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 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 21:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592e204c$0$34694$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107358 |
On 2017-05-30 19:35, nospam wrote: > he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. From the moment someone decided that the 4 dead heading crew had to be on this flight, the flight became overbooked despite all passengers already on board. The fact that the staff at United had the ability to do this indicates a problem with policy. One which the CEO admitted had to change because it was wrong. > nope. what they did was remove him, by force. that's not an idb. Get your info right. They made offers, nobody volunteered. They then had to resolrt to involuntari denied boarding and they chose him. From the moment he refused, he was cosidered disorderly and they called in the artilllery to have him removed. > two pax in the same seat doesn't need a head count discrepancy. one of > them will inform an f/a that there's someone already in their seat. If 2 have same seat assignment and all other seats are taken, they need to bump one passenger. >> (In fact, contract of carriage is at time of buying ticket, not on day >> of flight and this is important when airline changes rules for baggage >> for instance). > > good luck arguing that one in court. Wow. you really don't know. Contracts and rules of carriage (baggage etc) are set at time of booking (which also now match type of paying and having ticket issued). Before, the rules were based on the time of ticket being issued because this is when the fare basis applicable to the booking code (and route) was applied. At airport, the agents have the ability to find what fare rules and contract terms apply to your ticket based on its date.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogla75$nlm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #107374 |
On 2017-05-30 6:45 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2017-05-30 19:35, nospam wrote: > >> he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. > > From the moment someone decided that the 4 dead heading crew had to be > on this flight, the flight became overbooked despite all passengers > already on board. Wrong. United's contract only talks about paying passengers with regard to overbooking. > > The fact that the staff at United had the ability to do this indicates a > problem with policy. One which the CEO admitted had to change because it > was wrong. > >> nope. what they did was remove him, by force. that's not an idb. > > Get your info right. They made offers, nobody volunteered. They then had > to resolrt to involuntari denied boarding and they chose him. Except since the contract doesn't define "boarding" one must take its ordinary English meaning and he had clearly already boarded. > > From the moment he refused, he was cosidered disorderly and they called > in the artilllery to have him removed. Except a gate agent has no authority that he needs to obey. > >> 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 2 have same seat assignment and all other seats are taken, they need > to bump one passenger. That would fall under "force majeure" > >>> (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. > > Wow. you really don't know. Contracts and rules of carriage (baggage > etc) are set at time of booking (which also now match type of paying and > having ticket issued). Right and the contract and rules in place at the time do not allow for the inclusion of employees as overbooking. > > Before, the rules were based on the time of ticket being issued because > this is when the fare basis applicable to the booking code (and route) > was applied. > > At airport, the agents have the ability to find what fare rules and > contract terms apply to your ticket based on its date. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520172248032330%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107374 |
In article <592e204c$0$34694$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. > > From the moment someone decided that the 4 dead heading crew had to be > on this flight, the flight became overbooked despite all passengers > already on board. no. overbooked is not the same as must fly. the flight was not overbooked. united confirmed that. > The fact that the staff at United had the ability to do this indicates a > problem with policy. One which the CEO admitted had to change because it > was wrong. true, but not for the reasons you think. > > nope. what they did was remove him, by force. that's not an idb. > > Get your info right. my info is correct. > They made offers, nobody volunteered. They then had > to resolrt to involuntari denied boarding and they chose him. not quite. they could have increased the offers, although that would have required authorization and the gate agent chose not to do that. it was easier (and cheaper) to idb. at least it usually is. > From the moment he refused, he was cosidered disorderly and they called > in the artilllery to have him removed. he may have been considered disorderly, but he was not. he was fully within his rights to stay and stood his ground. however, the gate agent was reassigned for falsifying the report. > > 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 2 have same seat assignment and all other seats are taken, they need > to bump one passenger. true, except that's a computer fuckup, not a decision by a gate agent. it also isn't applicable in this situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep6petFl4sfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107374 |
On 2017-05-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 19:35, nospam wrote: > >> he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. > > From the moment someone decided that the 4 dead heading crew had to be > on this flight, the flight became overbooked Overbooked means more seats were *sold* than the plane has available which is *not* what happened, no matter how many times you try to claim it. The fact is the airline *didn't* sell more seats than were available; so the flight was *full* but *not* overbooked. Instead, they tried to *add* *employees* to the full flight by forcefully stealing already sold seats away from already-boarded passengers. The fact that you want to completely ignore these facts in order to justify what the airline did proves you are an authoritarian boot-licking victim-blaming sheep. Please do the world a favor and go fuck yourself. -- 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 23:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520172302334538%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107377 |
In article <ep6petFl4sfU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> he wasn't denied boarding nor was the flight overbooked. > > > > From the moment someone decided that the 4 dead heading crew had to be > > on this flight, the flight became overbooked > > Overbooked means more seats were *sold* than the plane has > available which is *not* what happened, no matter how many times you try > to claim it. The fact is the airline *didn't* sell more seats than were > available; so the flight was *full* but *not* overbooked. Instead, they > tried to *add* *employees* to the full flight by forcefully stealing > already sold seats away from already-boarded passengers. stealing means no compensation. that wasn't the case. united was offering compensation to buy back the seats. the problem is that they didn't offer enough to make a sale. the gate agent then decided to idb, which is still compensation, except that it's involuntary and cash (not a voucher for another flight).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <592e4c59$0$34578$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #107377 |
On 2017-05-30 22:52, Jolly Roger wrote: > to claim it. The fact is the airline *didn't* sell more seats than were > available; so the flight was *full* but *not* overbooked. Instead, they > tried to *add* *employees* to the full flight by forcefully stealing > already sold seats away from already-boarded passengers. Dead-heading employees are NOT on duty and are treated as passengers with a reservation and PNR created for them. Once reservations were added for those, the flight became overbooked. Just because the fare basis used for those reservations was a special code with value of $0.00 (or some interline agreement with minimal amounts as in this case, the employees were not United employees). In most cases, a dead-head books in advance. (for instance, pilot who is based in town-A but lives in town-B will often dead-head from B to A to start a week's work of long hault flights. He will book the flight well in advance. Just because they don't use Expedia to book doesn't mean that they just walk in without a reservation. In this case, it was a last minute and some airline employee knowingly booked them on a full flight, causing an obverbooking at a time when passengers were already boarded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310520170059396115%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107380 |
In article <592e4c59$0$34578$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > Dead-heading employees are NOT on duty and are treated as passengers > with a reservation and PNR created for them. Once reservations were > added for those, the flight became overbooked. no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep785jFoc3pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107380 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 22:52, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> to claim it. The fact is the airline *didn't* sell more seats than were >> available; so the flight was *full* but *not* overbooked. Instead, they >> tried to *add* *employees* to the full flight by forcefully stealing >> already sold seats away from already-boarded passengers. > > Dead-heading employees are NOT on duty and are treated as passengers > with a reservation and PNR created for them. Once reservations were > added for those, the flight became overbooked. Nope. You're making shit up yet again. You refuse to accept the reality that the airline violated their own contract. You're a pathetic boot-licking authoritarian victim-blaming asshole. Fuck off, loser. > Just because the fare > basis used for those reservations was a special code with value of $0.00 > (or some interline agreement with minimal amounts as in this case, the > employees were not United employees). That's not even a complete sentence, doofus. Then again you think there should be a space between the last word of a sentence and a question mark; so English clearly isn't your forte. -- 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 | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep6fmqFj2neU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107356 |
On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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 - [keep on trimming context to try to hide your obvious authoritarian mentality - it won't help] > 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. Typical boot licker response, desperately trying to ignore the facts of the case and instead trying to focus on justifying the behavior of the airline who acted wrongly, harming a passenger. Why it happened is irrelevant; it should *not* have happened. Even United has stated it should not have 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. You can't name a single condition in the contract that applies to this case because there *is* *none*. > (this includes smelling bad in the UA contract). Irrelevant strawman argument. This passenger was not kicked off the plane because he smelled bad. Next? > In the case of Dao, this was denied boarding NO. He was *not* denied boarding. His boarding pass was *accepted* and he was already boarded *before* they forcefully removed him from his contracted seat. Those are the facts you refuse to accept or acknowledge. > They just did the "denied" boarding in the plane No such thing. They deplaned the passenger for the explicit reason that they wanted to give his seat to an *employee* which is a *violation* of their own contract. > Again, the contract does not stipilate that "denied boarding" must be > done before you're on the plane. NO. His boarding pass was *accepted*, not rejected, and his boarding was already *completed*. They then tried to *remove* him from the plane without legitimate reason according to their own contract. > Go back a few years to paper boarding passes Irrelevant blather. > Two pax get assigned same seat That is not what happened. > (Important to read the contract of carriage applicable at time of > accident, not the current one). Legal experts have read it and understood it better than you probably *ever* will, and agree that what United did was in violation of their contract with the passenger. United also agreed this should not have happened, and settled with the passenger for a large sum of money. >> 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. A completely nonsensical statement from an ignorant boot-licking doofus who desperately wants to booster the wrongful actions of authorities while minimizing the harm they inflicted on an innocent person. You're a sicko. > They did not target him because You aren't inside their heads, doofus. >> 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 NO. The order of events is of the utmost importance in a legal setting. "Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse." The fact is they broke the contract by involuntarily deplaning the passenger, at which point he resisted - not the other way around. > To an FA, if your refuse her orders, even if you stay calm and don't > bother others, you are disorderly. A bullshit boot licker response. In America, citizens are under *no* obligation to follow illegal or harmful orders. > And that kicks in "he is disorderly, call in the swat team to have him > removed" process. NO. That was the *wrong* response, as United has stated. > It was all wrog and blown out of proportion, but there was a logic to > it. That logic was involved doesn't make it *legal* or *ethical*. > 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. You are desperately trying to justify wrong and harmful behavior. Why? > This didn't happen because they broke the rules LOL! That's *precisely* why it happened, you fool! > it is because they blindly and stupidly followed the rules and didn't > think or use judgement. NO. They violated their own contract. > And this is why rules were changed and airlines have to let crews a > bit more freedom in using judgement. Liar. The relevant portion of the contract has not changed. > But lets not kid ourselves, denied boarding Again, his boarding pass was accepted and he was allowed to board. What happened was he was *forcefully* and *involuntarily* *deplaned* *after* he was already boarded. That is *significantly* different than "denied boarding". [remaining blather rightfully ignored] -- 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 | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogl1it$cvp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #107359 |
On 2017-05-30 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> To an FA, if your refuse her orders, even if you stay calm and don't >> bother others, you are disorderly. > A bullshit boot licker response. In America, citizens are under*no* > obligation to follow illegal or harmful orders. > Nor was it a flight attendant who gave him any orders: it was a United gate agent who enjoys no authority whatsover.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep6gg2Fj2neU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107360 |
On 2017-05-31, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-30 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>> To an FA, if your refuse her orders, even if you stay calm and don't >>> bother others, you are disorderly. >> >> A bullshit boot licker response. In America, citizens are under *no* >> obligation to follow illegal or harmful orders. > > Nor was it a flight attendant who gave him any orders: it was a United > gate agent who enjoys no authority whatsover. Yep. -- 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 | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1EDE4663009150687000004282CF@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #107356 |
On May 30, 2017, JF Mezei wrote (in article<592dfaf5$0$43723$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>): > 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. The problem with your proposal is it is all wrong. The flight wasn’t overbooked. It was filled to capacity with its properly boarded passenger group. The doors should have been closed and the flight cleared for take-off. It was then they had to find seats for four United employees who were being repositioned, and the gate staff gave priority to seating the United employees by displacing passengers, including Dr. Dao, who had already boarded and were comfortably seated. United tried to solve a personnel problem at the cost of PR. Ultimately it would have been cheaper to have an Uber drive the four United employees from Chicago to Louisville, or just book them on a later flight. -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep6hhcFjm0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107362 |
On 2017-05-31, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> United tried to solve a personnel problem at the cost of PR. Ultimately it
> would have been cheaper to have an Uber drive the four United employees from
> Chicago to Louisville, or just book them on a later flight.
It also would have gotten them there sooner, as it turns out. This was
complete stupidity on the part of the airline.
--
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 20:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520172038255639%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107362 |
In article <0001HW.1EDE4663009150687000004282CF@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> United tried to solve a personnel problem at the cost of PR. Ultimately it
> would have been cheaper to have an Uber drive the four United employees from
> Chicago to Louisville, or just book them on a later flight.
the problem with either of those is the crew would have arrived too
late to get the required rest prior to the next morning's flight. at
best, it would have been delayed (causing ripple problems) or end up
being canceled anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep6ho1Fjm0lU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107364 |
On 2017-05-31, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.1EDE4663009150687000004282CF@news.giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> United tried to solve a personnel problem at the cost of PR. Ultimately it
>> would have been cheaper to have an Uber drive the four United employees from
>> Chicago to Louisville, or just book them on a later flight.
>
> the problem with either of those is the crew would have arrived too
> late to get the required rest prior to the next morning's flight. at
> best, it would have been delayed (causing ripple problems) or end up
> being canceled anyway.
Hmmm. I swear I remember reading reports somewhere that a bus would have
had them arrive at their destination *sooner* than the flight because
the flight ended up being delayed for hours. They were only a hop away
from where they were going, right?
--
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 20:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300520172053450854%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107365 |
In article <ep6ho1Fjm0lU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> United tried to solve a personnel problem at the cost of PR. Ultimately it > >> would have been cheaper to have an Uber drive the four United employees > >> from Chicago to Louisville, or just book them on a later flight. > > > > the problem with either of those is the crew would have arrived too > > late to get the required rest prior to the next morning's flight. at > > best, it would have been delayed (causing ripple problems) or end up > > being canceled anyway. > > Hmmm. I swear I remember reading reports somewhere that a bus would have > had them arrive at their destination *sooner* than the flight because > the flight ended up being delayed for hours. They were only a hop away > from where they were going, right? it's roughly a 5 hr drive from chicago to louisville, plus additional time getting to/from the bus/uber. ua3411 ended up delayed *much* longer than anyone expected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-03 05:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoj4irs.85p.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #107341 |
In message <592dc24f$0$10766$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> 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. You have no fucking idea what it says. you are making things up. Again. -- And I was grounded while you filled the skies I was dumbfounded by truth; you cut through lies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep5l7uFd713U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107321 |
On 2017-05-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > 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, You're still making shit up! The flight was not delayed or cancelled at the time they forced the passenger out of his contractually-obligated seat! How many times does this need to be hammered into your thick head? > the airline has failed to meet its contract obligations even if it > puts the passenger on another flight? The airline violated its contract the minute it forced the passenger out of his boarded seat to place an airline employee in that seat. -- 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 | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ep3p7gFu27jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107298 |
On 2017-05-29, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-29 14:59, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Nonsense bootlicker response. By forcing him off the plane, United >> broke their end of the contract. > > Not quite. The contract means that United will get the person to > destination EVENTUALLY. It doesn't garantee it will be on the flight > the person booked. More complete nonsense from a boot-licking victim-blaming authoritarian cock sucker. "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." <http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html> > There are legitimate reasons for forcing *some* passengers off a plane > who have already boarded (flight/aicraft performnance, or missing > flight attendant, requiring X passengers get off etc). > > Obviously, this wasn't such a reason. Which is why United broke their end of the contract. So you agree then. Great. End of discussion. >> Not legally, no. He legally had zero obligation to give up the seat >> he paid for and had already boarded. > > But one is obligated, once on the aircraft, to follow orders given by > flight crew. Nope. Passengers aren't obligated to follow all orders. If air crew order you to jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet, you have zero obligation to follow those orders. >> No, they were airport security guards. > > Yet they acted like a SWAT team in the way they treated him. They were also suspended because of their actions. >> United lied; the flight was not overbooked. > > It became overbooked Nope. -- 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 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoipgpu.2p12.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #107298 |
In message <592c7f94$0$43730$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-29 14:59, Jolly Roger wrote: >> Nonsense bootlicker response. By forcing him off the plane, United broke >> their end of the contract. > Not quite. The contract means that United will get the person to > destination EVENTUALLY. It doesn't garantee it will be on the flight the > person booked. STOP MAKING THINGS UP. -- All great truths begin as blasphemies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web