a*t
2 楼
正常。资本主义国家哪还来服务业,都是榨取业。谁care你顾客
p*r
4 楼
这么大规模的内部邮件,发的时候就知道肯定要见媒体的。这真的是一点悔改的心都没
有啊,对自己的做法一点点点点反省都没有。
有啊,对自己的做法一点点点点反省都没有。
c*z
6 楼
我想问问,如果以后被要求下飞机,就只能接受他们的voucher下飞机了吗?买机票的
时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
k*u
7 楼
那种笼统的语言是很难站得住脚的。
非自愿下去的按法律规定赔现金。
它肯定想给你voucher,可能不提现金的事,你就说你只要现金。
如果它给你更高价格的代金券,你自己衡量好了。
【在 c*****z 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 我想问问,如果以后被要求下飞机,就只能接受他们的voucher下飞机了吗?买机票的
: 时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
: 我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
: 愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
: 见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
: 做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
非自愿下去的按法律规定赔现金。
它肯定想给你voucher,可能不提现金的事,你就说你只要现金。
如果它给你更高价格的代金券,你自己衡量好了。
【在 c*****z 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 我想问问,如果以后被要求下飞机,就只能接受他们的voucher下飞机了吗?买机票的
: 时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
: 我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
: 愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
: 见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
: 做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
Y*r
9 楼
定性了,这名乘客disruptive, belligerent
估摸着最终回以危害航空安全为由而把他赶下飞机
[在 kuku (小黄猫) 的大作中提到:]
:支持员工做法
:抨击乘客不合作
:服务业做成这样真是奇葩啊。
:哥吓尿了。
估摸着最终回以危害航空安全为由而把他赶下飞机
[在 kuku (小黄猫) 的大作中提到:]
:支持员工做法
:抨击乘客不合作
:服务业做成这样真是奇葩啊。
:哥吓尿了。
Y*r
11 楼
那两个形容词是CEO 原话,准备法庭见
这个要看律师有多牛逼了
[在 kuku (小黄猫) 的大作中提到:]
:这个因果关系很难翻过来吧。
这个要看律师有多牛逼了
[在 kuku (小黄猫) 的大作中提到:]
:这个因果关系很难翻过来吧。
b*s
13 楼
这种事情显然要fight over the law. 严正指出现有法律的不合理,要求law maker修
改法律
[在 YeSir (这画面太美我不敢看。。。) 的大作中提到:]
:那两个形容词是CEO 原话,准备法庭见
:这个要看律师有多牛逼了
改法律
[在 YeSir (这画面太美我不敢看。。。) 的大作中提到:]
:那两个形容词是CEO 原话,准备法庭见
:这个要看律师有多牛逼了
Y*r
14 楼
没啥不合理,全靠律师一张嘴
辛普森当年被判无罪我就知道这个理了
[在 beanies (以德唬人) 的大作中提到:]
:这种事情显然要fight over the law. 严正指出现有法律的不合理,要求law maker修
:改法律
辛普森当年被判无罪我就知道这个理了
[在 beanies (以德唬人) 的大作中提到:]
:这种事情显然要fight over the law. 严正指出现有法律的不合理,要求law maker修
:改法律
L*i
15 楼
这事看出来ua公关危机处理能力为零,尤其是现在的互联网时代
这不是一个去争论对错的时刻,而是一个对消费者来说印象往负值区间去的时刻,这对
ua的影响可不好说了。ua最开始的高调statement更把这个事情往越来越热上炒,以后
谁一提ua,保证都知道这个事情,这种负面广告效应可不是啥好现象,对ua来说。
这不是一个去争论对错的时刻,而是一个对消费者来说印象往负值区间去的时刻,这对
ua的影响可不好说了。ua最开始的高调statement更把这个事情往越来越热上炒,以后
谁一提ua,保证都知道这个事情,这种负面广告效应可不是啥好现象,对ua来说。
l*7
16 楼
Found this comment on YouTube. I can’t vouch for it, but provide it as-is.
Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don’t have rights needs to go away,
ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the
plane.
1. First of all, it’s airline spin to call this an overbooking. The
statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about “
OVERSALES,” specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats
than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook
the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone
already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The
law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not
apply.
2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have
to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing
to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that
will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is
straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of
carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied
boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed
seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal—they gave
preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats,
in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of
250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event
of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane.
Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in
rights after you’ve boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the
specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here.
He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn’t have been targeted. He’s
going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.
【在 c*****z 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 我想问问,如果以后被要求下飞机,就只能接受他们的voucher下飞机了吗?买机票的
: 时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
: 我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
: 愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
: 见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
: 做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don’t have rights needs to go away,
ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the
plane.
1. First of all, it’s airline spin to call this an overbooking. The
statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about “
OVERSALES,” specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats
than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook
the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone
already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The
law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not
apply.
2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have
to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing
to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that
will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is
straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of
carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied
boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed
seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal—they gave
preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats,
in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of
250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event
of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane.
Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in
rights after you’ve boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the
specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here.
He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn’t have been targeted. He’s
going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.
【在 c*****z 的大作中提到】
![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png)
: 我想问问,如果以后被要求下飞机,就只能接受他们的voucher下飞机了吗?买机票的
: 时候签的合同是有说什么“最终解释权归航空公司所有吗”。不然签了合同,凭什么让
: 我下飞机。陪机票,还得陪耽误事的各种损失啊。而且如果我defy了,难道不应该去找
: 愿意离开的乘客吗。不愿意就加价啊,像delta那样。虽然我不知道那个医生第二天要
: 见病人是否属实,但如果确实是紧要关头的事情,难道就没有商量的余地。空乘做服务
: 做成这样也是醉了。事情闹大了,对UA完全没好处,不知道怎么想的。
g*q
17 楼
这个事情不用从法律层面和合同层面讲.你可以有霸王合同,你这么执行霸王合同必然引
起乘客用脚投票.
起乘客用脚投票.
相关阅读
有婚后独自买房子的女子吗?新人求教关于chase freedom现在有吃饭5%cashback的卡嘛?用Bluebird付Ink信用卡有没有什么问题可以去branch申请信用卡吗?一般如果有些不想放在家里的东西存放在哪里比较合适?[注意] Delta 运通卡只能免费托一个国际行李Buy Flight Ticket use what credit card?请教Amazon PaymentsBOA 信用卡激活后多了个hard pulllowe's的gift cardAMEX points 转Delta miles 多久没有bonus了?新手申卡,踩到shit了~求支招推荐几个好的投资渠道吧索男平时也要参与点社会活动关于gift card盗用safeway买Visa卡,积几倍油点啊?clubcarlson 太恶心了ShareBuilder $50 Bonusbb bill pay 副卡cc