how can they be OK with something like this happening to an old man?

................

The only thing I can think of is ignorance.

comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)
posted 3 minutes ago
I just looked this up, the guy was 69? How can do something like this to a 69 year old man? Jesus Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should not be relevant, just as being an Asian doctor either.

Simply, no one should be treated like that in these circumstances. Regardless of the rules and regs, there were alternatives to sorting this without a bleeding passenger ending up being international news.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree totally, but like to the people saying "Oh legally this is alright, small print, blah blah blah" how can they be OK with something like this happening to an old man?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
would it be better to have it happen to a woman? or a child?

their policy appears to be to randomly select people to be booted off, and he was randomly selected - presumably this is fairer than a policy that says that women and children will stay?

he should then have agreed to leave, whether he is old/young etc is irrelevant.

but frankly no one wants to see any passenger bleeding, young, old, or anywhere in between.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Imagine flying on that flight after seeing that.

I bet everyone paid attention to the safety briefing.

The point is some idiot needs to use some furrrking common sense in that situation and realise it's not ok to physically manhandle and injure and then drag an old man. It don't matter if legally that's OK, it's about being a semi-ok human being and realising that you just can't do something like that.

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 2 minutes ago
i see you've become an expert on US aviation law now that someone else has posted a link.

didn't hear you mentioning any violation of 14 CFR 250.2a earlier, if that FB post is accurate then i'm sure we'll all happily revise our opinions, but no need to get on your high horse about it.
___________________

I see you have become bitter and sarcastic now...

I never claimed to bwe an expert. Try looking at my strategic use of the words "if" and "then".

You are familiar with this grammatical construct, yes?

See...anyone can be sarcastic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you began by saying "Much of what has been said to back up the "legal justification" is totally wrong."

That didn't admit of any ifs or buts.

You've been on your high horse about this for hours, never offered any substantial argument for/against any of the legal points, but as soon as someone else posts a retweet of a FB post you imply that anyone who bothered to look into the legalities of and come to a conclusion - something you yourself couldn't be @rsed to do - is "wrong". Sorry, "totally wrong".

So next time feel free to get down from your high horse and do a bit of digging yourself.

The fact that it's an old man should make it easier to realise that but I agree, it would be the same for anyone in that situation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc United airlines probably 😂

The way this has been handled is certainly not OK.

I'm not justifying UA's actions here because it quite clearly isn't right.

There are dozens of ways they could have handled this better.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 42 seconds ago
Imagine flying on that flight after seeing that.

I bet everyone paid attention to the safety briefing.
...

'In the event of an air crash, the crew reserve the right to eat passengers selected at random until rescue'

Ja606 agrees with this policy.

comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 3 seconds ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc United airlines probably 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
to be fair delta are even more brutal when asking a passenger to leave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqbdP_mHmt8

comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 43 seconds ago
Imagine flying on that flight after seeing that.

I bet everyone paid attention to the safety briefing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All the flight attendants were praying that there were no medical emergencies mid-flight.

"Is there a doctor on board? .... Other than the one that was sitting in 11A..."
..

comment by Ruiney (U1005)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 42 seconds ago
Imagine flying on that flight after seeing that.

I bet everyone paid attention to the safety briefing.
...

'In the event of an air crash, the crew reserve the right to eat passengers selected at random until rescue'

Ja606 agrees with this policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All the flight attendants were praying that there were no medical emergencies mid-flight.

"Is there a doctor on board? .... Other than the one that was sitting in 11A..."

................

Outstanding, Dave.

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 2 minutes ago
i see you've become an expert on US aviation law now that someone else has posted a link.

didn't hear you mentioning any violation of 14 CFR 250.2a earlier, if that FB post is accurate then i'm sure we'll all happily revise our opinions, but no need to get on your high horse about it.
___________________

I see you have become bitter and sarcastic now...

I never claimed to bwe an expert. Try looking at my strategic use of the words "if" and "then".

You are familiar with this grammatical construct, yes?

See...anyone can be sarcastic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you began by saying "Much of what has been said to back up the "legal justification" is totally wrong."

That didn't admit of any ifs or buts.

You've been on your high horse about this for hours, never offered any substantial argument for/against any of the legal points, but as soon as someone else posts a retweet of a FB post you imply that anyone who bothered to look into the legalities of and come to a conclusion - something you yourself couldn't be @rsed to do - is "wrong". Sorry, "totally wrong".

So next time feel free to get down from your high horse and do a bit of digging yourself.
_________________

I'm on a high horse??

Wow, that's hilarious.

You guys have been insulting anyone who took issue with this incident - going on about "faux outrage" and defending the aggressive behaviour of UA solely on the grounds that they shouldn't have to inconvenience staff members by making them sit in a car for two hours.

I simply pointed out that neither "making money" nor the "fine point" in a business contract should ever be used to justify inhumane behaviour.

I then pointed out that others had contradicted what you have been spouting falsely about the law for hours on end.

I.e. I said clearly that this behaviour is wrong, whether it is legal or not.

I am now pointing out that it was not legal behaviour anyway, according to what others have posted.

Or should I ignore all new information and just believe everything that you spout instead?

If you think this topic is unworthy of debate, criticism or whatever then why are you spending hours arguing about it?

comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 43 seconds ago
Imagine flying on that flight after seeing that.

I bet everyone paid attention to the safety briefing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All the flight attendants were praying that there were no medical emergencies mid-flight.

"Is there a doctor on board? .... Other than the one that was sitting in 11A..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by redmisty (U7556)

_________________

I'm on a high horse??

Wow, that's hilarious.

You guys have been insulting anyone who took issue with this incident - going on about "faux outrage" and defending the aggressive behaviour of UA solely on the grounds that they shouldn't have to inconvenience staff members by making them sit in a car for two hours.

I simply pointed out that neither "making money" nor the "fine point" in a business contract should ever be used to justify inhumane behaviour.

I then pointed out that others had contradicted what you have been spouting falsely about the law for hours on end.

I.e. I said clearly that this behaviour is wrong, whether it is legal or not.

I am now pointing out that it was not legal behaviour anyway, according to what others have posted.

Or should I ignore all new information and just believe everything that you spout instead?

If you think this topic is unworthy of debate, criticism or whatever then why are you spending hours arguing about it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
now you're just being a c@ck.

yes, high horse, your comments to myself and others have ranged from "blind hypocrisy" to accusations of being so right wing as to be a borderline fascist.

i haven't insulted anyone on this thread. i don't think i'm even insulting you, though i am suggesting you are lazy and self-righteous, which could be considered an insult i suppose.

i said i will happily take on board any and all new information i see; you're the one who then implied that because a single FB post contradicted the argument of some on here that it meant that we were "totally wrong".

as i said, next time go and do some research for yourself and then claim the moral high ground.

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)

_________________

I'm on a high horse??

Wow, that's hilarious.

You guys have been insulting anyone who took issue with this incident - going on about "faux outrage" and defending the aggressive behaviour of UA solely on the grounds that they shouldn't have to inconvenience staff members by making them sit in a car for two hours.

I simply pointed out that neither "making money" nor the "fine point" in a business contract should ever be used to justify inhumane behaviour.

I then pointed out that others had contradicted what you have been spouting falsely about the law for hours on end.

I.e. I said clearly that this behaviour is wrong, whether it is legal or not.

I am now pointing out that it was not legal behaviour anyway, according to what others have posted.

Or should I ignore all new information and just believe everything that you spout instead?

If you think this topic is unworthy of debate, criticism or whatever then why are you spending hours arguing about it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
now you're just being a c@ck.

yes, high horse, your comments to myself and others have ranged from "blind hypocrisy" to accusations of being so right wing as to be a borderline fascist.

i haven't insulted anyone on this thread. i don't think i'm even insulting you, though i am suggesting you are lazy and self-righteous, which could be considered an insult i suppose.

i said i will happily take on board any and all new information i see; you're the one who then implied that because a single FB post contradicted the argument of some on here that it meant that we were "totally wrong".

as i said, next time go and do some research for yourself and then claim the moral high ground.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Redmisty getting hormonal again 😂

as i said, next time go and do some research for yourself and then claim the moral high ground.
___________________

"Blind hypocrisy" is absolutely spot on here.

Ihave stated over and over that the "moral high ground" here has nowt to do with the law.

If something is legal does that automatically make it morally right? According to you, there is no distinction.

And if you attempt to justify violence on the grounds of making money then yes I think it is fair to call that borderline fascism.

It is hilarious that you are offended by the term "blind hypocrisy" yet you had no problem with Lambeau accusing people of being attention seekers in expressing "faux outrage". That is far more insulting yet you merrily agreed with him...

Like I said - blind hypocrisy and aggressively sanctimonious.

Regardless of any legal authority UA may have there is no justification to do to this man what they did, he wasn't being agressive or violet, he's 69 years of age and they could easily have removed him in a less agressive manner.

That's the crux of it for the majority of people.

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 2 seconds ago
as i said, next time go and do some research for yourself and then claim the moral high ground.
___________________

"Blind hypocrisy" is absolutely spot on here.

Ihave stated over and over that the "moral high ground" here has nowt to do with the law.

If something is legal does that automatically make it morally right? According to you, there is no distinction.

And if you attempt to justify violence on the grounds of making money then yes I think it is fair to call that borderline fascism.

It is hilarious that you are offended by the term "blind hypocrisy" yet you had no problem with Lambeau accusing people of being attention seekers in expressing "faux outrage". That is far more insulting yet you merrily agreed with him...

Like I said - blind hypocrisy and aggressively sanctimonious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
as you wish. though you are right about one thing, i do have better things to do than go back and forth on this with you for hours.

as you wish. though you are right about one thing, i do have better things to do than go back and forth on this with you for hours.
________________

feel free to demonstrate that any time now.

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 20 seconds ago
as you wish. though you are right about one thing, i do have better things to do than go back and forth on this with you for hours.
________________

feel free to demonstrate that any time now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, i'm off, though you can add patronising to the list of non-insults i aimed at you.

300!