patrick.net

marcus says

Dan8267 says

If airlines had any way to raise prices, they already would have. They sure haven't lacked trying.

I'm with you about certain aspects of capitalism. But you're wrong here. Airlines are very competitive, and taken as a whole air travel is what economists elastic

I don't know what's lacking, your economics knowledge or reading comprehension skills, but what you just wrote supports what I just said. Airlines cannot raise prices precisely because the market won't bear higher prices and air travel is largely elastic at this point because of telecommunication.

The price plummets in the graph demonstrate that airlines cannot raise prices. They could not even maintain prices. So it sounds like you are saying exactly what I am.

Dan8267 says

This is all true, but if the serving coffee at the temperature McDonald's did is wrong, then anyone who ever boils water is criminally negligent is someone else spills that water on them. I boil water all the time to make tea. Does that mean I'm being negligent?

You're serving yourself, so it's on you. You also don't drink it the moment you pour it, you wait a bit for the tea to seep, by that time it's not going to cause harm.

Dan8267 says

Following the reasoning behind this case, if a person poked his eye out with a fork, a restaurant would be liable for having forks that are too sharp. I don't have sympathy for McDonald's, but I cannot rationally justify the idea that boiling water to make coffee is wrong. It's what most people do at home.

Maybe so, but this is ancient, settled law on the grounds that when something is served to you, you can eat/drink it immediately.

McD's was keeping the coffee at 180 degrees, which is almost boiling. Almost everybody else, including Dunkies, at 140.

Also, you shouldn't be making coffee with boiled water. That's why coffee via perculator tastes like shit. I turn off my water heater the moment I hear/see the first simmer.

Dan8267 says

The price plummets in the graph demonstrate that airlines cannot raise prices. They could not even maintain prices. So it sounds like you are saying exactly what I am.

Good reason to stop subsidizing the airlines, airports, and commerical aircraft.

I hear the train a'comin' right around the bend...

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Woah. That answers a question. In another life, in another pursuit, I was subject to ending up on unfamiliar streets in cold weather and remembered getting McDo coffee that was ridiculous in that by the time we would have to leave, it was still too hot to actually drink. Remember leaving a couple behind.

Yeah.

Also why it tasted like shit ("Burnt Coffee" sitting at 180 for a long time), and the only people who survived the Depression and drank instant Coffee in WW2 were the only ones who thought it was great.

Dan8267 says

They could not even maintain prices. So it sounds like you are saying exactly what I am.

Well, I don't get your contention that maximizing the number of passengers on planes is about greed or increasing profits.

A law preventing the practice would very simply be paid for by us in higher prices. It would not come out of some extra profits they are making becasue of the practice.

marcus says

Ironman says

Try again:

-

Don't have to. I was talking about the graph Marcus showed which covers a much larger timeframe than yours. That makes your accusation a fail.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

You're serving yourself, so it's on you.

What if I serve a guess a cup of tea by boiling water and placing a tea bag in a tea cup filled with that water? What if that guess spills the hot tea on herself through no fault of mine? Am I to pay out tens of thousands of dollars? I think that would be ridiculous. That's the problem I have with the McDonald's case. It requires treating that company different than we would anyone else.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

You also don't drink it the moment you pour it, you wait a bit for the tea to seep, by that time it's not going to cause harm.

That's exactly why some people want really hot coffee from drive-thru's. They want the coffee to stay hot by the time they've driven to work.

The fact is that you cannot please all the people all the time. It's not unreasonable or sadistic for a fast-food restaurant to serve boiling coffee to customers who want exactly that because they are driving 20 minutes in winter and they want the coffee to still be hot 20 minutes from now.

Now those people have no option to get coffee as hot as they want. Maybe that's an acceptable trade-off to prevent accidental spills from burning people, but it's not like before this incident the public had a debate and a law was passed to limit the temperature of hot beverages for that reason.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Also, you shouldn't be making coffee with boiled water.

True, doing so makes the coffee more bitter. I do know some people who love bitter coffee, mostly old people. However, black tea is brewed in boiling water, so I boil water all the time.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

I was subject to ending up on unfamiliar streets in cold weather and remembered getting McDo coffee that was ridiculous in that by the time we would have to leave, it was still too hot to actually drink.

I think that's the point. People don't expect to drink it right away but rather 5 to 20 minutes later as they sip at traffic stops.

What's really screwed up is that McDonald's ultimately benefited from the lawsuit because of the publicity and the public thinking the lawsuit was ridiculous and frivolous. The old lady wasn't being greedy and just wanted her medical bills paid, but she was made out to be stupid and entitled. People started to sympathized with McDonald's, a company that sells pink slime and poison.

And public perception allowed laws to be enacted that made it basically impossible to win a lawsuit against a big company.

PCGyver says

Hey Dan did you know the largest plane operated by United Express only seats 76 passengers?

Or 43 Americans.

PCGyver says

Other than a momentary drop in their stock price this incident won't hurt United in fact they might end up with more business from this.

Why do you say that?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

You also don't drink it the moment you pour it

That reminds me of how when I was a youngster we had a yard man named Van who also mowed my grandparents' and aunt and uncle's yards. He'd knock on the back door and say "tell Miss Cora I'm ready for my lunch". My mother would fix a plate of lunch and put it on a tray and I'd take it out to him in the garage and talk to him while he ate. He'd pour a little coffee in the saucer and blow on it before he drank it and I thought it was funny. I told my mother and she laughed and said that's something the old folks used to do, it's called "saucered and blowed" and of course I wanted some to drink some like that but they wouldn't let me, told me it would turn my insides black so I never drank coffee.

it's called "saucered and blowed"

-------------

My lady does that, also. Except it's her cupping her hands under my balls while i get blowed. Cheers

Aren't any of the sympathizers going to organize a 3 day boycott? At least until they need a cheap flight and find that United has the best price online.

When does United ever have the cheapest fare? They already sucked before communicating to the world that they might just jack you out your seat and toss your ass, if the need arises

errc says

When does United ever have the cheapest fare? They already sucked before communicating to the world that they might just jack you out your seat and toss your ass, if the need arises

I happened to check September flights to London on Expedia. United came in at the lowest...$605 round trip.
I won't mind getting bumped for $800. It's just a pleasure trip.

There is a positive correlation between the attractiveness of the stewardesses and the quality of customer experience.

Airlines who hire/retain old/ugly stewardesses are telling the customers that the management does not care about service.

Peter P says

Airlines who hire/retain old/ugly stewardesses are telling the customers that the management does not care about service.

Additionally, older people in customer service will put up with less shit, develop a coast to retirement mentality, etc. whereas a young person wants to prove themselves.

There's a reason restaurants, retail stores, etc. prefer young gals.

Dan8267 says

Now those people have no option to get coffee as hot as they want. Maybe that's an acceptable trade-off to prevent accidental spills from burning people, but it's not like before this incident the public had a debate and a law was passed to limit the temperature of hot beverages for that reason.

They can always nuke it at their destination. Frankly I have no problem with a customer asking McDonalds to put the coffee in a microwave and make it scalding hot.

There were actually many other incidents at McDs over scalding coffee prior to the lady getting burned. "They knew". Most people want to drink their coffee the moment they get it or at least within a minute.. They don't want to wait 5-10 min to take sip due to the heat.

It's telling that McDonalds was the Outlier, I guess it could be argued it was for their customers, but everybody else was serving at 140.

This thread is interesting, because the opinions do not fall along party lines.

The authoritarian impulse would be to sympathize with the cop, and think that the guy attached to a bloody face was wrong.
The laissez-faire capitalist should think that the contract should be enforced regardless of what the contract is or the conditions in which someone 'agrees' to it. But the contract doesn't really cover this issue, so it's not clear where they should stand. Libertarians also don't like to see people getting beaten for little provocation.

People seem to be all over on this issue.

One problem with the Ticket Prices is luggage, charging extra for what used to be regular economy seats you could get if you booked early, TSA fees and everything else. I simply don't believe the chart that shows the "Tickets with fees" = "Tickets" until the last few years.

Also, what about volume? If volume goes up dramatically, that can more than offset ticket costs.

errc says

If I'm in a place of business (or on a plane) and the owners don't want me there and are willing to refund my money (if I have prepaid), I would just leave and take my business elsewhere.

----------

That works at McDonalds, you just go next door to Buger king

But most people don't fly on a whim. I know if I've taken holiday to go on a flight, commuted to the airport, checked my bags, groped by TSA for an hour,,,I'm not going to just walk off the plane, as a matter of principle.

Dignity is something that cannot be taken away, it comes from inside and not from clothing or accessories, and it is associated with respect. Keeping your dignity means staying calm and respectful in any situation, without losing your temper or reverting to foul language. Dignity shows that you have respect for yourself and that you are confident in your worth as a human being. If I understand Errc, personal dignity only applies if the inconvenience is not too great.

PCGyver says

errc says

They already sucked

Which airline doesn't suck? Eastern, Pan-Am, Braniff ...

http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/airline-hottest-flight-attendants-survey-2016-12

PCGyver says

errc says

They already sucked

Which airline doesn't suck? Eastern, Pan-Am, Braniff ...

Which domestic carrier doesn't suck? None. A lot of the foreign flag carriers are very good.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

It's telling that McDonalds was the Outlier, I guess it could be argued it was for their customers, but everybody else was serving at 140.

Just as UA is now engaging in a dirty public relations campaign against the paying passenger who was injured, so too McD's did the same against the customer who got 3rd degree burns from coffee hotter than any other fast food chain, hotter than any consumer kitchen brewer could possibly make, and served in a cheap, flimsy cup that the company knew had scalded hundreds of other customers. The McD's plaintiff had retired and wanted to buy a small house, but incurred more than $100k in medical bills. Her lawyer offered to settle for medical bills and to waive his own fee if the company would simply cover the medical bills, but McD's refused, and then lied in court. If some customers want a cup that can keep coffee hot for 20 minutes, they can bring a Thermos or similar container, or McD's could sell those and charge extra for them. Instead, McD's chose to scald customers with possibly the world's hottest coffee, sold to customers sitting in cars, and delivered in flimsy cups that could not safely contain it.

Regarding the UA passenger, he has reportedly a complicated personal history. "The Louisville Courier-Journal and other news organizations reported Monday that Dao had previously been convicted of six felonies related to his medical practice in 2004, in which he was accused of illegally prescribing painkillers to a patient in exchange for sex.

According to publicly available state licensing records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Dao has a history of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he has received treatment. A 2011 psychological evaluation of Dao concluded that he "lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations, both inter-personally and in a complex profession.
***
Regulators cleared Dao to return to medical practice in 2015, in which he was initially restricted to working one day a week, supervised by another doctor.”

That might explain why he needed to get to Louisville that day.

YesYNot says

People seem to be all over on this issue.

Is anyone thinking that United is not going to be paying the Doctor a significant sum for what happened, and rightfully so ? Maybe United in turn sues the security company for handling it's request incorrectly.

But I doubt anyone thinks the doctor was not mistreated.

It might be okay to drag a protester out of a public protest or out of a Trump rally, but this is different.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They can always nuke it at their destination.

Not too many people have microwaves in the cars. And even if that were an option, I don't see why a restaurant is guilty of negligence is they listen to a larger group of people saying "make the damn coffee hot!" rather than a smaller group of people saying "the coffee's too damn hot!". Taken to the logical conclusion, one would fault the restaurant if they served the coffee above room temperature, if your solution is to have the customer heat up the coffee.

Now, I'd be willing to fault McDonald's if there were any regulations existing at the time that said food and beverages should be no hotter than N degrees. However, that's a conversation the public needs to have. I sincerely doubt that if Starbucks or Ben and Jerry served boiling tea or coffee people would fault them with neglect. Those two companies are much better liked by the public, and rightfully so, but that's irrelevant.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

There were actually many other incidents at McDs over scalding coffee prior to the lady getting burned. "They knew".

Yes, they knew that. I'm not refuting that fact. I'm refuting that simply knowing that some people burn themselves does not mean McDonald's is at fault for continuing to serve hot coffee. It is quite possible to burn yourself on a hot plate handed to you by a waiter at a fancy restaurant. That's why the waiter tells you, "Be careful, the plate is hot.". There are certainly more than zero persons who have burned themselves despite that warning. Does that make any restaurant serving food on hot plates liable?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Most people want to drink their coffee the moment they get it or at least within a minute.. They don't want to wait 5-10 min to take sip due to the heat.

I sincerely doubt that McDonald's served very hot coffee just because they wanted to burn people. That would make no sense. The only explanation for McDonald's serving coffee at the temperatures it did was because a lot of people wanted it that way. Otherwise it would be a really bad business decision. Why would McDonald's spend money heating the coffee up more if it caused fewer people to want to buy their coffee? In any case, this point is irrelevant to whether or not the restaurant should be held liable for burns.

The main problem I have with this case is that it treats McDonald's different from all other entities (restaurants, businesses, individuals). Is GE liable if you burn yourself on a stove they built? Is Stiletto liable if you cut yourself on one of their knives? Is Remington liable if you cut yourself on one of their razors? Is Smith and Wesson liable if you are shot by one of their guns? Is Ford liable if you get killed in a car crash while not wearing your seat belt or by driving your car into a lake while wearing your seat belt? How are all these situations different from McDonald's?

Perhaps there should be a regulation on food temperature, but since there wasn't at the time of the case, I think it's unreasonable to fault anyone for not following such a regulation. And if I were at a nice little restaurant or coffee place, I'd want boiling water to brew my black tea with. I guess if I spilled it on my pants, the restaurant would be liable, so I won't even have the option of brewing tea with boiling water. The lack of trust in the customer's competency to handle hot food means none of us can ever have that option again. So there is a cost to this case.

For the record, I prefer Wawa and Dunkin Doughnuts coffee, which is served at a lower temperature. You still can burn yourself though, even if not as severely. I guess there would still be some liability to those companies if we were to be consistent. I don't think people are consistent though because they hate McDonald's, and rightfully so, but not on this particular issue.

Today's important stories....USA bombs Syria, North Korea playing with missles, Trump going to start world war 3, coffee too hot at McDonalds..

komputodo says

Today's important stories....USA bombs Syria, North Korea playing with missles, Trump going to start world war 3, coffee too hot at McDonalds..

Dr Dao isn't a victim of jackboot abuse and poor corporate profiteering practices, he's a pole smuggling DRUGGIE!

Ironman says

It's amazing what topics the Libbies obsess about... They must have too much time on their hands.

Yeah, because a multi-million dollar lawsuit payout that sets a legal precedent that applies to all businesses and possibly individuals is a completely trivial matter, as is the legal question of what constitutes liability for causing injuries. I mean, it's not like courts are important in our society, not nearly as important as petting zoos.

#rechargableBatteriesDumbass

Dan8267 says

Perhaps there should be a regulation on food temperature, but since there wasn't at the time of the case,

There was Dan, Common Law Precedence had "Beverages/Food must be served at a temperature immediately consumable upon delivery without harm" for centuries, and McD's was duly warned repeatedly by their Legal Department.

Burns had happened before. No consumer coffee machine makes coffee that hot. As it drips through the filter, it cools and it isn't boiling to start with.

@Curious2 has it right, buy a Thermos, hell McD's could sell a Thermos. You can't drink anything hotter than 140 without burning yourself.

Dan8267 says

Does that make any restaurant serving food on hot plates liable?

No, the ancient rule applies to the food and beverages itself.

I much prefer Dunkin Donuts, and you don't have to wait 5 minutes to begin drinking the coffee like you did at McD's.

I remember the same time they promoted the coffee to Seniors to get them in there to have Koffee Klatches and buy a McMuffin or two, so probably Coffee was made the wrong way and that's how the old folks like it, burnt perculator style. McD's was famous for bad coffee, and I remember saying in the early 90s, sorry, but I had to have coffee, even though it's shitty McD's.

I also remember those cups were flimsy as hell, and burning my lips and fingers on the lid.

marcus says

Well, I don't get your contention that maximizing the number of passengers on planes is about greed or increasing profits.

It's not about maximizing the number of passengers on planes. You could make that point if people who missed their flights got refunds, but they don't. It's about selling tickets and not providing the service. The airlines want to get paid twice for a seat and only put one person in it. That's gambling plain and simple.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

No, the ancient rule applies to the food and beverages itself.

Well that's just silly. What's the difference between burning yourself with food vs with a plate? Same effect.

Here's is the Attorney and Dao's Daughter speaking:
www.youtube.com/embed/IKQvSSF0gEs

Not only are they gonna sue United, but the City of Chicago. Apparently Tom Demetrio is a tough cookie who wins big cases. Admiralty Law is pretty clear United and the Cops screwed up Big League. Dao's gonna get millions upon millions.

Dan8267 says

Well that's just silly. What's the difference between burning yourself with food vs with a plate? Same effect.

Yeah, There's all kinds of weird "logic" in the Common law.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Common law

It's going to become a textbook case on how to court bad publicity even if a corporation is legally or technically "right". Hard to believe such a thing could happen in this date of social media.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

www.youtube.com/embed/IKQvSSF0gEs

Not only are they gonna sue United, but the City of Chicago. Apparently Tom Demetrio is a tough cookie who wins big cases. Admiralty Law is pretty clear United and the Cops screwed up Big League. Dao's gonna get millions upon millions.

Good. The only thing that keeps the power in line is fear of losing power and money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-apos-involuntarily-bumped-flight-160757342.html

Here's what you get if you're involuntarily bumped from a flight

Under Department of Transportation rules, the compensation you're entitled to for being involuntarily bumped from a flight varies by the extent of the delay:

If the airline can make alternate arrangements that get you to your final destination within one hour of your original arrival time, no compensation is required.

Between one to two hours of your original arrival time on domestic flights, or one to four hours on international flights: 200 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $675.

More than two hours later than your original arrival time on domestic flights, or more than four hours late on international flights: 400 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $1,350.

If your ticket does not show a fare (for example, a frequent flyer award ticket or a ticket issued by a consolidator), your denied boarding compensation is based on the lowest cash, check or credit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service (e.g., coach, first class) on that flight, according to the rules.

Airlines are required to pay out that compensation in cash.

PCGyver says

So who's going to win this case. Sucks to be you Dr. Feel good, if this turns out to be true.

Irrelevant. Even if the airline is required to bump persons, they cannot assault people. They must compensate, not use violence. And the airline and airport did. The thugs who committed assault weren't even cops. They had no legal authority.

So yes, the doctor has a damn good case and a sympathetic jury may award him tens of millions. Juries don't have to act rationally, and they don't have to follow the law. Juries are immune to prosecution for voting any way regardless of their decision, the case, and the law. Juries do not even have to give reason for their decision, and they certainly don't have to be honest and forthright with those decision. They just say they are for or against the plaintiff and the amount they reward him.

Furthermore, the last thing United Airlines wants is a prolong civil trial. It would be cheaper to simply pay the victim ten million dollars. Even ignoring all the legal cost, the publicity makes this case a loss from the start for United. Even a slight shift in public perception of the airlines would cost more than a damn generous settlement.

from now on passengers will refuse to be bumped in the hope to get assaulted and win millions

Once your ass hits a seat you paid for it's yours, fuck the airlines if they had a real problem they should have handled it before they boarded.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-demetrio-aviation-lawyer-0428-biz-20170427-story.html

The United victim has the same lawyers as me. I wish they could settle my case in a month.

United victim settled for an undisclosed amount? How much would you take to be treated in such a way? I'd probably settle for $150k. This guy probably got many times more.