Something real simple like I posted above until the FAA can give us an easy to understand, comprehensive policy. Here is what I posted above:

 

It could be real simple in a case like this, anyone asked to give up their seat automatically gets $1000 cash at a minimum. If you are delayed more than 8 hours, $2000 cash. Longer delays or outright cancellation, $5000 cash, case closed.

 

Some of that already exists in current regulations. And how would it have changed what happened on Sunday? They were all offered $800 and no one took it. Even if he was getting $1,000 from the airline under that rule, they still would have forcibly removed him from the plane.

Some of that already exists in current regulations. And how would it have changed what happened on Sunday? They were all offered $800 and no one took it. Even if he was getting $1,000 from the airline under that rule, they still would have forcibly removed him from the plane.

 

Maybe another passenger would take the 1000. Or maybe the offer has to be increased until someone VOLUNTARILY accepts it.

Or the guy gets up and leaves like the other three people did...

Or the guy gets up and leaves like the other three people did...

 

The guy bought his ticket.

 

Just like Airlines set their own prices, the Airlines should have to pay whatever price necessary to buy back any seats they need.

The guy bought his ticket.

 

Just like Airlines set their own prices, the Airlines should have to pay whatever price necessary to buy back any seats they need.

 

And so did everyone else that got up and accepted the vouchers.

Maybe another passenger would take the 1000. Or maybe the offer has to be increased until someone VOLUNTARILY accepts it.

 

I don't disagree there. It's all a little alarming how it escalated. Heck, if they'd have offered me that cash I'd have said "throw in my rental car and I'll even carry your employees bags on for them."

 

But the courts will take care of this particular guy.

 

I'd like to see new rules in place, I just don't know that an executive order gets us there in a way we'd like later on. It's one thing to tell executive agencies to change immigration policy. It's another for a sitting executive to issue rules of behavior to private corporations without playing by the rules of the enabling statute passed by Congress.

Some of that already exists in current regulations. And how would it have changed what happened on Sunday? They were all offered $800 and no one took it. Even if he was getting $1,000 from the airline under that rule, they still would have forcibly removed him from the plane.

 

They are offered an $800 voucher for United. That is different than giving $800 cash. I would bet that many would have taken cash.

And so did everyone else that got up and accepted the vouchers.

 

That comes down to if it was 100% voluntary or coerced in any way, shape or form?

 

Think about it, we all saw the penalty for refusal which means you DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE which means the Airline can offer as little as they want or do whatever they want because YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

 

Frankly, who cares about a voucher, that would be nearly useless to me, and I am sure to many others.

 

I paid cash to get on the plane and if you want my seat you should have to pay me more cash to get off the plane.

I don't disagree there. It's all a little alarming how it escalated. Heck, if they'd have offered me that cash I'd have said "throw in my rental car and I'll even carry your employees bags on for them."

 

But the courts will take care of this particular guy.

 

I'd like to see new rules in place, I just don't know that an executive order gets us there in a way we'd like later on. It's one thing to tell executive agencies to change immigration policy. It's another for a sitting executive to issue rules of behavior to private corporations without playing by the rules of the enabling statute passed by Congress.

 

My point with the Executive Order thinking is we need something in place immediately until the powers that be can come up with a fair process that doesn't give Airlines 100% power to do anything to anyone for any reason.

That comes down to if it was 100% voluntary or coerced in any way, shape or form?

 

Think about it, we all saw the penalty for refusal which means you DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE which means the Airline can offer as little as they want or do whatever they want because YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

 

Frankly, who cares about a voucher, that would be nearly useless to me, and I am sure to many others.

 

I paid cash to get on the plane and if you want my seat you should have to pay me more cash to get off the plane.

 

Its a crappy situation to be sure, but at the end of the day if you don't like it, drive... This is one of the factors of flying and is always a possibility. By buying the ticket, you acknowledge that. This is absolutely to reason for any sort of legislation.

Its a crappy situation to be sure, but at the end of the day if you don't like it, drive... This is one of the factors of flying and is always a possibility. By buying the ticket, you acknowledge that. This is absolutely to reason for any sort of legislation.

 

I think history is full of examples of abuses because there wasn't any regulation/legislation/etc.

 

Make it simple, you want my seat, it is $1000 cash at a minimum. Problem Solved.

 

But nope, we have massive Corporate Greed at work here and the bottom line is innocent citizens will be abused and abused until some higher authority steps in.

It should be:

 

Cash

1st Class ticket on the next flight out

All lodging and meal expenses during wait time

Full Refund of ticket price

No. Some attorney will make United's wallet a lot lighter. That will be sufficient motivation to rectify the situation.

It should be:

 

Cash

1st Class ticket on the next flight out

All lodging and meal expenses during wait time

Full Refund of ticket price

 

Sounds like a great first pitch.

And so did everyone else that got up and accepted the vouchers.

 

Let's toss out some hypotheticals then...

 

Say your grandmother falls, breaks her hip and has to have surgery. But, she's 89 and doctors aren't sure she'll survive it. You're 1500 miles away, but can get a direct flight that will get you in town before surgery starts. You okay being bumped?

 

Or say your son, who's in the Marines, gets emergency orders for him to be deployed to Syria. He leaves in the next 24 hours. You're on vacation in Colorado, but can catch a flight in before he leaves. You still okay being bumped?

 

I'm going to say the majority of people are going to say that no amount of money is worth it...and that should be their priority. And if you say no, those situations should be allowed, then what I'm hearing is that some people's reason for wanting to stay on the flight is more important that others. But, for someone who wants to get back in time for their son's Little League game the next day, that may be the most important thing for them...and who are we to argue?

 

Maybe the other three people who got up and left didn't have anything that important for them to contest it. This guy obviously felt he did.