f*t
2 楼
idb最少1350，不是最多
y*n
3 楼
在飞机上，美国公民的权利比中国公民要差好多倍啊。当然我是说大家都坐自己的航空
公司的情况下来说。
公司的情况下来说。
m*g
4 楼
那是理论值，一般美国境内航班一两百刀就把人打发了。
国际航班给个800块就有人高高兴兴接受了。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
国际航班给个800块就有人高高兴兴接受了。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
x*n
5 楼
是的。
不过这个random pick很没有理。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
不过这个random pick很没有理。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
a*e
6 楼
random pick也没有什么不合理的，也只是一种pick的方式而已，我也觉得没有什么不
公平的。除非是它事先明确规定了pick的方式，临时几个员工决定改了，那乘客不接收
还有道理。这是一。
第二，轮到你下飞机，你硬不下，怎么办？当然只好出动保安警力强制执行，我觉得也
没什么不对的。
当然，大众情绪一定是痛恨航空公司，所以管你有理没理，UA这个苦头肯定是要吃的了
。
公平的。除非是它事先明确规定了pick的方式，临时几个员工决定改了，那乘客不接收
还有道理。这是一。
第二，轮到你下飞机，你硬不下，怎么办？当然只好出动保安警力强制执行，我觉得也
没什么不对的。
当然，大众情绪一定是痛恨航空公司，所以管你有理没理，UA这个苦头肯定是要吃的了
。
a*b
7 楼
听说不是over booked，是因为UA 自己的员工上了飞机所以要把乘客赶下来
x*n
8 楼
这是合法合理的，每个航空公司都是这样，不合理合法UA敢直接告诉你？
问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
【在 a******b 的大作中提到】
: 听说不是over booked，是因为UA 自己的员工上了飞机所以要把乘客赶下来
问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
【在 a******b 的大作中提到】
: 听说不是over booked，是因为UA 自己的员工上了飞机所以要把乘客赶下来
r*e
9 楼
主要要自愿，花几百块钱被人打一顿，这种事儿在美国发生有些说不过去
[在 xiaoxiaoren (可爱小宝宝) 的大作中提到：]
:这是合法合理的，每个航空公司都是这样，不合理合法UA敢直接告诉你？
:问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
:比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
:☆ 发自 iPhone 买买提 1.23.01
[在 xiaoxiaoren (可爱小宝宝) 的大作中提到：]
:这是合法合理的，每个航空公司都是这样，不合理合法UA敢直接告诉你？
:问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
:比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
:☆ 发自 iPhone 买买提 1.23.01
h*n
10 楼
什么乱七八糟的，你是专业来扯淡的么？
法律规定把非volunteer请下飞机最少赔1350还得是cash，上不封顶。
法律还规定付费旅客的优先级高于雇员，任何时候都不能把旅客bump掉给自己的雇员让位
专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case
FW: 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.
法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
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.
法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客
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.
航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力
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 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
法律规定把非volunteer请下飞机最少赔1350还得是cash，上不封顶。
法律还规定付费旅客的优先级高于雇员，任何时候都不能把旅客bump掉给自己的雇员让位
专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case
FW: 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.
法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
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.
法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客
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.
航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力
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 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
h*n
11 楼
一个字，放屁
至于UA为什么这么傻逼，从那个反川先锋傻逼墨墨CEO就能看出来，上梁不正下梁歪嘛。
FW: 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.
法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
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.
法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客
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.
航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力
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 x*********n 的大作中提到】
: 这是合法合理的，每个航空公司都是这样，不合理合法UA敢直接告诉你？
: 问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
: 比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
至于UA为什么这么傻逼，从那个反川先锋傻逼墨墨CEO就能看出来，上梁不正下梁歪嘛。
FW: 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.
法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
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.
法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客
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.
航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力
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 x*********n 的大作中提到】
: 这是合法合理的，每个航空公司都是这样，不合理合法UA敢直接告诉你？
: 问题是谁下。应该有明确标准。
: 比如机票最便宜的，最晚check in的，等等
t*e
12 楼
overbooking 只针对登机前。这新闻里的情况是大家已经上飞机了，航空公司就不能按
overbooking踢人了。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjEIN09nx8
overbooking踢人了。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjEIN09nx8
x*n
13 楼
你这就是瞎激动。
航空公司都这样。
自己员工优先坐。员工分级，做做会计也许每年送几张免费票，开飞机的直系亲属
unlimited 在值飞航线免费票，商务车起，等级优于所有。
其它持股股东，重要领导，高级会员就不用说了。
航空业有自己的rule，比如overbooking，我第一次听到是在炒股课上，老师举例子说
的。记得在场也有很多同学惊讶，但是事实就是。
UA这事情任何航空都有，只是别的做的更有理有据，更多的找流程。
跳上飞机挑人下车这显然是不对的，你要是直接电脑选票价最低4人下去，就有理有据
多了。
嘛。
reserved
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 一个字，放屁
: 至于UA为什么这么傻逼，从那个反川先锋傻逼墨墨CEO就能看出来，上梁不正下梁歪嘛。
: FW: 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.
: 法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
: 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
航空公司都这样。
自己员工优先坐。员工分级，做做会计也许每年送几张免费票，开飞机的直系亲属
unlimited 在值飞航线免费票，商务车起，等级优于所有。
其它持股股东，重要领导，高级会员就不用说了。
航空业有自己的rule，比如overbooking，我第一次听到是在炒股课上，老师举例子说
的。记得在场也有很多同学惊讶，但是事实就是。
UA这事情任何航空都有，只是别的做的更有理有据，更多的找流程。
跳上飞机挑人下车这显然是不对的，你要是直接电脑选票价最低4人下去，就有理有据
多了。
嘛。
reserved
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 一个字，放屁
: 至于UA为什么这么傻逼，从那个反川先锋傻逼墨墨CEO就能看出来，上梁不正下梁歪嘛。
: FW: 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.
: 法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
: 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
x*n
14 楼
踢人是可以的，但是你不能随性子踢人啊。
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: overbooking 只针对登机前。这新闻里的情况是大家已经上飞机了，航空公司就不能按
: overbooking踢人了。
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjEIN09nx8
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: overbooking 只针对登机前。这新闻里的情况是大家已经上飞机了，航空公司就不能按
: overbooking踢人了。
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjEIN09nx8
h*n
15 楼
再重复一边，这次既不是overbooking也不是denied boarding。纯粹是UA的gate crew
傻逼，mgr傻逼，CEO傻逼。
关于需不需要下飞机，医生在被打之前就跟他的律师打过电话了。
【在 x*********n 的大作中提到】
: 你这就是瞎激动。
: 航空公司都这样。
: 自己员工优先坐。员工分级，做做会计也许每年送几张免费票，开飞机的直系亲属
: unlimited 在值飞航线免费票，商务车起，等级优于所有。
: 其它持股股东，重要领导，高级会员就不用说了。
: 航空业有自己的rule，比如overbooking，我第一次听到是在炒股课上，老师举例子说
: 的。记得在场也有很多同学惊讶，但是事实就是。
: UA这事情任何航空都有，只是别的做的更有理有据，更多的找流程。
: 跳上飞机挑人下车这显然是不对的，你要是直接电脑选票价最低4人下去，就有理有据
: 多了。
傻逼，mgr傻逼，CEO傻逼。
关于需不需要下飞机，医生在被打之前就跟他的律师打过电话了。
【在 x*********n 的大作中提到】
: 你这就是瞎激动。
: 航空公司都这样。
: 自己员工优先坐。员工分级，做做会计也许每年送几张免费票，开飞机的直系亲属
: unlimited 在值飞航线免费票，商务车起，等级优于所有。
: 其它持股股东，重要领导，高级会员就不用说了。
: 航空业有自己的rule，比如overbooking，我第一次听到是在炒股课上，老师举例子说
: 的。记得在场也有很多同学惊讶，但是事实就是。
: UA这事情任何航空都有，只是别的做的更有理有据，更多的找流程。
: 跳上飞机挑人下车这显然是不对的，你要是直接电脑选票价最低4人下去，就有理有据
: 多了。
i*2
16 楼
航空公司有权不让登机，但己经登机了且坐下了，相当于双方有了契约，航空公司没权
单方面毁约除非特殊情况如醉酒大闹，而且还是用暴力形式，这绝对犯法了。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
单方面毁约除非特殊情况如醉酒大闹，而且还是用暴力形式，这绝对犯法了。
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
i*2
17 楼
不懂别瞎B B
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
i*2
18 楼
说到点上了。应该发给U A
让位
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 什么乱七八糟的，你是专业来扯淡的么？
: 法律规定把非volunteer请下飞机最少赔1350还得是cash，上不封顶。
: 法律还规定付费旅客的优先级高于雇员，任何时候都不能把旅客bump掉给自己的雇员让位
: 专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case
: FW: 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.
: 法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
: 1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an
: overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny
让位
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 什么乱七八糟的，你是专业来扯淡的么？
: 法律规定把非volunteer请下飞机最少赔1350还得是cash，上不封顶。
: 法律还规定付费旅客的优先级高于雇员，任何时候都不能把旅客bump掉给自己的雇员让位
: 专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case
: FW: 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.
: 法律上，航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
: 1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an
: overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny
n*s
19 楼
应了那句话， 人生到处都是陷阱， P大个事， 搞出这么多幺蛾子来。
i*2
20 楼
69岁的华人都被非法打成这样了，对你还是P大个事，我只能说你心真够大的。
华人要利用各种机会合法展示力量，所谓''打得一拳开，防得百拳来"
【在 n*******s 的大作中提到】
: 应了那句话， 人生到处都是陷阱， P大个事， 搞出这么多幺蛾子来。
华人要利用各种机会合法展示力量，所谓''打得一拳开，防得百拳来"
【在 n*******s 的大作中提到】
: 应了那句话， 人生到处都是陷阱， P大个事， 搞出这么多幺蛾子来。
n*s
21 楼
说了人生处处是陷阱， 需要小心应对。
【在 i**********2 的大作中提到】
: 69岁的华人都被非法打成这样了，对你还是P大个事，我只能说你心真够大的。
: 华人要利用各种机会合法展示力量，所谓''打得一拳开，防得百拳来"
【在 i**********2 的大作中提到】
: 69岁的华人都被非法打成这样了，对你还是P大个事，我只能说你心真够大的。
: 华人要利用各种机会合法展示力量，所谓''打得一拳开，防得百拳来"
o*e
22 楼
不是random。有一套规则，付高票价的人不用担心被bump。
【在 a*********e 的大作中提到】
: random pick也没有什么不合理的，也只是一种pick的方式而已，我也觉得没有什么不
: 公平的。除非是它事先明确规定了pick的方式，临时几个员工决定改了，那乘客不接收
: 还有道理。这是一。
: 第二，轮到你下飞机，你硬不下，怎么办？当然只好出动保安警力强制执行，我觉得也
: 没什么不对的。
: 当然，大众情绪一定是痛恨航空公司，所以管你有理没理，UA这个苦头肯定是要吃的了
: 。
【在 a*********e 的大作中提到】
: random pick也没有什么不合理的，也只是一种pick的方式而已，我也觉得没有什么不
: 公平的。除非是它事先明确规定了pick的方式，临时几个员工决定改了，那乘客不接收
: 还有道理。这是一。
: 第二，轮到你下飞机，你硬不下，怎么办？当然只好出动保安警力强制执行，我觉得也
: 没什么不对的。
: 当然，大众情绪一定是痛恨航空公司，所以管你有理没理，UA这个苦头肯定是要吃的了
: 。
g*q
23 楼
那是没登机的情况.登机坐下以后这么搞问题就严重多了,不是1350能解决的.
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
【在 r*****e 的大作中提到】
: 而且一张机票最多赔$1350。查了一下，美国交通法律就是这么规定的，以后大家得心
: 里有数了
相关阅读