Bear Down Wildcats

United Air strategy should settle this quickly. Dragging it on and on is a PR nightmare.

They really believed this was the civilized way to handle the situation?
Mega snafu!

ASUHATER! wrote:

UAdevil wrote:They can deny you for any reason, they cannot however kick you off after boarding due to overbooking. It is illegal in fact and United may see a fine.

Incorrect. It is absolutely legal to remove people after boarding. As long as the plane is at the gate it is considered a denied boarding and people can be bumped off.

You speak very loudly and carry a little stick.

Where's the evidence to support your claim?

Puerco wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UAdevil wrote:They can deny you for any reason, they cannot however kick you off after boarding due to overbooking. It is illegal in fact and United may see a fine.

Incorrect. It is absolutely legal to remove people after boarding. As long as the plane is at the gate it is considered a denied boarding and people can be bumped off.

You speak very loudly and carry a little stick.

Where's the evidence to support your claim?

Interesting you didn't ask the same of UAdevil.

Puerco wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UAdevil wrote:They can deny you for any reason, they cannot however kick you off after boarding due to overbooking. It is illegal in fact and United may see a fine.

Incorrect. It is absolutely legal to remove people after boarding. As long as the plane is at the gate it is considered a denied boarding and people can be bumped off.

You speak very loudly and carry a little stick.

Where's the evidence to support your claim?

I agree with you about hater but is where it would be

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... riage.aspx" target="_blank

This article talks to allowing for denied boarding as long as the plane is still at the gate

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... er-rights/

ASUHATER! wrote:

Puerco wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UAdevil wrote:They can deny you for any reason, they cannot however kick you off after boarding due to overbooking. It is illegal in fact and United may see a fine.

Incorrect. It is absolutely legal to remove people after boarding. As long as the plane is at the gate it is considered a denied boarding and people can be bumped off.

You speak very loudly and carry a little stick.

Where's the evidence to support your claim?

Interesting you didn't ask the same of UAdevil.

Devil provided a quote from a Georgetown law professor. You provided quotes from ASUhater.

Thanks Tucson!

I honestly have no idea if this is worse for Trump or United.

Can't fault anyone for the confusion. It's a Hitler vs. Stalin Hobson's Choice.

American had the appropriate and immediate response United should have had at least

United settled the Dao case for an unspecified amount to cover "injuries"

Just hit my inbox per medscape

What the heck?

Appearently there is a video going around of an MMA fight in a lax bound flight from Tokyo.

Merkin wrote:What the heck?

My knees already jam against the seat back in front of me as it is.

CalStateTempe wrote:Appearently there is a video going around of an MMA fight in a lax bound flight from Tokyo.

azgreg wrote:

Merkin wrote:What the heck?

My knees already jam against the seat back in front of me as it is.

Yea apparently you have to be under 6 feet to fly coach now.

Sweet!

(Taller dudes get hotter women, better pay, faster career advancement, etc when studied.

I'm 5'6", you tall blokes should have to suffer a like us short dudes for your height every now and again . )

CalStateTempe wrote:Sweet!

(Taller dudes get hotter women, better pay, faster career advancement, etc when studied.

I'm 5'6", you tall blokes should have to suffer a like us short dudes for your height every now and again . )

I'm 6'5" and I think the good stuff ends at 6'3".

Okay, I'm done flying in this country. I can get anywhere in a car in four days. Let the John Madden era begin.

I'm right in the 6'2" buffer zone

I had no idea that China was developing their own airplane, the C919:

China's first large "homegrown" airliner is due to embark on its maiden flight Friday in a major challenge to Western dominance of the skies.

The C919 jet was built at a reported development cost of $8.6 billion.

It has passed a series of technical and safety tests since rolling off the production line in 2015.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china ... ng-n754171

I don't think I'd fly in it. Not until aspects of Chinese manufacturing get up to western standards.

Lol looks like a rip off of newer 737s

CalStateTempe wrote:Lol looks like a rip off of newer 737s

Check out the ARJ21. It's taken China like 15 years to make a knock-off DC-9 and they can't even manage to get it certified in the West even though they started with McD's original tooling to build the fucking thing.

CalStateTempe wrote:I don't think I'd fly in it. Not until aspects of Chinese manufacturing get up to western standards.

They already are in a lot of areas. But yeah, airliners? I'm not flying in one of those for at least 20 more years.

A) How do you fly directly through a hailstorm?
B) How do you land a plane without being able to see the runway?

The answer to A would seem to be some awful instruction from air traffic controllers and the answer to B would seem to be some amazing guidance from the same.

Most pilots in WW2 were trained to land their planes at night with almost 0 visibility, maybe only the light of one flare at the end of the runway to guide them. And they didn't have any advanced avionics or in plane radar or even radio contact with a tower sometimes. And somehow they did it (i mean....40,000+ people died in military airplane accidents in ww2 but yeah).

Training for pilots is almost totally based on reading the instruments. You never know what can go wrong and the instruments will almost always be accurate.

84Cat wrote:Training for pilots is almost totally based on reading the instruments. You never know what can go wrong and the instruments will almost always be accurate.

Don't you need line of sight to line up with a runway?

Chicat wrote:

84Cat wrote:Training for pilots is almost totally based on reading the instruments. You never know what can go wrong and the instruments will almost always be accurate.

Don't you need line of sight to line up with a runway?

However, when visibility is reduced due to clouds, rain, snow, or fog, the pilots must rely on their flight instruments in order to land. So how exactly, do the pilots figure out where that two-mile long piece of concrete called a runway is located? The secret is that pretty much all airports used by airlines have at least one runway with an Instrument Landing System (ILS). These systems have two radio transmitters located along-side the runway that emit signals that all airplanes can track. One transmitter emits an invisible beam that extends along the center of the runway for miles along the approach path. This signal provides horizontal guidance all the way to the end of the runway. At the same time, a separate transmitter emits a similar beam along the runway path up into the sky at approximately a 3 degree angle. This creates an artificial descent path for airplanes to use for vertical guidance. Both of these signals are received by the airplanes navigational systems. So, when they are combined, the radio signals create an artificial pathway that extends out from the approach-end of the runway. The pilots then use their flight instruments to follow these two horizontal and vertical paths down the center-line of the runway for a safe landing. Some airliners even have an Auto-Land system that enables the autopilot to land the plane in near zero visibility!

https://scaredflightless.com/2012/09/24 ... d-weather/" target="_blank

Every day I'm on this site I learn something new.

Thanks 84!

This whole flying commercial with animals thing is beyond me. I put my dachshund in a pet hotel when we are out of town. Why would you want to put the pet through all the rigmarole of flying along with your anxiety around the pet behaving in public? There are people, including my daughter, who are deathly afraid of dogs. She was attacked by a dog when she was a baby and now can't really be near them. Then there are the allergies. I know folks love their pets and they are members of the family but the plane is not a public space. It is a small private space we are renting from airlines that is right next to a bunch of other private spaces. Be a good neighbor.

Putin is going to be a little short this month.

Merkin wrote:Putin is going to be a little short this month.

Whoever finds that will come down with a Russian heart attack.

Did Trump take responsibility yet? He took credit for years of no fatalities.

this woman deserves the same accolades and applause that Sully got

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ost&wpmm=1" target="_blank

scumdevils86 wrote:this woman deserves the same accolades and applause that Sully got

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ost&wpmm=1" target="_blank

Why. A one engine out landing isn’t that big a deal. Pilots routinely train for it and planes are designed to fly safely for hours on one engine even after a decompression. This plane was nowhere near as damaged as say QF 32.

legallykenny wrote:

scumdevils86 wrote:this woman deserves the same accolades and applause that Sully got

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ost&wpmm=1" target="_blank

Why. A one engine out landing isn’t that big a deal. Pilots routinely train for it and planes are designed to fly safely for hours on one engine even after a decompression. This plane was nowhere near as damaged as say QF 32.

because if it was a man they would've received a lot more accolades already.

ASUHATER! wrote:

legallykenny wrote:

scumdevils86 wrote:this woman deserves the same accolades and applause that Sully got

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ost&wpmm=1" target="_blank

Why. A one engine out landing isn’t that big a deal. Pilots routinely train for it and planes are designed to fly safely for hours on one engine even after a decompression. This plane was nowhere near as damaged as say QF 32.

because if it was a man they would've received a lot more accolades already.

I don’t recall the pilot of SW 3472 receiving any particular accolades.

Apparently on the way to DM.

Fuck LAX.

O and D and connection through it all is a page out of the lower rungs of Dante’s inferno.

Especially the joke of delta terminals two and three.

And as a delta hub as well in a major market, this place is a shithole