sxf24

What are you basing your passionate defense of this unknown individual on? A common belief that taking advantage of corporations should be a protected right?

mikeef

I'd still like to get an answer to GUWonder's question about what trade, exactly, you are referencing.

Mike

buffcoat

Just to note, him being a "rabbi" in specific has nothing to do with my comments, despite your emphasis. Regardless of the faith represented, I would certainly be disappointed if I found out that this was how my religious leader - regardless of whether he was specifically ministering to a "flock" - was choosing to spend his or her time. It's not like he's crusading for social justice, here, by the way.

In other words, it sounds to me as if you're asking, "should people who decide to be religious leaders be held to a higher ethical standard?" I can't speak for everyone, but I'm betting this one would poll pretty well on the "yes" side.

I'll take this further. NO ONE should spend this much time and effort complaining to a specific company when there are clearly other choices in the marketplace. It's a sign of a personality that can't cope with modern life. I'd certainly give his guy a wide berth if he were someone I knew.

Speaking of deranged personalities, I've now spent enough time arguing this. Please continue your quixotic quest to take down Delta Airlines through your monomaniacal defense of this guy.

PTravel

You're the one who brought up how the rabbi spends his time.

What is unethical about this law suit? I'm still waiting for someone to explain. Incidentally, you might want to look up the meaning of the word, "rabbi."

In many, if not most, markets there are not many choices, depending on where you need to go. Regardless, given the near monopoly enjoyed by airlines, I have no problem with people holding their feet to the fire. I do know one thing, however: this suit is not frivolous as a matter of law -- that's what the appellate court's ruling meant. I'm very tired of people forming opinions about litigation without knowing anything about the facts or the applicable law.

What an incredibly rude, stupid (and TOS-violating) thing to say. I'm not trying to take down Delta Airlines. I have no opinion whatsoever on the merits of this law suit, other than the fact that it is non-frivolous, as determined by the federal appellate court. I do find your opinions about this rabbi questionable, and your understanding of the issues presented by the law suit non-existent. You're just one of those many people who think their "common sense" opinion, based on incomplete facts and a complete ignorance of the law, is not only valid, but actually factual. After you've looked up the meaning of the word, "rabbi," you also might want to look up these terms: "informed opinion," and "fact."

sethb

"How do you know?" is not a passionate defense. When someone makes claims based on statements that are not substantiated, it is quite reasonable to ask whether they're based on actual knowledge or merely assumption.

rbwpi

Since jetta2.0t has declined to answer your question, I would suggest you read his posts on the following thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...employees.html

There should be enough information there to form an opinion.

PTravel

Indeed. Thank you for that.

StayingHomeIsBetter

How about a belief that it is far past time to start reining in the airlines' (not just DL's) ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally dictate all aspects of the airline/customer relationship?

It won't happen other than through legal actions such as this.

DiverDave

Given recent events at Delta, I would say: Go rabbi! ^ ^ ^

David

DaveNC

Regardless of the appellate court's ruling, it still sounds frivolous to me. They did not take his money, they did not deny him boarding, they did not lose his luggage (or they may have, but that's not what the suit is about), they did not take actions that caused bodily harm. They only terminated his FF account. I happen to think they did the right thing, but that isn't what makes this all seem frivolous. Rather, it is the pattern of behavior leading up to their termination of his account.

Now, it is certainly possible that there is more to the story. I don't have access to the brief, so I can't study it. But putting the lawsuit aside, I just can't imagine how someone would continue to fly an airline and complain as much as he did if he were not trying to get freebies. It appears that the lawsuit is simply an extension of those actions.

However, if I have been misinformed in someway, please let me know why my read on this matter is incorrect. I understand that the appellate court's ruling says it isn't frivolous, but it still appears that this man was gaming the system. I am willing to be wrong.

PTravel

Then you don't know the meaning of the word, "frivolous."

I have explained, at length, the legal basis for a suit for this reason. That you choose to ignore it and, instead, substitute your own erroneous understanding of the law makes discussion pointless. If you don't like the law, write your representatives and change it (forgetting, for the moment, that the contractual doctrines at issue have been part of common-law jurisprudence for hundreds of years).

So what?

Exactly.

But the appellate court did.

Fortunately, the validity of law suits is not determined using a, "what you can imagine" standard.

As I said, I've explained, at length, the legal basis for the suit, as well as why, "he complained a lot" may not be a valid basis for terminating his membership. I don't know the facts (and neither do you), but I do know the law.

There is no law against, "gaming the system."

rbwpi

Are you in a position to over rule the appellate court? Perhaps we should set aside the court's ruling and have a poll of FTers to determine whether or not the suit is frivolous.

Only the appellate court's decision in this matter counts, certainly no one else'es.

mshachar

+1

sxf24

What's arbitrary and unilateral? The airlines choose how to run their business and customers choose whether to continue patronizing the airline.

I am continue to be perplexed why people think that the relationship with an airline is like a partnership or a marriage. Hello?!? You don't have to be monogamous. Fly around with different carriers based on your whim or need. New planes? Big cushy seats? Upgrades every night instead of the rare occasion when the airline is in the mood? Make the switch...

Since customers can move on at will, the airline should be able to as well. If we're going to approach the airline/customer relationship like a marriage, we should at least be able to admit that DL should be able to dump the customer being discussed in this thread after he became abusive (of the airline's good will and program rules).

DaveNC

Please point me to the post where you explain this at length. I seem to be missing it -- not ignoring it.

Good for them. Just because a court says someone is not guilty does not make them, in fact, not guilty. They are only not guilty in the eyes of the law. That does not mean that the individual did not actually commit the crime, only that there is insufficient evidence to convict. Likewise, regardless of the appellate court's ruling, this man's claim, while allowed under the court, could be entirely designed to get freebies from DL. I don't know, you don't know, even the appellate court doesn't really know -- only he knows. The court seems to think he has standing to sue, but it sure doesn't look right from the outside.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. I work in a profession that is more likely to be the subject of a lawsuit that the instigator, so I will admit to a certain bias against people suing at the drop of a hat. I still don't understand why he didn't just fly another airline -- even in the current environment there are still plenty of options.

True. Let him proceed with his lawsuit, racking up legal fees for DL that we have to pay for. I'm sure it's only a fraction of a cent per ticket, so who cares?

I simply wanted to point out that according to the news article, this individual exhibits a pattern of behavior that calls into question the validity of his argument against NW/DL. That is my opinion, and it remains my opinion. If I owned a business where someone complained as much as he did, I would sever my relationship with them and ask them to take their business elsewhere, too. Wait a minute -- I've actually done that.