Originally Posted by
bseller
You are giving WN way too MUCH credit for their stance w/r/t inebriated pax, and UA way too LITTLE credit for same.
All US carriers are under the same FAA regs and if they allow drunk pax on board, or serve them too much on board, they are putting themselves at risk.
Dave
Please explain how that's the case. WN is willing to publicly air their case against drunk passengers. It's really that simple.
That the FAA requires all airlines to keep drunk passengers off planes only serves to make WN look better and UA worse (since UA hasn't taken a public stance on the subject).
WN gets a lot of credit for making an airline appear human. UA goes out of their way to try and make an airline look like an investment gone bad. Look at Tilton's statement to the 100K guy at the shareholder's meeting. The one where he basically told a guy who spends a whole lot of money with UA to go ahead, try someone else if you don't like us, we're all bad, so there.