|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31536299)
The difference, according to our millennia-long social compact, is that service providers should be trained to handle difficult situations, while consumers are not required to take such training. @:-)
|
Originally Posted by quantumslip
(Post 31536243)
What we honestly need is other people on that flight to speak up. Right now we have too much they said / they said. I'm not sure if we'll ever get that though.
|
The pax claimed it was an elbow tap. We have no proof that the physical "assault" was exactly that. Maybe it was grab or a pinch. We only have one side of the story. But note that since the PIRC did not decide to ban the pax from UA, it would seem that it viewed the assault to be relatively benign.
|
One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist.
|
Originally Posted by seenitall
(Post 31537960)
The pax claimed it was an elbow tap. We have no proof that the physical "assault" was exactly that. Maybe it was grab or a pinch. We only have one side of the story. But note that since the PIRC did not decide to ban the pax from UA, it would seem that it viewed the assault to be relatively benign.
Since it was elevated to PIRC in the first place (I assume this isn't a particularly painless experience for the FA either, and likely a time consuming, stressfull and unfulfilling event for all), my best guess is that what is referred to as an "elbow tap" is likely best described as an ELBOW GRAB & SHAKE. That would fit the tone of the news article, the circumstance of the event, the likely state-of-mind of the pax and also explain the FA's discomfort. Wasn't there. Just a gut feeling. Possibly wrong |
Originally Posted by threeoh
(Post 31537865)
No, what we have is "they said / they're not commenting".
|
Originally Posted by quantumslip
(Post 31538703)
no, we do have a form of they/they said (in the form of the report from United). What I meant is that we need 3rd party witnesses to comment on this, because even if the FA spoke up right now it will still be they said / they said.
|
Originally Posted by narvik
(Post 31537524)
Agreed. By the time it goes to PIRC, the passenger has already been deemed guilty.
|
Originally Posted by eng3
(Post 31539059)
The poster and article author seem to think PIRC is analogous to a trial where it seems to be more like the sentencing phase (or perhaps sentencing review phase).
Exactly. The reply they request that be submitted within 96 hours is probably not going to sway them in any significant way, although it might dampen the harshness of the "sentence" somewhat. |
Originally Posted by eng3
(Post 31539059)
The poster and article author seem to think PIRC is analogous to a trial where it seems to be more like the sentencing phase (or perhaps sentencing review phase).
|
Why can't the video be loaded again? Seems odd in light of other data that is being posted here.
|
Originally Posted by bagwell
(Post 31520638)
The gate agent only goes by what the computer system gives them for seat assignments, so it wasn't the gate agent that actually assigned dupe seats. May have been a software/computer glitch or something.....I fly twice a week on United and I can't EVER remember seeing dupe seat assignments, except when a PAX is looking at their connecting flight boarding pass in error or back in the old days before the computer assignments.
|
Originally Posted by s0ssos
(Post 31539991)
Naw, being the focus of a FT thread is basically undergoing trial
|
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
(Post 31541554)
Why can't the video be loaded again? Seems odd in light of other data that is being posted here.
In my opinion, the Dao situation ends up very differently if there was no video |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:41 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.