United Airlines Force Customer Off Plane Due to Overbooking
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19398

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:08 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
Apparently airlines overbooking is legal
Removing a paying passenger is also legal (up to airlines for reasons)


Legal, but has to take place within reason and with punitive compensation the passenger.

Quote:
This 'resisting' passenger is actually liable for felony charge (good luck maintaining that medical degree)

We need new lawmakers


You have a link for that? The explanations I have read today do not lay out that one must submit to physical extraction for not accepting random eviction for a paid seat. Quite the opposite.

At any rate, I doubt there's a prosecutor who wants to charge that doctor with a felony charge. Well at least not a prosecutor with a brain and a sense of self-preservation.


https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1411-interference-flight-crew-members-or-flight-attendants-49-usc


Assaults, threatens, or intimidates? Nope.


My point was that airline company has the law behind them that any passenger (even paying) that interfere with the flight crew can be charged criminally. What is the definition of interfere legally, prob wanna ask a lawyer but it's pretty broad.


"Interfere" is not good enough. It's right in the statute you linked:

Quote:
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 23154

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:27 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
The fact that he is Chinese has not been lost on the Chinese. It's gone viral in China too and many are calling discrimination on the part of United.


I thought I read that he is Vietnamese.


Yeah, his broken English definitely sounded Vietnamese (source: I'm Vietnamese).
_________________
All Aboard the Paul George 2018 Train. CHOO CHOO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 19949
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:39 pm    Post subject:

jonnybravo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
The fact that he is Chinese has not been lost on the Chinese. It's gone viral in China too and many are calling discrimination on the part of United.


I thought I read that he is Vietnamese.


Yeah, his broken English definitely sounded Vietnamese (source: I'm Vietnamese).


Yeah, that info came after the fact but regardless, an Asian American was singled out and attacked brutally for no reason by wannabe cops.
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39732
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:57 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
governator wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
Apparently airlines overbooking is legal
Removing a paying passenger is also legal (up to airlines for reasons)


Legal, but has to take place within reason and with punitive compensation the passenger.

Quote:
This 'resisting' passenger is actually liable for felony charge (good luck maintaining that medical degree)

We need new lawmakers


You have a link for that? The explanations I have read today do not lay out that one must submit to physical extraction for not accepting random eviction for a paid seat. Quite the opposite.

At any rate, I doubt there's a prosecutor who wants to charge that doctor with a felony charge. Well at least not a prosecutor with a brain and a sense of self-preservation.


https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1411-interference-flight-crew-members-or-flight-attendants-49-usc


Assaults, threatens, or intimidates? Nope.


My point was that airline company has the law behind them that any passenger (even paying) that interfere with the flight crew can be charged criminally. What is the definition of interfere legally, prob wanna ask a lawyer but it's pretty broad.


"Interfere" is not good enough. It's right in the statute you linked:

Quote:
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection.


Thanks for pointing out that clarification and detail in the wording
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 19137

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:51 am    Post subject:

rwongega wrote:
jonnybravo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
The fact that he is Chinese has not been lost on the Chinese. It's gone viral in China too and many are calling discrimination on the part of United.


I thought I read that he is Vietnamese.


Yeah, his broken English definitely sounded Vietnamese (source: I'm Vietnamese).


Yeah, that info came after the fact but regardless, an Asian American was singled out and attacked brutally for no reason by wannabe cops.


I wouldn't say it was for no reason. He was asked to deplane and refused. You can't do that just because you think it's ok to stay on. Otherwise, they could never deplane anyone if all they have to do is say no.

The issue, for me anyway, is primarily the process by which United dealt with this. Did they do everything by the book? Perhaps. But I think the book needs to be rewritten. Cops should never have been involved to begin with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:18 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
rwongega wrote:
jonnybravo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
The fact that he is Chinese has not been lost on the Chinese. It's gone viral in China too and many are calling discrimination on the part of United.


I thought I read that he is Vietnamese.


Yeah, his broken English definitely sounded Vietnamese (source: I'm Vietnamese).


Yeah, that info came after the fact but regardless, an Asian American was singled out and attacked brutally for no reason by wannabe cops.


I wouldn't say it was for no reason. He was asked to deplane and refused. You can't do that just because you think it's ok to stay on. Otherwise, they could never deplane anyone if all they have to do is say no.

The issue, for me anyway, is primarily the process by which United dealt with this. Did they do everything by the book? Perhaps. But I think the book needs to be rewritten. Cops should never have been involved to begin with.


Up there in the legal wording they can easily say his refusal to move and the way he spoke to them was "intimidating"

Anyhow.. Is it common procedure when overbooked to remove people who are already seated on the plane? I thought they told the passengers before letting them board the plane? To me it seems completely outrageous to remove vs not let board...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:05 am    Post subject:

Pepsi loves this incident. Short term memory aids yet another malefactor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41900
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:14 am    Post subject:

Jus sayin!!!

David Dao: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Jus sayin!!! :devil:

David Dao: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

LINK


I appreciate the lawyers saying they aren't going to talk about anything right now..

Was he playing Poker that night :devil:

Sad that these are the facts they want us to know.. but they were gonna come out by someone.. Still 14 years ago.. he committed a crime...

Just seems like a horny old (bleep) and a man who seems to have accomplished much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:11 am    Post subject:

https://twitter.com/jordansammy/status/851591204240187392/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc

Hilarious! ^^


Fake but very well done
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:48 am    Post subject:

Could United Sue the chicago airport authority for the way it treated one of its passengers?

Yes, the whole incident started with United calling the authorities to extract him but they FAILED big time... they being the authorities.. they treated that man like a criminal when a few more minutes of communication might have saved the day..

and another thing.. who keeps pushing the $1000 offer I read in the beginning their highest was $800


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-united-ceo-apology-dragged-passenger-0412-biz-20170412-story.html
Quote:
David Dao, who has retained a high-powered personal injury lawyer, asked the Cook County Circuit Court for an order requiring United and the city of Chicago to keep all video, cockpit recordings and other reports from the flight, along with the personnel files of the Aviation Department officers who pulled Dao from the flight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 9183

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:44 pm    Post subject:

well the authorities are not negotiators for the airline. They were brought in to do one thing... remove the guy after the airline called them in.
_________________
tank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3434

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:47 pm    Post subject:

audioaxes wrote:
well the authorities are not negotiators for the airline. They were brought in to do one thing... remove the guy after the airline called them in.


All the focus seems to be on United Customer Service but it also looks like another case of police brutality.. although on less severe basis..

United had to sit there another 3 hours after this .. if the cops would have had more understanding and respect they would have ended this much better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 19949
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:20 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Could United Sue the chicago airport authority for the way it treated one of its passengers?

Yes, the whole incident started with United calling the authorities to extract him but they FAILED big time... they being the authorities.. they treated that man like a criminal when a few more minutes of communication might have saved the day..

and another thing.. who keeps pushing the $1000 offer I read in the beginning their highest was $800


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-united-ceo-apology-dragged-passenger-0412-biz-20170412-story.html
Quote:
David Dao, who has retained a high-powered personal injury lawyer, asked the Cook County Circuit Court for an order requiring United and the city of Chicago to keep all video, cockpit recordings and other reports from the flight, along with the personnel files of the Aviation Department officers who pulled Dao from the flight.


If you've ever flown, you'd know most airlines easily hit the $1k mark if no suckers take their low bids.
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 19137

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:28 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
rwongega wrote:
jonnybravo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
The fact that he is Chinese has not been lost on the Chinese. It's gone viral in China too and many are calling discrimination on the part of United.


I thought I read that he is Vietnamese.


Yeah, his broken English definitely sounded Vietnamese (source: I'm Vietnamese).


Yeah, that info came after the fact but regardless, an Asian American was singled out and attacked brutally for no reason by wannabe cops.


I wouldn't say it was for no reason. He was asked to deplane and refused. You can't do that just because you think it's ok to stay on. Otherwise, they could never deplane anyone if all they have to do is say no.

The issue, for me anyway, is primarily the process by which United dealt with this. Did they do everything by the book? Perhaps. But I think the book needs to be rewritten. Cops should never have been involved to begin with.


Up there in the legal wording they can easily say his refusal to move and the way he spoke to them was "intimidating"

Anyhow.. Is it common procedure when overbooked to remove people who are already seated on the plane? I thought they told the passengers before letting them board the plane? To me it seems completely outrageous to remove vs not let board...


It doesn't matter if he was intimidating or not, belligerent or not. If the airport security ask you to leave, you have to leave. Or else, they may physically remove you.

To me, this issue is not a legal one. We can peruse the United Contract of Carriage and debate the definition of "boarding" all day long. Some say once you are on the plane you are boarded. Others say, it is once the door to the airplane is closed.

To me it is a customer service issue, not a legal issue. I don't believe a law was technically broken here. But what was broken was trust. United should have tried harder to resolve the issue without resorting to a tactic like involuntary denial of boarding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39732
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:00 pm    Post subject:

Here's the problem with the whole, "If the airport police tell you to get off the plane, you get off the plane or you should just accept that you are going to get assaulted" is that it ignores the fact the passenger had done nothing wrong and was being strong armed by the airline. The airport police should not be the muscle that intimidates and assaults innocent, law abiding citizens merely expecting to get what they paid for at the behest of a corporate entity - thus any law or regulation that allows such strong arming needs to be revoked.

What should have happened is that the airport police should have said to United that the paying customer wasn't willing to take the compensation and that United would have to figure out some other way to deal with their EMPLOYEE'S problem. This wasn't an issue of one paying passenger being bumped for another passenger. This wasn't an "overbooking" issue. This was a screw up with how the airline manages it's employees who need to move around. Had there not been the need to prioritize 4 United employees over their paying passengers, there would have been no issue.

And what is being overlooked is that United did NOT do everything it should have done to resolve the situation under the regulations. The offered only $800 when the regulations say that they are subject to as much as $1350. They tried to save themselves $550 bucks by resorting to strong arm tactics as opposed to finding an amicable resolution for their customers. Putting the onus on the passenger to simply submit to that is completely missing the point and flat out wrong.

There were only two failures to do the right thing, neither of which involved the passenger in question (and to anyone pointing to any previous indiscretions by the passenger, just stop - they are completely irrelevant). The first was United's in its decision to prioritize evicting its paying customers to favor its personnel issues. The second was with the Chicago airport authorities to properly evaluate the situation and to realize that it is not their responsibility to solve United's staffing problems by assaulting innocent passengers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 19137

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:45 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Here's the problem with the whole, "If the airport police tell you to get off the plane, you get off the plane or you should just accept that you are going to get assaulted" is that it ignores the fact the passenger had done nothing wrong and was being strong armed by the airline. The airport police should not be the muscle that intimidates and assaults innocent, law abiding citizens merely expecting to get what they paid for at the behest of a corporate entity - thus any law or regulation that allows such strong arming needs to be revoked.

What should have happened is that the airport police should have said to United that the paying customer wasn't willing to take the compensation and that United would have to figure out some other way to deal with their EMPLOYEE'S problem. This wasn't an issue of one paying passenger being bumped for another passenger. This wasn't an "overbooking" issue. This was a screw up with how the airline manages it's employees who need to move around. Had there not been the need to prioritize 4 United employees over their paying passengers, there would have been no issue.

And what is being overlooked is that United did NOT do everything it should have done to resolve the situation under the regulations. The offered only $800 when the regulations say that they are subject to as much as $1350. They tried to save themselves $550 bucks by resorting to strong arm tactics as opposed to finding an amicable resolution for their customers. Putting the onus on the passenger to simply submit to that is completely missing the point and flat out wrong.

There were only two failures to do the right thing, neither of which involved the passenger in question (and to anyone pointing to any previous indiscretions by the passenger, just stop - they are completely irrelevant). The first was United's in its decision to prioritize evicting its paying customers to favor its personnel issues. The second was with the Chicago airport authorities to properly evaluate the situation and to realize that it is not their responsibility to solve United's staffing problems by assaulting innocent passengers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.


Well, the passenger did do something wrong. He was told he needed to get off the plane and refused. He doesn't have to have done something to warrant that. It can simply be because the airline wants to board their own employees instead.

To br fair to the airline, they prioritized paying customers on another flight. Hundreds of them who would have been impacted by the employees not being in KY.

It's a customer service issue. You're right, United did NOT do everything within their power to not have to resort to involuntsry denial. But they are, per carrier contract rules, allowed to invoke it if they wish. They just shouldnt have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19398

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:51 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
To br fair to the airline, they prioritized paying customers on another flight. Hundreds of them who would have been impacted by the employees not being in KY.


Seriously? United screwed this up in about every way imaginable. For starters, why did they not realize that they needed four extra seats until all of the passengers on the plane were already boarded? Think about the galactic incompetence that started all of this. There is no excuse for that. Sure, they prioritized customers on another flight, but only after they had created a disastrous situation on the first flight.

This is United. It's what they're all about. They've always been like this. When I lived in Seattle over 30 years ago, I remember being advised to do anything I could to avoid flying United. There is no reason to be "fair" to United. They do not deserve it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sickside323
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 1439
Location: East Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:04 am    Post subject:

Why do you guys waste your time arguing with him? You know he comes into every single one of these threads, sees what side most people are on, and argues the opposite like clockwork.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 30387

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:43 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
To br fair to the airline, they prioritized paying customers on another flight. Hundreds of them who would have been impacted by the employees not being in KY.


Seriously? United screwed this up in about every way imaginable. For starters, why did they not realize that they needed four extra seats until all of the passengers on the plane were already boarded? Think about the galactic incompetence that started all of this. There is no excuse for that. Sure, they prioritized customers on another flight, but only after they had created a disastrous situation on the first flight.

This is United. It's what they're all about. They've always been like this. When I lived in Seattle over 30 years ago, I remember being advised to do anything I could to avoid flying United. There is no reason to be "fair" to United. They do not deserve it.




I'm not sure about FAA regulatory law, but was this flight overbooked, per the regulations? The extra passengers were not paying customers, but rather a deadhead crew that arrived after the plane was fully boarded. The spirit of the law is to protect airlines from overbooking, but this may not cover deadhead crews.

In terms of travel, you could do worse than United. Back in the old days I was sometimes seated next to angry, deadhead TWA stewardesses. Nothing compares to a 5 hour, transcontinental (bleep) session about Carl Icahn's treatment of airline employees. I would rather have sat next to a life insurance salesman with irritable bowel syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 19137

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:46 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
To br fair to the airline, they prioritized paying customers on another flight. Hundreds of them who would have been impacted by the employees not being in KY.


Seriously? United screwed this up in about every way imaginable. For starters, why did they not realize that they needed four extra seats until all of the passengers on the plane were already boarded? Think about the galactic incompetence that started all of this. There is no excuse for that. Sure, they prioritized customers on another flight, but only after they had created a disastrous situation on the first flight.

This is United. It's what they're all about. They've always been like this. When I lived in Seattle over 30 years ago, I remember being advised to do anything I could to avoid flying United. There is no reason to be "fair" to United. They do not deserve it.


Not disagreeing with any of this. My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate. They prioritized the hundreds of paying customers in KY over those 4 passengers in Chicago. But yes, I agree with you, they were put in that position because of their own incompetence and greed.

There is no excuse for what United did, in my opinion. They deserve every bit of backlash they are getting. And, to both you and DMR's points, they should have exhausted every possible and reasonable option before calling on the muscle to have him forcibly removed. I even read there were 3 other United flights going to KY from O'Hare that same day, why didn't they look to bump someone before boarding or offer the minimum max of $1,350?

I'm not defending United in any way. What I am saying I don't believe they broke any local or federal laws. That doesn't mean they weren't completely wrong in how they serviced this particular customer/situation and hopefully, their mistake will result in some kind of legal changes to protect customers like this doctor in the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6982

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:01 am    Post subject:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

From a lawyer, it touch the definition of boarding vs boarding process also
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 15306

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:13 am    Post subject:

sickside323 wrote:
Why do you guys waste your time arguing with him? You know he comes into every single one of these threads, sees what side most people are on, and argues the opposite like clockwork.
that's cold lol
_________________
Blake Griffin's ankles beware....Randle is coming
The youngins are YOUNG, let them learn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39732
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:35 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 28763

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject:

Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB