Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #106518 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-07 01:05 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-31 10:07 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 318 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple Investors Beware? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-05-07 01:05 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-07 17:33 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 05:49 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 10:35 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 17:17 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 15:31 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 17:44 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 16:13 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 18:37 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 16:46 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 19:24 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 18:28 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 21:09 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 19:15 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-07 21:21 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 19:23 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-08 05:16 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-09 02:03 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-09 02:01 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-05-07 11:46 -0500
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 17:01 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-05-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-07 19:37 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-08 10:40 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-07 21:37 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-07 19:26 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-08 14:42 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-05-07 19:57 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-07 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-08 04:04 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-08 15:40 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-08 16:17 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-08 18:43 +0200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-09 02:09 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-09 11:35 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2017-05-09 10:21 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-09 14:33 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 14:36 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:28 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:11 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-10 19:30 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-13 14:30 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-13 16:39 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:09 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-14 11:40 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 11:11 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-13 20:54 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 15:40 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-13 21:48 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 18:13 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:41 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-15 14:19 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 23:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-15 19:26 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-17 08:26 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 10:31 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-17 10:46 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:50 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 03:16 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 20:37 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-18 09:20 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 17:25 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 03:09 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-18 21:44 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 18:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 13:48 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 20:46 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-20 18:01 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-20 21:31 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:38 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-23 22:17 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 21:55 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-24 00:26 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 19:10 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-24 18:36 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 19:15 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-26 01:12 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 09:40 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 18:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 21:12 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 16:49 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-22 11:07 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 09:11 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 17:30 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 19:48 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 23:08 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 20:12 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 18:41 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:28 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 09:25 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:29 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:19 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-23 22:17 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-26 02:25 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:37 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 19:34 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-28 04:55 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 23:16 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:06 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-24 13:31 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-05-23 20:12 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-24 15:57 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 19:45 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-28 05:14 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 23:19 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-29 18:48 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-30 18:42 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 23:18 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-30 18:43 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 20:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-31 13:17 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-23 22:17 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-26 02:33 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:37 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-27 15:44 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-27 10:27 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-26 19:08 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-27 15:59 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-28 10:58 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-27 23:09 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-28 12:58 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:08 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-29 03:26 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-29 08:51 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 12:19 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-30 18:52 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-30 09:05 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-28 04:47 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-28 19:33 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-28 09:32 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-28 18:06 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-29 03:30 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-29 08:48 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-29 18:47 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-30 19:28 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 18:39 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-31 06:28 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-31 12:14 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 19:15 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 15:08 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-20 11:13 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:26 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:28 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-22 06:52 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 03:30 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 21:19 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 19:48 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-23 22:17 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 19:57 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 15:11 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-20 11:16 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:22 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 09:31 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-18 16:14 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 13:37 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 21:43 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-22 11:37 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 14:06 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-22 15:09 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 15:13 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 14:23 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 12:58 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 21:25 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 19:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-22 21:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 21:25 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 19:52 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 18:49 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 16:13 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-05-23 19:58 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 09:30 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 09:27 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-23 20:03 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 19:19 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-26 01:14 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 20:06 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 09:19 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-26 02:54 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:37 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-26 19:34 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-26 23:52 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-29 03:39 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 15:03 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-20 11:10 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:25 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-20 14:31 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 19:41 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-20 15:45 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 22:45 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-27 20:23 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-27 23:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-29 03:46 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-29 08:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-29 16:11 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-29 09:18 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 12:28 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 13:33 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 13:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-29 18:59 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 16:07 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 17:52 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 19:02 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 19:23 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-29 23:35 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 22:59 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 23:09 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-30 03:20 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-30 00:55 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 11:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 12:05 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 15:04 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 15:22 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 15:45 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 12:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 15:58 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-30 20:12 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 16:35 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-30 21:07 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 19:06 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 16:24 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 19:35 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-30 21:45 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 19:36 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 02:52 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 23:02 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-31 00:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-31 00:59 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 07:03 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 00:05 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 00:19 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-05-30 17:31 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 00:37 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 20:38 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-31 00:40 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-30 20:53 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-06-03 05:35 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-30 16:34 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-29 23:29 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-30 00:53 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-29 18:59 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 15:26 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 16:15 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 17:52 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-29 18:17 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 18:20 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-30 00:49 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 22:07 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-28 17:47 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:28 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-22 11:53 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 16:11 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 10:38 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-28 13:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-29 03:47 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-22 11:26 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 13:29 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 10:45 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-28 13:00 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-29 09:17 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-28 18:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 09:14 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 14:25 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 12:55 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 21:25 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-22 19:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-23 18:45 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-23 10:35 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 21:14 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-23 11:44 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 09:35 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 21:21 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-29 16:19 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 00:20 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 21:20 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 21:17 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 11:11 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 21:28 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-29 16:24 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-30 13:17 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-29 22:07 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-22 17:30 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-28 10:46 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-18 21:49 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 17:16 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-09 14:21 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-10 09:27 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:48 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:11 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-10 09:50 -0700
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-11 12:49 +1200
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-11 08:55 -0400
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-09 22:42 +0000
Re: Apple Investors Beware? Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2017-05-31 07:24 -0600
Re: Apple Investors Beware? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-31 10:07 -0400
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep3pigFu27jU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107305 |
On 2017-05-29, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-29 17:52, nospam wrote: > >> yes quite. united was in violation of their own contract of carriage, >> among numerous other things. > > unless the ticket is voided by United, and unless United cannot > deliver the transport within reasonable time, it is not in violation. Wrong. And many legal experts agree United broke their end of the contract. Disagree all you want; but you can't change this reality, fool. <http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html> > If they offered the guy alternate transport to destination within > reasonable time, they are not in violation of contract. Wrong again. They had no legal standing to remove him from his boarded seat. >> except that they can't remove an already seated pax other than for >> specific reasons, such as they're disruptive or pose a safety risk, >> none of which applied in this case. > > However, once a passenger refuses to comply with an order from the > crew, that disopbeyance becomes an issue. Not legally, nope. >> the gate agent falsified her report that the passenger was >> disruptive. > > Not obeying airline request = disruptive. Wrong again. He was not disorderly until they attempted to remove him from the seat he had already boarded and sat in as contractually obligated. Their attempt to break their end of the contract and his refusal to go along with it does not constitute disorderly conduct. People like you just love to suck the cock of authority. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 22:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592ce026$0$53152$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107308 |
On 2017-05-29 19:35, Jolly Roger wrote: > People like you just love to suck the cock of authority. I do not agree with what happened. But it happened because of a reason. You can deny all you want by only looking are part of the contract and forgetting that most clauses that "including this and that" do not exclude other reasons. If the airline wants to really stop this from happening, it needs to find what went on in the thinking of the crew and the security guards and make sure they codify stuff which will prevent it. You will note that on the night of the event, the UNITED CEO stated that the crew acted as per the rules. The next day, due to huge PR backlash, he admitted the rules were bad and United would review them. Consider this: had the security guys extracted the guy without injury, there would have been no huge PR backlash and no threat of lawsuit. The airline would have found a clause in the contract of carriage giving then the right to do what they did and offered the guy the next flight and come compensation. Physical harm to the passenger was the real legal show stopper and why United and the security foloks have to react and monetarily apologize.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 23:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290520172309080345%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107315 |
In article <592ce026$0$53152$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > If the airline wants to really stop this from happening, it needs to > find what went on in the thinking of the crew and the security guards > and make sure they codify stuff which will prevent it. that's exactly what they did. > You will note that on the night of the event, the UNITED CEO stated that > the crew acted as per the rules. The next day, due to huge PR backlash, > he admitted the rules were bad and United would review them. he initially was sucking up to the unions. that turned out to be a mistake. > Consider this: had the security guys extracted the guy without injury, > there would have been no huge PR backlash and no threat of lawsuit. The > airline would have found a clause in the contract of carriage giving > then the right to do what they did and offered the guy the next flight > and come compensation. there is no clause. > Physical harm to the passenger was the real legal show stopper and why > United and the security foloks have to react and monetarily apologize. it's one of several factors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 03:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep46n9F2ht2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107315 |
On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-29 19:35, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> People like you just love to suck the cock of authority. > > I do not agree with what happened. You are defending the indefensible (the actions of the authorities involved) while disparaging the victim. > But it happened because of a reason. It happened because United breached their contract with the passenger and then called security to forcibly remove him from his seat. > You can deny all you want You're the one in denial here. United has admitted it was wrong. The security guards involved were all suspended. And United granted the passenger a huge settlement for their wrong doing. > by only looking are part of the contract and forgetting that most > clauses that "including this and that" do not exclude other reasons. You are the one trying to ignore the parts of the contract that actually matter. And legal experts agree with *me* - not you. > You will note that on the night of the event, the UNITED CEO stated > that the crew acted as per the rules. There you go again licking the boots of authority. You will note the CEO and other United authorities also claimed the flight was overbooked and that the passenger was disruptive and belligerent, despite video evidence showing that not to be true. United lied many times about the incident; and only after there was a backlash did they change their tune and tell the truth. Later on United agreed to a settlement with the passenger where they paid him a large sum of money for their wrong doing. > Consider this: had the security guys extracted the guy without injury, > there would have been no huge PR backlash and no threat of lawsuit. You don't know that. > The airline would have found a clause in the contract of carriage > giving then the right to do what they did and offered the guy the next > flight and come compensation. Wrong again: "Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane. If the airline doesn't like this, it should have written a different contract." > Physical harm to the passenger was the real legal show stopper No, that was just the icing on the cake. Breaking their own contract is what landed them in hot water. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoipgup.2p12.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #107305 |
In message <592ca880$0$38673$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-29 17:52, nospam wrote: >> yes quite. united was in violation of their own contract of carriage, >> among numerous other things. > unless the ticket is voided by United, and unless United cannot deliver > the transport within reasonable time, it is not in violation. STOP MAKING SHIT UP. You are wrong. You are not a lawyer, and LAWYERS say you are wrong. -- Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 11:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592d96a1$0$51780$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107311 |
On 2017-05-29 20:55, Lewis wrote: > STOP MAKING SHIT UP. > > You are wrong. You are not a lawyer, and LAWYERS say you are wrong. Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the passenger on another flight?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 12:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520171205047514%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107321 |
In article <592d96a1$0$51780$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline > has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the > passenger on another flight? that's not what happened w/ual3411
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592dc24f$0$10766$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107322 |
On 2017-05-30 12:05, nospam wrote: >> Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline >> has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the >> passenger on another flight? > > that's not what happened w/ual3411 I argued that the contract of carriage requires the airline to deliver passenger to destination in reasonable time, it does not require it to deliver it on time and on the specifric flight that was booked. So getting passenger to destination on a different flight (as UA wanted to do in this case) does not break contract of carriage. But Lewis seems to imply, by disagreeing with my statement that a late or cancelled flight forcing apssenger to arrive late vreaks contract of carriage since the airline doesn't deliver person on the flight book at the times booked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogkg7k$1h34$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #107341 |
On 2017-05-30 12:04 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2017-05-30 12:05, nospam wrote: > >>> Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline >>> has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the >>> passenger on another flight? >> >> that's not what happened w/ual3411 > > > I argued that the contract of carriage requires the airline to deliver > passenger to destination in reasonable time, it does not require it to > deliver it on time and on the specifric flight that was booked. > > So getting passenger to destination on a different flight (as UA wanted > to do in this case) does not break contract of carriage. But you continue to ignore that the contract has specific terms under which a passenger can be sent on a different flight... ...and this situation didn't meet those terms. > > But Lewis seems to imply, by disagreeing with my statement that a late > or cancelled flight forcing apssenger to arrive late vreaks contract of > carriage since the airline doesn't deliver person on the flight book at > the times booked. No. He implied nothing of the kind. That is a strawman you constructed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep5unkFff39U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107341 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 12:05, nospam wrote: > >>> Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline >>> has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the >>> passenger on another flight? >> >> that's not what happened w/ual3411 > > I argued that the contract of carriage requires the airline to deliver > passenger to destination in reasonable time, it does not require it to > deliver it on time and on the specifric flight that was booked. The contract does NOT allow the airline to remove a passenger that has already boarded to give employees that seat. End of story. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520171522268058%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107341 |
In article <592dc24f$0$10766$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > >> Sol you are saying that if a flight is delayed or cancelled, the airline > >> has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it puts the > >> passenger on another flight? > > > > that's not what happened w/ual3411 > > I argued that the contract of carriage requires the airline to deliver > passenger to destination in reasonable time, it does not require it to > deliver it on time and on the specifric flight that was booked. > > So getting passenger to destination on a different flight (as UA wanted > to do in this case) does not break contract of carriage. the coc does not allow removing a paying passenger who has already boarded and was not disruptive and posed no safety risk. a delay outside of the airline's control (weather or mechanical) is an entirely different story. > But Lewis seems to imply, by disagreeing with my statement that a late > or cancelled flight forcing apssenger to arrive late vreaks contract of > carriage since the airline doesn't deliver person on the flight book at > the times booked. it wasn't late or canceled. and not only does lewis disagree with you, but so does united airlines, which is why united settled for an amount believed to be in the $10 million range.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592dcbd3$0$1380$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107344 |
On 2017-05-30 15:22, nospam wrote: > the coc does not allow removing a paying passenger who has already > boarded and was not disruptive and posed no safety risk. So what happens when the captain decides the plane is too heavy and can't take off unless passengers are removed? > a delay outside of the airline's control (weather or mechanical) is an > entirely different story. mechanical is within the airline's control. And if a captain decides a plane has a mechanical problem that prevents it from taking off, all passengers are removed, flight cancelled and put on other flights. As I said, contracts that have "including A, B ,C" do not exclude D unless D is specifically excluded. > and not only does lewis disagree with you, but so does united airlines, Read again. The CEO of United confirmed that the employees acted as per within the rules and couldn't be fired. He said the rules needed changing. If the rules didn't allow what happened, they wouldn't need changing. > which is why united settled for an amount believed to be in the $10 > million range. The amount was not publishjed, and secondly, the "why" is not because passenger was rebooked on different flight, but because he was inflicted physical harm, humiliation etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 12:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogkido$1l4t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #107345 |
On 2017-05-30 12:45 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2017-05-30 15:22, nospam wrote: > >> the coc does not allow removing a paying passenger who has already >> boarded and was not disruptive and posed no safety risk. > > So what happens when the captain decides the plane is too heavy and > can't take off unless passengers are removed? Strawman. Not an issue in this discussion. > > >> a delay outside of the airline's control (weather or mechanical) is an >> entirely different story. > > mechanical is within the airline's control. And if a captain decides a > plane has a mechanical problem that prevents it from taking off, all > passengers are removed, flight cancelled and put on other flights. Strawman. Not an issue in this discussion. > > As I said, contracts that have "including A, B ,C" do not exclude D > unless D is specifically excluded. Strawman. Not an issue in this discussion. Contract law states that ambiguity is to the benefit of the party that did NOT draft the agreement. >> and not only does lewis disagree with you, but so does united airlines, > > Read again. The CEO of United confirmed that the employees acted as per > within the rules and couldn't be fired. He said the rules needed changing. Cite, please... > > If the rules didn't allow what happened, they wouldn't need changing. > > > >> which is why united settled for an amount believed to be in the $10 >> million range. > > The amount was not publishjed, and secondly, the "why" is not because > passenger was rebooked on different flight, but because he was inflicted > physical harm, humiliation etc. Which wouldn't need to have been compensated if--as you just claimed--United had acted within its rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520171558187190%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107345 |
In article <592dcbd3$0$1380$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > the coc does not allow removing a paying passenger who has already > > boarded and was not disruptive and posed no safety risk. > > So what happens when the captain decides the plane is too heavy and > can't take off unless passengers are removed? that's a safety issue, and in that situation, bags are usually removed, not pax. > > a delay outside of the airline's control (weather or mechanical) is an > > entirely different story. > > mechanical is within the airline's control. no it isn't. > And if a captain decides a > plane has a mechanical problem that prevents it from taking off, all > passengers are removed, flight cancelled and put on other flights. true, except that isn't what happened. the plane wasn't mx. > As I said, contracts that have "including A, B ,C" do not exclude D > unless D is specifically excluded. nope. > > and not only does lewis disagree with you, but so does united airlines, > > Read again. The CEO of United confirmed that the employees acted as per > within the rules and couldn't be fired. He said the rules needed changing. that's what he said before he had all of the facts. > If the rules didn't allow what happened, they wouldn't need changing. the rules clearly did not allow what happened. end of story. > > which is why united settled for an amount believed to be in the $10 > > million range. > > The amount was not publishjed, that's why i said 'believed to be'. > and secondly, the "why" is not because > passenger was rebooked on different flight, but because he was inflicted > physical harm, humiliation etc. he wasn't rebooked on another flight. he spent a couple of days in the hospital and said he won't be flying anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep621eFg4qjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107345 |
On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 15:22, nospam wrote: > >> the coc does not allow removing a paying passenger who has already >> boarded and was not disruptive and posed no safety risk. > > So what happens when the captain decides the plane is too heavy and > can't take off unless passengers are removed? That's not what happened in this case. Next? >> a delay outside of the airline's control (weather or mechanical) is >> an entirely different story. > > mechanical is within the airline's control. And if a captain decides a > plane has a mechanical problem that prevents it from taking off, all > passengers are removed, flight cancelled and put on other flights. That's not what happened in this case. Next? > As I said, contracts that have "including A, B ,C" do not exclude D > unless D is specifically excluded. You are desperately trying to ignore the relevant part of the contract that pertains to this case so you can falsely claim the airline and authorities were not at fault. Keep licking those boots, sheep. Tasty? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592dd78c$0$27158$b1db1813$e2fc9064@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107352 |
On 2017-05-30 16:12, Jolly Roger wrote:
> That's not what happened in this case. Next?
The point here is that Airlines always reserve the right to make
operational decisions and the contract is such worded. The contract is
about delivering you to destination, now how/when they do.
Example:
24-B (4.g) Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted
by UA.
In terms of delivering within reasonable time frame, UA decides
reasonable - 7 days:
24-C (1) Provided that the dates of departure and arrival must be
within 7 days of the originally scheduled dates of departure and
arrival, respectively, transport the Passenger on its own flights,
More loopholes:
Liability - Except to the extent provided in this Rule and the Warsaw
and/or Montreal Conventions, UA shall not be liable for any Irregular
Operations.
aka: 4 seats are no longer available to passengers, = irregular operation.
In fact, for Irregular operations, there isn't even a time limit to
define when the carrier must deliver you to destination:
24-E (2-a.i) When a Passenger’s ticket is affected because of Irregular
Operations caused by UA, UA will take the following measures:
Transport the Passenger on its own flights, subject to availability,
to the Destination, next Stopover point, or transfer point shown on its
portion of the Ticket, without Stopover in the same class of service, at
no additional cost to the Passenger; or
The "denied boarding" (rule 25) rules are more specific in terms of
compensation for involuntary bumping, and depends on wether the
passenger would arrive less or more than 2 hours from original schedule
arrivale time for flighst within USA.
Also
#
The flight for which the Passenger holds confirmed reserved space is
unable to accommodate the Passenger because of substitution of equipment
of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons or, on
an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the
flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable
to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when
required by operational or safety reasons;
##
There is nothing in the rules (taken from web archive, dated Feb 20 to
refelect what would have been in effect at the time of the terrible
handling by UA) which prescribes that "denied boarding" must happen
prior to boarding the aircraft.
> You are desperately trying to ignore the relevant part of the contract
> that pertains to this case so you can falsely claim the airline and
> authorities were not at fault.
I never claimed they were not at fault. I am trying to find and argue
that the rules were faulty and allowed this to happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep658uFgnd9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107353 |
On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 16:12, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>> So what happens when the captain decides the plane is too heavy and >>> can't take off unless passengers are removed? >> >> That's not what happened in this case. Next? [nice try at trollishly trimming context - restored above] > The point The point is that you are desperately building stawman arguments in an attempt to legitimize the wrong doing of the airline and authorities - at the expense of the passenger who was harmed. People like you just love to lick the boots of authority and blame the victims instead. Your mentality is fucking pathetic. Then again you're not even American; so I suppose your apathetic and authoritarian mentality is to be somewhat expected. > Airlines always reserve the right to make operational decisions and > the contract is such worded. The contract is about delivering you to > destination, now how/when they do. Nope, the contract lays out *very* specific conditions under which a passenger may be legally removed from their boarded seat, and *none* of those conditions were applicable, which means the airline was *wrong* for removing the passenger: --- Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that? It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold. An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport. One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat. It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat. Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane. If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract. --- <http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html> This is from a Cornell Professor of Law. And most legal professionals are in agreement with his professional opinion. And the fact that United agreed to settle with the passenger for a large sum of money only corroborates his opinion. What are your legal qualifications again? None? Thought so. I'll take the opinion of legal professionals over your ignorance. > There is nothing in the rules (taken from web archive, dated Feb 20 to > refelect what would have been in effect at the time of the terrible > handling by UA) which prescribes that "denied boarding" must happen > prior to boarding the aircraft. The passenger was *not* denied boarding. He was *granted* boarding, had already boarded and was sitting in his contracted seat, and then subsequently involuntarily and violently *deplaned*, which is *not* the same thing. >> You are desperately trying to ignore the relevant part of the >> contract that pertains to this case so you can falsely claim the >> airline and authorities were not at fault. > > I never claimed they were not at fault. Liar. You just did above. > I am trying to find and argue that the rules were faulty and allowed > this to happen. HARD FAIL. #youlose #again #sorrynotsorry -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592dfaf5$0$43723$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107354 |
On 2017-05-30 17:07, Jolly Roger wrote: > The point is that you are desperately building stawman arguments in an > attempt to legitimize the wrong doing of the airline and authorities - I am not supprtive of what happened. There is a difference between trying to understand why this happened and judging if it was right or wrong. > Nope, the contract lays out *very* specific conditions under which a > passenger may be legally removed from their boarded seat, Actually, can be prevented from traveling. (this includes smelling bad in the UA contract). In the case of Dao, this was denied boarding due to overbooking. They just did the "denied" boarding in the plane instead of at the gate. Again, the contract does not stipilate that "denied boarding" must be done before you're on the plane. Go back a few years to paper boarding passes and manual counting. (your parents would know about this, you're obviouysly too young). Two pax get assigned same seat and when they do the head count inside aircraft and check everyone boarding passes, they realize there is one pax too many. One of them gets "denied boarding" treatment (which has defined compensation different from refusal of transport) (Important to read the contract of carriage applicable at time of accident, not the current one). (In fact, contract of carriage is at time of buying ticket, not on day of flight and this is important when airline changes rules for baggage for instance). > Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then > involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say > about that? He was involuntarily denied boarding after he boarded. As the text of the contract does not define/limit where "denied boarding" can happen, doing so while on the plane remains possible (even if the wording *suggests* it should happen prior to boarding.) They did not target him because he did not comply with the clothing/smell/behaviour. They had too many people on plane and first asked for volunteers for denied boarding, and when none turned up, they went for involuntary denied boarding and selected Dao. > Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a > passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This > includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, > abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, From the moment he refused the involuntary denied boarding, he became disorderly (refusing an order to deplane). To an FA, if your refuse her orders, even if you stay calm and don't bother others, you are disorderly. And that kicks in "he is disorderly, call in the swat team to have him removed" process. It was all wrog and blown out of proportion, but there was a logic to it. And if the 3 extra passengers were imposed onto gate agent by someone higher up, and gate agent then tells FAs to remove passenger X because some manager requeste it, it is harder for the crews to not comply with chain of command because they are trained to comply with chain of command. This didn't happen because they broke the rules, it is because they blindly and stupidly followed the rules and didn't think or use judgement. And this is why rules were changed and airlines have to let crews a bit more freedom in using judgement. But lets not kid ourselves, denied boarding will happen to people already on planes, but it won't be for stupid reasons. (if a seatback is broken for instance, the 3 people on that block get booted off because that seat becomes no-op due to safety reasons. Similarly, the is a MEL (minimumn equipment list) and there are defined parameters such as if one exit is inop, they have to reduce number of passengers by X. Same if there is a crew member missing. There are a lot of situations where the capacity fo aircraft can be reduced at last minute requiring denied borading to some passengers. (or all if flight cancelled).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogkv05$9dt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #107356 |
On 2017-05-30 4:06 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2017-05-30 17:07, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> The point is that you are desperately building stawman arguments in an >> attempt to legitimize the wrong doing of the airline and authorities - > > I am not supprtive of what happened. There is a difference between > trying to understand why this happened and judging if it was right or wrong. > > >> Nope, the contract lays out *very* specific conditions under which a >> passenger may be legally removed from their boarded seat, > > Actually, can be prevented from traveling. (this includes smelling bad > in the UA contract). > > In the case of Dao, this was denied boarding due to overbooking. They > just did the "denied" boarding in the plane instead of at the gate. > Again, the contract does not stipilate that "denied boarding" must be > done before you're on the plane. > > Go back a few years to paper boarding passes and manual counting. (your > parents would know about this, you're obviouysly too young). > > Two pax get assigned same seat and when they do the head count inside > aircraft and check everyone boarding passes, they realize there is one > pax too many. One of them gets "denied boarding" treatment (which has > defined compensation different from refusal of transport) > > (Important to read the contract of carriage applicable at time of > accident, not the current one). > > (In fact, contract of carriage is at time of buying ticket, not on day > of flight and this is important when airline changes rules for baggage > for instance). > > >> Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then >> involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say >> about that? > > He was involuntarily denied boarding after he boarded. As the text of > the contract does not define/limit where "denied boarding" can happen, > doing so while on the plane remains possible (even if the wording > *suggests* it should happen prior to boarding.) Look at the way you just tortured the language: "denied boarding after he boarded". > > They did not target him because he did not comply with the > clothing/smell/behaviour. They had too many people on plane and first > asked for volunteers for denied boarding, and when none turned up, they > went for involuntary denied boarding and selected Dao. Excepted he was already boarded. You can be denied eating after you've eaten. > > >> Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a >> passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This >> includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, >> abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, > > From the moment he refused the involuntary denied boarding, he became > disorderly (refusing an order to deplane). To an FA, if your refuse her > orders, even if you stay calm and don't bother others, you are > disorderly. And that kicks in "he is disorderly, call in the swat team > to have him removed" process. No. That is a circular argument. They had no legitimate reason to deplane this passenger. Even if you want to call it denying boarding (which is absurd on its face), they lacked the necessary condition: overbooking of the aircraft. > > It was all wrog and blown out of proportion, but there was a logic to it. > > And if the 3 extra passengers were imposed onto gate agent by someone > higher up, and gate agent then tells FAs to remove passenger X because > some manager requeste it, it is harder for the crews to not comply with > chain of command because they are trained to comply with chain of command. They broke their own rules. Period. > > > > This didn't happen because they broke the rules, it is because they > blindly and stupidly followed the rules and didn't think or use judgement. It did happen because they broke their own rules. 'The problem that United faces is that, it appears, they breached their own Carriage Contract. Dr. Dao was not denied boarding. United should have, as most carriers do, taken care of the oversold situation before boarding passengers. Once boarded, UA’s own contract controls with respect to why a passenger can be removed from a plane and being oversold is not a stated reason. It has been argued that ‘boarding’ includes being seated on the plane while the plane is still at the gate. As boarding is not defined in the contract, and when read in conjunction with Rule 21 which uses the language ‘remove from the aircraft’, there is at best ambiguity and as anyone who has studied contracts knows – ambiguity is construed against the drafter. Rule 21 “Refusal of Transport” gives United to the right to remove from the aircraft a passenger who violates any of the stated reasons. Based on the facts as they have been presented to date it appears that Dr. Dao was not removed for any of the stated reasons in Rule 21: 1) Dr. Dao did not breach the contract of carriage; 2) He was not asked to leave because of a government request, regulation or security directive; 3) There was no force majeure or other unforeseeable condition; 4) There was no necessity to search Dr. Dao or his property; 5) There was no issue with his identification; 6) Dr. Dao had paid for his ticket; 7) He was not travelling across international boundaries and finally; 8) None of the 19 safety issues stated in Rule 21 applied.' Jim Arkell Assistant Professor, Business Administration Jim, in addition to teaching courses in Business Law and Business Ethics, is a licensed attorney (Texas) and has extensive experience in employment litigation. ' <http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage> You lose. > > And this is why rules were changed and airlines have to let crews a bit > more freedom in using judgement. Wrong. > > > But lets not kid ourselves, denied boarding will happen to people > already on planes, but it won't be for stupid reasons. (if a seatback is > broken for instance, the 3 people on that block get booted off because > that seat becomes no-op due to safety reasons. > > Similarly, the is a MEL (minimumn equipment list) and there are defined > parameters such as if one exit is inop, they have to reduce number of > passengers by X. Same if there is a crew member missing. There are a lot > of situations where the capacity fo aircraft can be reduced at last > minute requiring denied borading to some passengers. (or all if flight > cancelled). > Incorrect. That is not a denial of boarding. That is "Refusal of Transport" for "force majeure"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520171935550647%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107356 |
In article <592dfaf5$0$43723$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > The point is that you are desperately building stawman arguments in an > > attempt to legitimize the wrong doing of the airline and authorities - > > I am not supprtive of what happened. There is a difference between > trying to understand why this happened and judging if it was right or wrong. you aren't trying to understand anything about what happened. > > Nope, the contract lays out *very* specific conditions under which a > > passenger may be legally removed from their boarded seat, > > Actually, can be prevented from traveling. (this includes smelling bad > in the UA contract). > > In the case of Dao, this was denied boarding due to overbooking. he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. > They > just did the "denied" boarding in the plane instead of at the gate. nope. what they did was remove him, by force. that's not an idb. > Again, the contract does not stipilate that "denied boarding" must be > done before you're on the plane. actually, it does. once on the plane, a pax can be removed for safety related issues, if they're disruptive, etc. > Go back a few years to paper boarding passes and manual counting. (your > parents would know about this, you're obviouysly too young). most boarding passes are still paper, and on rare occasion, gate agents will manually count. however, that does not matter *at* *all*. > Two pax get assigned same seat and when they do the head count inside > aircraft and check everyone boarding passes, they realize there is one > pax too many. One of them gets "denied boarding" treatment (which has > defined compensation different from refusal of transport) two pax in the same seat doesn't need a head count discrepancy. one of them will inform an f/a that there's someone already in their seat. if there's another available seat, one will be reseated. if not, someone will get bumped. either way, that wasn't the issue here. > (Important to read the contract of carriage applicable at time of > accident, not the current one). you should do that. > (In fact, contract of carriage is at time of buying ticket, not on day > of flight and this is important when airline changes rules for baggage > for instance). good luck arguing that one in court. > > Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then > > involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say > > about that? > > He was involuntarily denied boarding after he boarded. that's a contradiction. > As the text of > the contract does not define/limit where "denied boarding" can happen, yes it does. > doing so while on the plane remains possible (even if the wording > *suggests* it should happen prior to boarding.) it's not allowed. simple as that. > They did not target him because he did not comply with the > clothing/smell/behaviour. They had too many people on plane and first > asked for volunteers for denied boarding, and when none turned up, they > went for involuntary denied boarding and selected Dao. it doesn't matter why they chose him. they can't remove an already boarded pax, other than for safety related issues and this was not a safety issue. > > Transport² (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a > > passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This > > includes situations where passengers act in a ³disorderly, offensive, > > abusive, or violent² manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, > > From the moment he refused the involuntary denied boarding, he became > disorderly (refusing an order to deplane). To an FA, if your refuse her > orders, even if you stay calm and don't bother others, you are > disorderly. And that kicks in "he is disorderly, call in the swat team > to have him removed" process. he was not disorderly, nor did the f/a give any orders (or captain). the gate agent made the request and pax are not obligated to follow gate agent requests because they are not flight crew. also note that the gate agent lied about him being disorderly and was reassigned. > It was all wrog and blown out of proportion, but there was a logic to it. for some twisted definition of logic. > And if the 3 extra passengers were imposed onto gate agent by someone > higher up, and gate agent then tells FAs to remove passenger X because > some manager requeste it, it is harder for the crews to not comply with > chain of command because they are trained to comply with chain of command. there weren't 3 extra passengers. there was 4 deadheading crew who showed up at the last minute, leaving no time for the gate agent to do much of anything. had they been ordinary pax, the gate agent would have told them tough shit, you can't expect to show up at the gate at the last minute and get a seat. > This didn't happen because they broke the rules, they *did* break the rules > it is because they > blindly and stupidly followed the rules and didn't think or use judgement. there is some truth to that. had the f/a offered more for a vdb, she'd have had enough volunteers. she was at the limit and chose not to authorize something higher, and went the idb route, partly because it's *much* cheaper. > And this is why rules were changed and airlines have to let crews a bit > more freedom in using judgement. there are a lot of reasons why the rules were changed. > But lets not kid ourselves, denied boarding will happen to people > already on planes, but it won't be for stupid reasons. it can only be done for safety related issues. > (if a seatback is > broken for instance, the 3 people on that block get booted off because > that seat becomes no-op due to safety reasons. which is *completely* different than the situation here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web