in the case of being falsely accused of police brutality and being trigger happy AS WELL AS 2) encourage the police to properly follow their procedures with respect to citizens and their rights?

    After 9/11 we learned that a gate agent felt suspicious about the terrorists and didn’t act. We learned that a flight instructor thought it was strange that his student was more interested in takeoff and navigation, and expressed less interest in landing.

    Does this mean that we should have been more diligent? Maybe so. It's complicated. But, I’ll go back to my comment that set you off…your absolute, black and white comment that you can’t even politely verbally object and video.

    If I threaten or interfere with safety (or am passively drunk), please, have at it. If I politely call bull crap and put it on video…(and please note, I already suggested the FA have a ‘body cam’ to catch the incident from it’s inception, because cell phone video does NOT tell the whole story).

    …and guess what, I haven’t even scratched the surface on the complexities of policing and aviation safety. It’s complicated with valid thoughts on many sides.

    I even get the complex issue of a good-faith effort to transport passengers, but the need for protection in a COC for genuine, unforeseen circumstances.

    No apologies coming from me, and it would appear you are in LHB’s dog house.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #79
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Interesting. I always thought they certified the RJ with a MTOW that included a full flight AND full fuel tanks...
    Not only are RJs not thus certified, but, in fact, not very many airplanes of any kind are. If you take the CRJ200 as an example (I only use it because I have well over 3,000 hours therein), MZFW is 44,000lbs, max fuel is 14,500lbs (+/- a tad), while MTOW is 53,000lbs, and even that only with the MTOW increase kit. Otherwise it's only 51,000lbs.

  20. #80
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Thank you.If I assault, threaten, interfere, intimidate, or refuse safety orders of ATL crew (or other competent pilot), I invite him(them) to zip tie me. (If anyone else does that to ATL crew (or other competent pilots), I will offer my assistance IF reasonable to do so).As for old, senile, power-mad people with Napoleon complexes, who think that modern tickets have legal language on the back, who randomly go nuts and flame different forum members, who want to personally zip tie me for asking any question at all whatsoever, and who has said enough stupid things over the years displaying some big holes in their aviation knowledge that I'm not really sure they actually fly an airplane...that's why the cell phone recorder will be on.
    I'm reminded of exremely wise words of that great Caribbean philosopher Capt Jack Sparrow who said "The problem is not the problem. It's your attitude about the problem that's the problem". I find this can be equally applicable both to airline employees and the public.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •