To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 609
608  |  610
Subject: 
Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:20:23 GMT
Reply-To: 
lpien@iwantnospam.NOMORESPAMctp.com
Viewed: 
46 times
  
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:19:43 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
good strategy because I have several times been bumped from flights and

_bumped_ from a flight? You mean, as in, you've payed for a ticket,
plane leaves on time, you were there, but there was no room for you
because some bigwig payed them bigtime to get in ahead of you? Is that
_legal_?!

It's not a matter of who paid how much. Airlines overbook. That usually
works because not everyone shows up. When they all do, the airlines are
required to first ask for volunteers to give up their seats in exchange
for a payment of the airline's choosing. Should not enough people
volunteer (and I usually do if I have the flexibility) the airline can
use an algorithm of their choosing to select involuntary participants,
who then get the same payment, (plus, I believe, a free round trip)

I shan't respond to your antiprivatization rantings except to say that
privatization always works. When it doesn't work, someone somewhere is
not properly allocating costs, so therefore it wasn't actually
privatization. Neat escape clause, that, eh? Nevertheless, it's true.

Lines that cannot pay for themselves should be abandoned.
Car usage should neither be encouraged nor discouraged by the
government. Charge for the roads that are most congested, perhaps.

This is straying into debate rather than fun. Please respond, if you
must, in debate rather than fun.

--
Larry Pieniazek    http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
 
Side note: you can also "fly on stand-by", which means you're the first to go if there isn't enough room. It's cheaper than regular tickets, but I'm not sure by how much. Or if you get less compensation if you are bumped to a later flight. Steve (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
 
(...) _bumped_ from a flight? You mean, as in, you've payed for a ticket, plane leaves on time, you were there, but there was no room for you because some bigwig payed them bigtime to get in ahead of you? Is that _legal_?! Jasper (25 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

90 Messages in This Thread:







































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR