Re: Continental threats

[Te Canaille]

"Robert Sawatsky" > wrote in message om...
> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<Q6b7b.43885$uh6.41692@lakeread05>...
> > About 6 years ago I started traveling to various locales to conduct training seminars. Commercial airline flights were chosen as

[ much snipping ]
>
> Of course, this is again one of those cases where you should have
> known the rules about baggage size limits. Why get mad at the airline
> for enforcing their rules. They all have similar rules, you're just
> lucky to have gotten away with it this long.

My, my, what a strict constructionist you are ! If this were a criminal case and you were a judge who went only by the letter of
the law rather than the spirit, I'd say you're correct. But this is not about the law which we have police and courts to enforce.
It's about a company policy. Their way of enforcing policy is to inform the public at the time of interaction. Public legal systems
can and should put the burden on the public to know the law but private companies must put the burden on themselves to inform the
public. I was not given the opportunity on the originating leg of this trip to remedy the situation or leave the oversized bag in my
car. Instead the Continental sent a tacit message that they were willling to transport me and the duffle to another city. Once there
I had no opportunity to remedy the situation. Additionally, even in law tacit understandings over time can be considered as an
informal agreement and this past 6 years has ceretainly shown that Continental was willling to abandon this policy routinely. I got
away with nothing. I did not know the size limitations and the fact that Continental accepted this size so ,many times lead me to
believe that it was within their acceptable limits.
One of the real problems that you so conveniently overlooked here is the threat to use my credit card number. They're pushing
e-tickets and I agree they are convenient but never dreamed that it would be used as a threat to enforce some totally inconsistent
policy at their discretion.
Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no luck.
No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.

Te Canaille

[Dick Locke]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:39:24 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Sawatsky" > wrote in message om...
>> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<Q6b7b.43885$uh6.41692@lakeread05>...
>> > About 6 years ago I started traveling to various locales to conduct training seminars. Commercial airline flights were chosen as
>
>[ much snipping ]
>>
>> Of course, this is again one of those cases where you should have
>> known the rules about baggage size limits. Why get mad at the airline
>> for enforcing their rules. They all have similar rules, you're just
>> lucky to have gotten away with it this long.
>
> My, my, what a strict constructionist you are ! If this were a criminal case and you were a judge who went only by the letter of
>the law rather than the spirit, I'd say you're correct. But this is not about the law which we have police and courts to enforce.
>It's about a company policy. Their way of enforcing policy is to inform the public at the time of interaction. Public legal systems
>can and should put the burden on the public to know the law but private companies must put the burden on themselves to inform the
>public. I was not given the opportunity on the originating leg of this trip to remedy the situation or leave the oversized bag in my
>car. Instead the Continental sent a tacit message that they were willling to transport me and the duffle to another city. Once there
>I had no opportunity to remedy the situation. Additionally, even in law tacit understandings over time can be considered as an
>informal agreement and this past 6 years has ceretainly shown that Continental was willling to abandon this policy routinely. I got
>away with nothing. I did not know the size limitations and the fact that Continental accepted this size so ,many times lead me to
>believe that it was within their acceptable limits.
> One of the real problems that you so conveniently overlooked here is the threat to use my credit card number. They're pushing
>e-tickets and I agree they are convenient but never dreamed that it would be used as a threat to enforce some totally inconsistent
>policy at their discretion.
> Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no luck.
>No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.
>
>Te Canaille
>


You are right, in general commercial law consistent failure to enforce
a clause in a contract can lead to making it unenforceable when
application of the clause is eventually attempted. (IANAL, just a
purchasing guy)

That doesn't do much good when standing at the airline counter though.

[TMOliver]

"Te Canaille" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...


(snip-ped, lengthy display of conduct option - provided by anger management
course - short of assault upon gate agent

My sympathy might be greater had you employed better line length
management.

Your plight inspires more empathy than the guy, embarassed in front of kin
and kinder, while taking his family to Yamaker.

TMO

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:39:24 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Sawatsky" > wrote in message om...
>> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<Q6b7b.43885$uh6.41692@lakeread05>...
>> > About 6 years ago I started traveling to various locales to conduct training seminars. Commercial airline flights were chosen as
>
>[ much snipping ]
>>
>> Of course, this is again one of those cases where you should have
>> known the rules about baggage size limits. Why get mad at the airline
>> for enforcing their rules. They all have similar rules, you're just
>> lucky to have gotten away with it this long.
>
> My, my, what a strict constructionist you are ! If this were a criminal case and you were a judge who went only by the letter of
>the law rather than the spirit, I'd say you're correct. But this is not about the law which we have police and courts to enforce.
>It's about a company policy. Their way of enforcing policy is to inform the public at the time of interaction. Public legal systems
>can and should put the burden on the public to know the law but private companies must put the burden on themselves to inform the
>public. I was not given the opportunity on the originating leg of this trip to remedy the situation or leave the oversized bag in my
>car. Instead the Continental sent a tacit message that they were willling to transport me and the duffle to another city. Once there
>I had no opportunity to remedy the situation. Additionally, even in law tacit understandings over time can be considered as an
>informal agreement and this past 6 years has ceretainly shown that Continental was willling to abandon this policy routinely. I got
>away with nothing. I did not know the size limitations and the fact that Continental accepted this size so ,many times lead me to
>believe that it was within their acceptable limits.

The fact that you are too dumb to realize that they were doing you a
favor these times and/or had changed their policy is your problem, not
theirs. You have to be the only one on the planet by now that hasn't
realized what's been changing at airlines over the last two years--but
that's your problem not theirs. And they do inform the public, but
some, like you, never get the message no matter how many times it is
publicized, by newspapers, website, ask them when you call, etc. etc.
Do you think that they should send a personal messenger to your door
to tell you? This is just self rationalizing baloney you spew out to
try to convince everyone that you're somehow right when you're just
plain stupid and unreasonable.

> One of the real problems that you so conveniently overlooked here is the threat to use my credit card number. They're pushing
>e-tickets and I agree they are convenient but never dreamed that it would be used as a threat to enforce some totally inconsistent/or
>policy at their discretion.

The only thing inconsistent here is your complete irrationality.

> Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no luck.
>No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.

No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
you

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:26:47 GMT, Dick Locke >
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:39:24 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Sawatsky" > wrote in message om...
>>> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<Q6b7b.43885$uh6.41692@lakeread05>...
>>> > About 6 years ago I started traveling to various locales to conduct training seminars. Commercial airline flights were chosen as
>>
>>[ much snipping ]
>>>
>>> Of course, this is again one of those cases where you should have
>>> known the rules about baggage size limits. Why get mad at the airline
>>> for enforcing their rules. They all have similar rules, you're just
>>> lucky to have gotten away with it this long.
>>
>> My, my, what a strict constructionist you are ! If this were a criminal case and you were a judge who went only by the letter of
>>the law rather than the spirit, I'd say you're correct. But this is not about the law which we have police and courts to enforce.
>>It's about a company policy. Their way of enforcing policy is to inform the public at the time of interaction. Public legal systems
>>can and should put the burden on the public to know the law but private companies must put the burden on themselves to inform the
>>public. I was not given the opportunity on the originating leg of this trip to remedy the situation or leave the oversized bag in my
>>car. Instead the Continental sent a tacit message that they were willling to transport me and the duffle to another city. Once there
>>I had no opportunity to remedy the situation. Additionally, even in law tacit understandings over time can be considered as an
>>informal agreement and this past 6 years has ceretainly shown that Continental was willling to abandon this policy routinely. I got
>>away with nothing. I did not know the size limitations and the fact that Continental accepted this size so ,many times lead me to
>>believe that it was within their acceptable limits.
>> One of the real problems that you so conveniently overlooked here is the threat to use my credit card number. They're pushing
>>e-tickets and I agree they are convenient but never dreamed that it would be used as a threat to enforce some totally inconsistent
>>policy at their discretion.
>> Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no luck.
>>No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.
>>
>>Te Canaille
>>
>
>
>You are right, in general commercial law consistent failure to enforce
>a clause in a contract can lead to making it unenforceable when
>application of the clause is eventually attempted. (IANAL, just a
>purchasing guy)
>
>That doesn't do much good when standing at the airline counter though.


Nonsense. A company waiving a contractual right now does not mean
that they waive it in the future unless they specifically agree to.

[Te Canaille]

> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:39:24 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
> wrote:
>

>
> > Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no
luck.
> >No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.
>
> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
> you

You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me.
You obviously work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing with at the Continental desk. Dogmatic,
uptight, and anal. More interested in exercising some sort of small minded agenda hoping to punish and threaten rather than help a
stranger in a strange city get home.
BTW, most folks are pretty fair and will listen to a valid arguement unless you call them names and denigrate their views as
idiotic. Your style is so angry and crude I doubt if anyone got past that and listened to any valid points you might have made. I'm
now more convinced than ever that I am correct in my assessment of the situation.

Te Canaille

[Te Canaille]

"Miguel Cruz" > wrote in message ...
> Te Canaille > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
> >> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
> >> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
> >> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
> >> you
> >
> > You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to
> > who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me. You obviously
> > work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing
> > with at the Continental desk.
>
> What is it with people who assume the only possible way anyone could
> disagree with them is by coming from a "tainted" perspective? Maybe he just
> disagrees with you.
>
> miguel

I understand full well that some out there will disagree with me and am willing to sign my posts and wait for responces. What taints
his replies is the name calling, personal attacks, and labeling on others views as idiotic. Most folks tune out posts like that.
Posts not signed and containing that kind of vitriolic are not taken seriously.

Te Canaille

[Miguel Cruz]

Te Canaille > wrote:
> > wrote:
>> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
>> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
>> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
>> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
>> you
>
> You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to
> who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me. You obviously
> work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing
> with at the Continental desk.

What is it with people who assume the only possible way anyone could
disagree with them is by coming from a "tainted" perspective? Maybe he just
disagrees with you.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

[Te Canaille]

"Miguel Cruz" > wrote in message ...
> Te Canaille > wrote:
> > "Miguel Cruz" > wrote:
>
> I agree that John is pointlessly abrasive and well worth ignoring, but
> that's different from accusing him of working for the airlines just because
> he takes their side over yours.
>
> miguel
> --

Miguel :

It was not the fact that he disagreed with me, it was the level of vehemence, out-of-control rhetoric, and personal attacks that
lead me to believe this. I realize that some folks will disagree with me but that kind of anger I thought surely must have a source
other that a simple difference of opinion. In searching for reasons why someone would display that much angst, working for an
airline became the most likely. Besides that's really not an accusation, just a educated guess. You called him John. Do you know
this individual ?

Te

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:45:25 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:39:24 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> > Try to find this policy posted near any Continental desk in any airport ! Ask a ticket agent for a copy ! You'll have no
>luck.
>> >No, the airline needs to clean up their act. They should meet the public halfway on policy but instead remain arrogant and aloof.
>>
>> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
>> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
>> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
>> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
>> you
>
> You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me.
>You obviously work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing with at the Continental desk. Dogmatic,
>uptight, and anal. More interested in exercising some sort of small minded agenda hoping to punish and threaten rather than help a
>stranger in a strange city get home.

A. I don't work for any airline but a software company

B. Te Canaille I suppose is your real name?

C. What has that got to do with the merits of your babbling anyway?

D. You are just plain wrong. The fact that they waived their rules in
the past doesn't require them to do so in the future, and ingrates
like you will insure that you **** off enough of them that they won't

E. While your holding up everyone else in the check in line

> BTW, most folks are pretty fair and will listen to a valid arguement unless you call them names and denigrate their views as
>idiotic. Your style is so angry and crude I doubt if anyone got past that and listened to any valid points you might have made. I'm
>now more convinced than ever that I am correct in my assessment of the situation.
>

Most folks thought your position was just plain dumb except for the
golf bag guy

[Miguel Cruz]

Te Canaille > wrote:
> "Miguel Cruz" > wrote:
>> Te Canaille > wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
>>>> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
>>>> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
>>>> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
>>>> you
>>>
>>> You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to
>>> who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me. You obviously
>>> work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing
>>> with at the Continental desk.
>>
>> What is it with people who assume the only possible way anyone could
>> disagree with them is by coming from a "tainted" perspective? Maybe he just
>> disagrees with you.
>
> I understand full well that some out there will disagree with me and am
> willing to sign my posts and wait for responces. What taints his replies
> is the name calling, personal attacks, and labeling on others views as
> idiotic. Most folks tune out posts like that. Posts not signed and
> containing that kind of vitriolic are not taken seriously.

I agree that John is pointlessly abrasive and well worth ignoring, but
that's different from accusing him of working for the airlines just because
he takes their side over yours.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

[Ray Lozano]

"Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<ag%7b.48376$uh6.6133@lakeread05>...
> "Miguel Cruz" > wrote in message ...
> > Te Canaille > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > >> No, they need to wean away idiots like you so normal people aren't
> > >> delayed in the check in line while you rant away about all your
> > >> imagined ills that you are too childish to manage yourself. CO's load
> > >> factors are at record highs, so they certainly won't miss clowns like
> > >> you
> > >
> > > You're not brave enough to sign a name to your posts so I don't know to
> > > who to address my reply, but thanks for enlightening me. You obviously
> > > work for an airline and I now understand the kind of people I was dealing
> > > with at the Continental desk.
> >
> > What is it with people who assume the only possible way anyone could
> > disagree with them is by coming from a "tainted" perspective? Maybe he just
> > disagrees with you.
> >
> > miguel
>
> I understand full well that some out there will disagree with me and am willing to sign my posts and wait for responces. What taints
> his replies is the name calling, personal attacks, and labeling on others views as idiotic. Most folks tune out posts like that.
> Posts not signed and containing that kind of vitriolic are not taken seriously.
>
> Te Canaille

To all those attacking Te,

The flamers among you are simply vicious animals. Te's grievance is
valid. The airlines behave like unfriendly, unincentivized government
agencies, which they have largely become since Congress injected $15
billion into the industry after 9-11. I would not fly on an airline
run by the IRS, and the airlines today are doing a fair job of acting
like tax collectors.

If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to true
competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax dollars
keep airline employees working are often harassed by hostile airline
representatives whose paychecks they subsidize.

There is an element among these newsgroups, including but not limited
to the flamers, who seem to worship the sovereignty of the airlines
and the infallibility of their policies. When a traveler has a
legitimate complaint about poor customer service, all too often their
grievance is met with brainless insults, as if the airlines are beyond
reproach and as if a traveler's troubles, as a consumer, are the
result of that person's stupidity.

I'm with Te. As a paying customer I expect to be treated with decency.
I certainly don't expect the red carpet to be rolled out for me if I'm
not paying for it, but if I am paying someone to provide me with a
product or service, I believe I deserve respect and assistance from
the company to whom I am giving my money.

For those of you who can think of nothing more than to abuse people on
these newsgroups with invective, you must live very sorry lives. To
those of you who respond thoughtfully, whether you agree or disagree,
you are appreciated.

Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[mrtravel]

Ray Lozano wrote:

>
> If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
> the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
> eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to true
> competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax dollars
> keep airline employees working are often harassed by hostile airline
> representatives whose paychecks they subsidize.

This "subsidy" was only a recent occurence.
Let's no use it as a reason for the airline to abandon all of its
policies regarding ticket or baggage restrictions.

> When a traveler has a
> legitimate complaint about poor customer service, all too often their
> grievance is met with brainless insults, as if the airlines are beyond
> reproach and as if a traveler's troubles, as a consumer, are the
> result of that person's stupidity.

In a lot of cases, it is, or at least lack of knowledge
Airlines are not beyond reproach, but it should not be expected that
just because they got government assistance at some point, they should
relax all of their ticket or baggage restrictions.

>
> I'm with Te. As a paying customer I expect to be treated with decency.
> I certainly don't expect the red carpet to be rolled out for me if I'm
> not paying for it, but if I am paying someone to provide me with a
> product or service, I believe I deserve respect and assistance from
> the company to whom I am giving my money.

You met an employee that for one reason or another you had a problem
with. We don't know what was said between the two of you, only that it
sounds very strange that an airline would threaten to charge your credit
card for a past event of being over the baggage limit. Maybe it was a
heated exchange, we don't know.... The problem seemed to have occurred
because you either didn't know or didn't desire to follow the baggage
rule. The bag was oversized. It was up to the airline if it wanted to
charge you or not.


> For those of you who can think of nothing more than to abuse people on
> these newsgroups with invective, you must live very sorry lives.

I have witnessed quite a few attacks, verbal and physical attacks on
airline employees. This doesn't make the news or the newsgroup.
Meet one bad employee and you make it seem like the whole airline is
bad. If the employee does something wrong, get the supervisor, and
continue up the chain until the issue is resolved. I know a lot of
people don't do this, and it takes the airline more time to find out it
has a problem employee..

[Miguel Cruz]

Te Canaille > wrote:
> "Miguel Cruz" > wrote:
>> I agree that John is pointlessly abrasive and well worth ignoring, but
>> that's different from accusing him of working for the airlines just because
>> he takes their side over yours.
>
> It was not the fact that he disagreed with me, it was the level of
> vehemence, out-of-control rhetoric, and personal attacks that lead me to
> believe this. I realize that some folks will disagree with me but that
> kind of anger I thought surely must have a source other that a simple
> difference of opinion. In searching for reasons why someone would display
> that much angst, working for an airline became the most likely. Besides
> that's really not an accusation, just a educated guess. You called him
> John. Do you know this individual ?

Nope; I just did a web search on his email address a few months back because
I was curious as to what sort of a person would seemingly get so much joy
out of spewing mindless abuse in the newsgroups.

Sadly there was no epiphany.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

[Ray Lozano]

mrtravel > wrote in
m:

> Ray Lozano wrote:
>
>>
>> If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
>> the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
>> eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to
>> true competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax

[cut]


> I have witnessed quite a few attacks, verbal and physical attacks on
> airline employees. This doesn't make the news or the newsgroup.
> Meet one bad employee and you make it seem like the whole airline is
> bad. If the employee does something wrong, get the supervisor, and
> continue up the chain until the issue is resolved. I know a lot of
> people don't do this, and it takes the airline more time to find out
> it has a problem employee..
>

Mr Travel,

I have read several of your posts recently, and it sounds like you are a
travel professional or a very experienced traveler. The less-experienced
among us do not have the advantage of your experience. We will make more
travel mistakes than someone like you.

I believe in the usefulness of business policies to regulate operations.
Order is far better than chaos in pursuit of profit. However, what I see
in Te's case is inconsistent application of the airline's policy, which
should not be confused with law. Policy decisions should be made with
regard to what is best for the customer to create goodwill. At least
that is what is required in a free market.

As far as airline employees being attacked by irate passengers, it
doesn't surprise me and it is absolutely unacceptable. I have heard of
it but I have never witnessed it.

Traveling is stressful for many people, but good business practices by
the airlines could alleviate much of the strain. Nevertheless, some
customers will never behave according to the best thought-out policies.

Regards,
Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[mrtravel]

> Mr Travel,
>
> I have read several of your posts recently, and it sounds like you are a
> travel professional or a very experienced traveler. The less-experienced
> among us do not have the advantage of your experience. We will make more
> travel mistakes than someone like you.

I agree that the average person will make more travel mistakes.
However, a lot of this is because of their inability to read the
documents that are available to them. I would think that most people
know their tickets are restricted, but fail to actually find out what
those restrictions are.
I am not a travel professional and most of my trips are the 342 airmiles
from SJC (San Jose)to SNA (Orange County). I make very few trips for
business. I just came back from Mexico City, and was in Salt Lake City
in December. That's it for the past 2 years. However, I generally make
multiple international trips each year since I missed out on a lot being
a poor kid. Trip research is done to ensure a minimal amount of problems
and money spent for value received. I have learned that there are nice
values in places that most Americans wouldn't visit. Last year, I stayed
in the Presidential Suite of a very nice hotel in Cyprus for a fraction
of the cost most Americans are used to spending for such luxuries.
I take advantage or earning miles as much as possible, and understand
that loyalty to one program gets you substantial undocumented benefits.
We speaking to travel people, I am generally very polite and not often
demanding. I generally get what I want this way. I also understand that
most airline employees, and people in general, are not as intelligent as
I am, but I know that I can learn an awful lot from many different kinds
of people.

I have only been minorly inconvenienced by post 9-11 security.

I guess the issue that bothers me here is that many people come to this
newsgroup expecting one sided answers that agree with them. Rather than
start by admitting they made the biggest mistake, they start talking
about how the airline screwed them, and warning people not to fly that
airline. The truth be told, the screwup is often due to their own
mistakes and they would gain nothing by choosing another carrier, and
would possibly spend more money if that other carrier charged more for a
seat on the day they wanted to fly, and rather than save money, they
want to stand on principle.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:51:55 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"Miguel Cruz" > wrote in message ...
>> Te Canaille > wrote:
>> > "Miguel Cruz" > wrote:
>>
>> I agree that John is pointlessly abrasive and well worth ignoring, but
>> that's different from accusing him of working for the airlines just because
>> he takes their side over yours.
>>
>> miguel
>> --
>
>Miguel :
>
>It was not the fact that he disagreed with me, it was the level of vehemence, out-of-control rhetoric, and personal attacks that
>lead me to believe this. I realize that some folks will disagree with me but that kind of anger I thought surely must have a source
>other that a simple difference of opinion. In searching for reasons why someone would display that much angst, working for an
>airline became the most likely. Besides that's really not an accusation, just a educated guess. You called him John. Do you know
>this individual ?
>
>Te
>

Unlike yours on Continental , of course

[Te Canaille]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message m...

> You met an employee that for one reason or another you had a problem
> with. We don't know what was said between the two of you, only that it
> sounds very strange that an airline would threaten to charge your credit
> card for a past event of being over the baggage limit. Maybe it was a
> heated exchange, we don't know.... The problem seemed to have occurred
> because you either didn't know or didn't desire to follow the baggage
> rule. The bag was oversized. It was up to the airline if it wanted to
> charge you or not.

There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior flight
and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
airline policy and it is not posted. If they had brought this to my attention at my home base I would have had a choice to put it my
vehicle or make some other accomodation but they ckecked it through to Cleveland. On the return flight they asked if I had golf
clubs and I truthfully said no. At that point he said the cost would be $ 80 to check it. I was surprised and informed them that the
pad in the duffle was worth only $ 60 and I would not have elected to spend $ 160 to check it, but since I was in a strange city and
had no options then it should be checked through and I'd figure some other option in the future. He got another individual who I can
only assume was a supervisor. She said that if I continued on this track she'd retroactively charge for the first flight. It was a
clear threat and attempted intimidation. At that point I took the pad out of the duffle left it on the floor and took the duffle
outside to the sky cap and checked it through. I was the only person at the desk at that time so no one was inconvenienced. I
expected them to recognize that they had gotten me into a situation and would get me home but "don't bring this duffle next trip".
That way I would have gotten happily home, learned of the new policy, and they would have gained a great deal of good will. Instead
they and I were both unhappy with the result. Looking a some of the golf bags they checked through without charge, my 1/2 inch thick
4 pound foam pad really wouldn't have been a problem. BTW, there is no written policy on golf bags but they are not charged.
There's a great deal of inconsistency by Continental and this clerk was just acting arbitrarily. I heard from folks in other
newsgroups who say the same. Most of the time they'll check an oversize through without charge.
Company policy is not public law. A private company policy can only be compiled with by the public if the public is informed and
it is incumbent on the company to take steps to do so.

Te

[Te Canaille]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message m...
> Te Canaille wrote:
> >
> >
> > There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior
flight
> > and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
> > Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
> > oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
> > airline policy and it is not posted.
>
> Why do you think it is a new policy. I think it is the same policy that
> someone decided to enforce.. Like speeding. Sometimes limits are more
> strictly enforced than others.
>

I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.

Te

[mrtravel]

Te Canaille wrote:
>
>
> There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior flight
> and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
> Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
> oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
> airline policy and it is not posted.

Why do you think it is a new policy. I think it is the same policy that
someone decided to enforce.. Like speeding. Sometimes limits are more
strictly enforced than others.

The overall issue is simple.
Does the bag exceed the maximum dimension permitted for luggage to not
be considered oversized.
http://www.continental.com/travel/policies/baggage/check.asp?SID=7A2423AB19784343B821B981D36987B0

[mrtravel]

Te Canaille wrote:

> "mrtravel" > wrote in message m...
>
>>Te Canaille wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior
>
> flight
>
>>>and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
>>> Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
>>>oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
>>>airline policy and it is not posted.
>>
>>Why do you think it is a new policy. I think it is the same policy that
>>someone decided to enforce.. Like speeding. Sometimes limits are more
>>strictly enforced than others.
>>
>
>
> I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.
>
> Te

Are you suggesting that CO didn't have limits on baggage size before?
The current limit looks about the same as when I used to fly CO until
about 12 years ago.

[Te Canaille]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message ...
> Te Canaille wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.
> >
> > Te
>
> Are you suggesting that CO didn't have limits on baggage size before?
> The current limit looks about the same as when I used to fly CO until
> about 12 years ago.
>

No, I'm suggesting that when I called Continental's customer service number and told them this duffle had been accepted without
question for the last 6 years, the agent told me that this policy was only a year or so old. Maybe Continental's agent was not being
truthful or perhaps the standard had been changed. I think this irrevalent at any rate. Continental should raise policy questions
with customers in a consistent manner, not wait for years then put them in an awkward position in a strange city on a return flight.
Thanks for helping me keep this thread going. The more I can articulate Continental's bad behavior the better.

Te

[Te Canaille]

"Ray Lozano" > wrote in message om...
> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<ag%7b.48376$uh6.6133@lakeread05>...
>
> To all those attacking Te,
>
> The flamers among you are simply vicious animals. Te's grievance is
> valid. The airlines behave like unfriendly, unincentivized government
> agencies, which they have largely become since Congress injected $15
> billion into the industry after 9-11. I would not fly on an airline
> run by the IRS, and the airlines today are doing a fair job of acting
> like tax collectors.
>
> If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
> the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
> eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to true
> competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax dollars
> keep airline employees working are often harassed by hostile airline
> representatives whose paychecks they subsidize.
>
> There is an element among these newsgroups, including but not limited
> to the flamers, who seem to worship the sovereignty of the airlines
> and the infallibility of their policies. When a traveler has a
> legitimate complaint about poor customer service, all too often their
> grievance is met with brainless insults, as if the airlines are beyond
> reproach and as if a traveler's troubles, as a consumer, are the
> result of that person's stupidity.
>
> I'm with Te. As a paying customer I expect to be treated with decency.
> I certainly don't expect the red carpet to be rolled out for me if I'm
> not paying for it, but if I am paying someone to provide me with a
> product or service, I believe I deserve respect and assistance from
> the company to whom I am giving my money.
>
> For those of you who can think of nothing more than to abuse people on
> these newsgroups with invective, you must live very sorry lives. To
> those of you who respond thoughtfully, whether you agree or disagree,
> you are appreciated.
>
> Ray Lozano
> http://www.usairways.tv


Thanks Ray. I just want a fair shake and not only didn't get that but was threatened in the bargain. Not what one might expect.

Te Canaille

[Ray Lozano]

"Te Canaille" > wrote in
news:7Ak8b.51687$uh6.46002@lakeread05:


>
> Thanks Ray. I just want a fair shake and not only didn't get that but
> was threatened in the bargain. Not what one might expect.
>
> Te Canaille
>
>
>

You're welcome.

--
Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[[email protected]]

>
>Mr Travel,
>
>I have read several of your posts recently, and it sounds like you are a
>travel professional or a very experienced traveler. The less-experienced
>among us do not have the advantage of your experience. We will make more
>travel mistakes than someone like you.

Then pay for them. Why should the airline pay for your admitted
ignorance?

>
>I believe in the usefulness of business policies to regulate operations.
>Order is far better than chaos in pursuit of profit. However, what I see
>in Te's case is inconsistent application of the airline's policy, which
>should not be confused with law. Policy decisions should be made with
>regard to what is best for the customer to create goodwill. At least
>that is what is required in a free market.

Goodwill for people like him would bankrupt an airline. It's totally
ridiculous. If a cop lets you off with a warning one time, it hardly
means that they have to the next time. In fact, maybe he remembers
you as an ungrateful serial offender for whom no favors should be
done.

>
>As far as airline employees being attacked by irate passengers, it
>doesn't surprise me and it is absolutely unacceptable. I have heard of
>it but I have never witnessed it.
>
>Traveling is stressful for many people, but good business practices by
>the airlines could alleviate much of the strain. Nevertheless, some
>customers will never behave according to the best thought-out policies.

Read doing what this guy wants.

[[email protected]]

On 11 Sep 2003 13:12:51 -0700, (Ray Lozano)
wrote:

Here is just another anti-airline ranter that ignores the fact that
this guy was in violation of the airline's rules, thinks he is
entitled to exception simply because he got them before and wants them
again--a thoroughly ridiculous position. As with the other guy, this
guy's definition of poor service is anything he doesn't like whether
warranted to not. You can be sure that both of them would delay your
checking in while they rant at the airline.

>To all those attacking Te,
>
>The flamers among you are simply vicious animals. Te's grievance is
>valid. The airlines behave like unfriendly, unincentivized government
>agencies, which they have largely become since Congress injected $15
>billion into the industry after 9-11. I would not fly on an airline
>run by the IRS, and the airlines today are doing a fair job of acting
>like tax collectors.
>
>If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
>the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
>eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to true
>competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax dollars
>keep airline employees working are often harassed by hostile airline
>representatives whose paychecks they subsidize.
>
>There is an element among these newsgroups, including but not limited
>to the flamers, who seem to worship the sovereignty of the airlines
>and the infallibility of their policies. When a traveler has a
>legitimate complaint about poor customer service, all too often their
>grievance is met with brainless insults, as if the airlines are beyond
>reproach and as if a traveler's troubles, as a consumer, are the
>result of that person's stupidity.
>
>I'm with Te. As a paying customer I expect to be treated with decency.
>I certainly don't expect the red carpet to be rolled out for me if I'm
>not paying for it, but if I am paying someone to provide me with a
>product or service, I believe I deserve respect and assistance from
>the company to whom I am giving my money.
>
>For those of you who can think of nothing more than to abuse people on
>these newsgroups with invective, you must live very sorry lives. To
>those of you who respond thoughtfully, whether you agree or disagree,
>you are appreciated.
>
>Ray Lozano
>http://www.usairways.tv

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:54:52 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"mrtravel" > wrote in message m...
>
>> You met an employee that for one reason or another you had a problem
>> with. We don't know what was said between the two of you, only that it
>> sounds very strange that an airline would threaten to charge your credit
>> card for a past event of being over the baggage limit. Maybe it was a
>> heated exchange, we don't know.... The problem seemed to have occurred
>> because you either didn't know or didn't desire to follow the baggage
>> rule. The bag was oversized. It was up to the airline if it wanted to
>> charge you or not.
>
> There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior flight
>and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.

Probably because they were busy checking in customers and you were
taking up their time with your silly complaint.

> Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
>oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
>airline policy and it is not posted.

So what? Their policies are posted on their website and you could
ask. Fares have changed all over the place during the last 6 years as
well. Did you complain about the fact that you are now getting the
historical lowest or do you only bitch when something is not in your
favor?

If they had brought this to my attention at my home base I would have
had a choice to put it my
>vehicle or make some other accomodation but they ckecked it through to Cleveland. On the return flight they asked if I had golf
>clubs and I truthfully said no. At that point he said the cost would be $ 80 to check it. I was surprised and informed them that the
>pad in the duffle was worth only $ 60 and I would not have elected to spend $ 160 to check it, but since I was in a strange city and
>had no options then it should be checked through and I'd figure some other option in the future.

Sure you did, of course. It it were only worth $60 as you claim, you
could have thrown it away or thrown away the contents and kept the
bag. This just shows how you think.

He got another individual who I can
>only assume was a supervisor. She said that if I continued on this track she'd retroactively charge for the first flight. It was a
>clear threat and attempted intimidation. At that point I took the pad out of the duffle left it on the floor and took the duffle
>outside to the sky cap and checked it through.

So you are completely dishonest and admit it. After clearing now
knowing what the airline's rules were you had no hesitation to find
someway to break them after being informed of them. And then you rant
about them. Try looking in the mirror about you own thievery.

I was the only person at the desk at that time so no one was
inconvenienced. I
>expected them to recognize that they had gotten me into a situation and would get me home but "don't bring this duffle next trip".
>That way I would have gotten happily home, learned of the new policy, and they would have gained a great deal of good will.

They hardly need the goodwill of a thief.


Instead
>they and I were both unhappy with the result. Looking a some of the golf bags they checked through without charge, my 1/2 inch thick
>4 pound foam pad really wouldn't have been a problem.

Can't tell the difference between sporting equipment and your stuff
can you?

BTW, there is no written policy on golf bags but they are not charged.
> There's a great deal of inconsistency by Continental and this clerk was just acting arbitrarily. I heard from folks in other
>newsgroups who say the same. Most of the time they'll check an oversize through without charge.

Of course they do. There's a lot of irrational airline haters just
like you who have no idea what they are talking about ranting just
like you. Whereas great minds often agree, it is equally true that
fools rarely differ. Guess which category you fit into?

> Company policy is not public law. A private company policy can only be compiled with by the public if the public is informed and
>it is incumbent on the company to take steps to do so.
>

This just again shows your monumental ignorance among other things.
Your ticket is a contract between you and the airline and it is very
much governed by law. And as they often say, ignorance of the law is
no excuse. It's your problem.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:13:59 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"mrtravel" > wrote in message m...
>> Te Canaille wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior
>flight
>> > and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
>> > Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
>> > oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
>> > airline policy and it is not posted.
>>
>> Why do you think it is a new policy. I think it is the same policy that
>> someone decided to enforce.. Like speeding. Sometimes limits are more
>> strictly enforced than others.
>>
>
>I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.
>
>Te
>


There's nothing new about it, of course. They have had the same
limits for years and it's up to them to enforce them as they see fit.
As simple as that.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:28:15 GMT, mrtravel >
wrote:

>Te Canaille wrote:
>
>> "mrtravel" > wrote in message m...
>>
>>>Te Canaille wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was no heated exchange but the discussion took an ugly turn when the clerk threatened to charge me for the prior
>>
>> flight
>>
>>>>and the situation took on an adverserial feeling.
>>>> Fact is that I had been checking this duffle for about 6 years and during that time the size policy changed and it became
>>>>oversized. Continental continued to check this duffle through without saying a word to me about a new policy. I don't peruse the
>>>>airline policy and it is not posted.
>>>
>>>Why do you think it is a new policy. I think it is the same policy that
>>>someone decided to enforce.. Like speeding. Sometimes limits are more
>>>strictly enforced than others.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.
>>
>> Te
>
>Are you suggesting that CO didn't have limits on baggage size before?
>The current limit looks about the same as when I used to fly CO until
>about 12 years ago.


Is is, of course. Just more evidence that this guy has no clue what
he is talking about. He just wants to smear an airline for his own
ignorance and irresponsibility, just like someone here a while back
ranted on about CO not helping her to what she thought was her
entitlement with a weather delay for which they have no responsibility
whatsoever. She ranted on just like this guy, because she thought she
should be reimbursed for acts of God. Just as stupid as this and if
people wonder why airlines react this way now when they have a severe
business environment after seeing how the ones they have done favors
for act like this and turn into outright thieves is it any wonder that
they have had enough?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:27:26 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>"mrtravel" > wrote in message ...
>> Te Canaille wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I think it's a new policy because Continental told me it was.
>> >
>> > Te
>>
>> Are you suggesting that CO didn't have limits on baggage size before?
>> The current limit looks about the same as when I used to fly CO until
>> about 12 years ago.
>>
>
> No, I'm suggesting that when I called Continental's customer service number and told them this duffle had been accepted without
>question for the last 6 years, the agent told me that this policy was only a year or so old. Maybe Continental's agent was not being
>truthful or perhaps the standard had been changed. I think this irrevalent at any rate. Continental should raise policy questions
>with customers in a consistent manner, not wait for years then put them in an awkward position in a strange city on a return flight.
> Thanks for helping me keep this thread going. The more I can articulate Continental's bad behavior the better.
>

Your finally right on something. It is irrelevant. It's you
responsibility to know what your responsibilities are in a contractual
relationship which this one is. And when your reaction to this
awkward situation is to steal from them after being informed of it
tells all anyone needs to know about you. And they hardly will miss
you. They are predicted to be the only major carrier to make a profit
in the third quarter so they now a lot more about how to run an
airline properly than you do. Mostly by ignoring cretins like you.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:29:25 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:

>
>"Ray Lozano" > wrote in message om...
>> "Te Canaille" > wrote in message news:<ag%7b.48376$uh6.6133@lakeread05>...
>>
>> To all those attacking Te,
>>
>> The flamers among you are simply vicious animals. Te's grievance is
>> valid. The airlines behave like unfriendly, unincentivized government
>> agencies, which they have largely become since Congress injected $15
>> billion into the industry after 9-11. I would not fly on an airline
>> run by the IRS, and the airlines today are doing a fair job of acting
>> like tax collectors.
>>
>> If the airline industry operated competitively within a free market,
>> the weak operators would go out of business, overcapacity would be
>> eliminated, and the focus of the survivors would quickly shift to true
>> competition for customers. Instead, paying customers whose tax dollars
>> keep airline employees working are often harassed by hostile airline
>> representatives whose paychecks they subsidize.
>>
>> There is an element among these newsgroups, including but not limited
>> to the flamers, who seem to worship the sovereignty of the airlines
>> and the infallibility of their policies. When a traveler has a
>> legitimate complaint about poor customer service, all too often their
>> grievance is met with brainless insults, as if the airlines are beyond
>> reproach and as if a traveler's troubles, as a consumer, are the
>> result of that person's stupidity.
>>
>> I'm with Te. As a paying customer I expect to be treated with decency.
>> I certainly don't expect the red carpet to be rolled out for me if I'm
>> not paying for it, but if I am paying someone to provide me with a
>> product or service, I believe I deserve respect and assistance from
>> the company to whom I am giving my money.
>>
>> For those of you who can think of nothing more than to abuse people on
>> these newsgroups with invective, you must live very sorry lives. To
>> those of you who respond thoughtfully, whether you agree or disagree,
>> you are appreciated.
>>
>> Ray Lozano
>> http://www.usairways.tv
>
>
>Thanks Ray. I just want a fair shake and not only didn't get that but was threatened in the bargain. Not what one might expect.
>
>Te Canaille
>

Finally found another nut to agree with huh? I suppose that would
make you happy.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:48:21 GMT, Ray Lozano
> wrote:

>"Te Canaille" > wrote in
>news:7Ak8b.51687$uh6.46002@lakeread05:
>
>
>>
>> Thanks Ray. I just want a fair shake and not only didn't get that but
>> was threatened in the bargain. Not what one might expect.
>>
>> Te Canaille
>>
>>
>>
>
>You're welcome.


Now the two of you can go form your own newsgroup. Call it
rec.nutsandrantersRus.travel

[Dick Locke]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:20:04 -0400, wrote:

>Nonsense. A company waiving a contractual right now does not mean
>that they waive it in the future unless they specifically agree to.

From the Uniform Commercial Code:

"Where the contract involves repeated occasions for performance by
either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and
opportunity for objection to it by the other, any course of
performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be
relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement."

I'm not saying that this section of the UCC applies here....it can't,
because the UCC covers sale of goods, not services. I'm saying that
you are wrong about there being no adverse consequences to ignoring a
clause in a commercial relationship.

Anyway, it's Purchasing 101 and probably Sales 101, "use it or lose
it" when your trading partner is in violation of a contract. The
normal practice is to send a letter saying we let you get away with it
this time but we might enforce it next time.

[[email protected]]

Let's see. You bring up a completely irrelevant section of the UCC,
say it doesn't apply, then try to make some point. How interesting.
Let me make it easy for you. For the most part, the statute of
limitation in a contractual relationship is 6 years. They have six
years to enforce it if they want and it certainly isn't fraud like
some other nutbar asserted.


On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:29:14 GMT, Dick Locke >
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:20:04 -0400, wrote:
>
>>Nonsense. A company waiving a contractual right now does not mean
>>that they waive it in the future unless they specifically agree to.
>
>From the Uniform Commercial Code:
>
> "Where the contract involves repeated occasions for performance by
>either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and
>opportunity for objection to it by the other, any course of
>performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be
>relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement."
>
>I'm not saying that this section of the UCC applies here....it can't,
>because the UCC covers sale of goods, not services. I'm saying that
>you are wrong about there being no adverse consequences to ignoring a
>clause in a commercial relationship.
>
>Anyway, it's Purchasing 101 and probably Sales 101, "use it or lose
>it" when your trading partner is in violation of a contract. The
>normal practice is to send a letter saying we let you get away with it
>this time but we might enforce it next time.

[Dick Locke]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:29:36 -0400, wrote:

>Let's see. You bring up a completely irrelevant section of the UCC,
>say it doesn't apply, then try to make some point. How interesting.
>Let me make it easy for you. For the most part, the statute of
>limitation in a contractual relationship is 6 years. They have six
>years to enforce it if they want and it certainly isn't fraud like
>some other nutbar asserted.


Let's see, you make a sweeping and very incorrect statement

>>Nonsense. A company waiving a contractual right now does not mean
>>that they waive it in the future unless they specifically agree to.

and then get rude when someone calls you on it...

C'mon, just try to say it...."I was wrong." It's liberating.

[mrtravel]

Dick Locke wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:20:04 -0400, wrote:
>
>
>>Nonsense. A company waiving a contractual right now does not mean
>>that they waive it in the future unless they specifically agree to.
>
>
> From the Uniform Commercial Code:
>
> "Where the contract involves repeated occasions for performance by
> either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and
> opportunity for objection to it by the other, any course of
> performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be
> relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement."
>
> I'm not saying that this section of the UCC applies here....it can't,
> because the UCC covers sale of goods, not services. I'm saying that
> you are wrong about there being no adverse consequences to ignoring a
> clause in a commercial relationship.
>
> Anyway, it's Purchasing 101 and probably Sales 101, "use it or lose
> it" when your trading partner is in violation of a contract. The
> normal practice is to send a letter saying we let you get away with it
> this time but we might enforce it next time.

Each airline ticket purchase is a separate contract.. "Repeated
occasions" refers to a single contract.

[Te Canaille]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message . com...
> Dick Locke wrote:
> >
> > Right...
> >
> > However, the concept of "course of dealing" probably can (given a
> > clever enough lawyer willing to work on an $80 case) be applied to any
> > business relationship, even if the UCC doesn't apply. Here's a
> > definition of "course of dealing" from Merriam Webster
>
> How would he prove that he carried the bag many times and was never
> charged? I am quite sure that CO could proof that it has applied the
> charge many times. The baggage limits are easy to find, as a frequent
> traveler, it would be strange that he never heard of them before.

Mrtravel :

This is the second time you've used innuendo to accuse me of trying to get past policy. Believe it or not the facts are that 6
years ago I first check this duffel through and since it has been checked it through with Continental quite a few times without
comment from them. I didn't check the written policy because, first of all I didn't have access to a computer until a couple of
years ago and as far as I can tell the policy is found only on their website, and second Continental by their action continued to
send the message to me that this was not violating any policy. I was never trying to get one over on them. Actions speak louder
than words and I believed that if an oversize policy was consistently applied I surely would have been informed by their agents long
before now. I assumed based on the actions of many different Continental agents that the bag was OK. That alone should bring a
shadow over their application of written policy. Third, the dimensions used now were recently changed along with new weight
requirements. Since this is not public law, I think any private company which deals with large numbers of the public should allow
some leeway with customers which clearly are not aware of this new policy ( I was checked through on the first leg without
comment ).
The concept that David spoke of is well established in both common and civil code law. It's ancient and pervasive in almost all
cultures that tacit agreements arise from continued action reagrdless of what was agreed to or even in when one party is acting in
bad faith ( knows that this is contrary to an agreement ), as long as the second party continues to go along with the activity. I
won't include a law review discussion of this concept here as it is beyond the scope of this discussion.
I have heard from many folks in several newsgroups and know can conclude that many oversized items are allowed to pass through
Continental routinely and apparently the charge is enforced very arbitrarily accross the board. Golf bags are not exempt in the
written policy as I was told by the Cleveland agents. That is simply an unwritten policy that they decided to enforce at their own
discretion. I was told that if I had had golf clubs in my duffel then it would be allowed to pass. That's further proof that their
written policy is being modified on the street and not consistently applied. Apparently Continental is writing one thing and doing
another. I've heard from several passengers who've asked Continental agents in airports for copies of the written policy and have
not found one yet nor are they posted anywhere.
BTW, there was no one else waiting in line that day, I was last so on one was delayed, and I did take the $ 60 pad out of the
duffle and leave it on the floor and the agents were happy with this result. Someone has suggested that if they were being honest
they would have told me to roll the pad tighter so that it was not oversized and checked it as a second item. They did not do so and
I gave up the $ 60 pad. I'm not a professional traveller and was not sure what my rights or possibilities were, although I'm
beginning to get a lot more savey. I think many ticket agents would have helped me get the pad home rather than threaten and
browbeat me as was done. Maybe ya had to be there but I was pretty much an innocent in all this. The threat to charge my credit card
with the first flight was done maliciously believe me the attempt was to intimidate someone who was standing up to this bullying. I
often looked askance at those who try to get one past the airlines but this is definitely changing my way of thinking. I now
understand those folks better. I've alaways supported the airlines and was one of the first to fly followingg 9-11. If I could
somehow get $ 60 over on Continental I just might now take the opportunity to do so.

Te

[Dick Locke]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:46:30 GMT, mrtravel >
wrote:

>Each airline ticket purchase is a separate contract.. "Repeated
>occasions" refers to a single contract.


Right...

However, the concept of "course of dealing" probably can (given a
clever enough lawyer willing to work on an $80 case) be applied to any
business relationship, even if the UCC doesn't apply. Here's a
definition of "course of dealing" from Merriam Webster

the conduct of parties to a business deal during past business deals
that may be used as a basis for understanding each other's expressions
and conduct during the current deal


Basically, given enough course of dealing that is contrary to a
written contract, the standards and practices developed in the course
of dealing can supplant or modify a written contract. I think it's
called "derogation arising from the course of dealing" which has about
11,200 references on the Internet.

Again, this is a generality and I'm certainly not the right person to
decide if it applies in this case.

This issue is orthagonal to jbk's comments about statute of
limitiations. The statute of limitiations issue relates to how long a
court will act to enforce a contract. The course of dealing issue
relates to a dispute over exactly what the contract is.

[mrtravel]

Dick Locke wrote:
>
> Right...
>
> However, the concept of "course of dealing" probably can (given a
> clever enough lawyer willing to work on an $80 case) be applied to any
> business relationship, even if the UCC doesn't apply. Here's a
> definition of "course of dealing" from Merriam Webster

How would he prove that he carried the bag many times and was never
charged? I am quite sure that CO could proof that it has applied the
charge many times. The baggage limits are easy to find, as a frequent
traveler, it would be strange that he never heard of them before.

[mrtravel]

Te Canaille wrote:

>
>
> Mrtravel :
>
> This is the second time you've used innuendo to accuse me of trying to get past policy. Believe it or not the facts are that 6
> years ago

It isn't up to me to believe it. We were discussing a legal issue. This
would require prooving that you were always permitted to check it
without penalty.


I first check this duffel through and since it has been checked it
through with Continental quite a few times without
> comment from them. I didn't check the written policy because, first of all I didn't have access to a computer until a couple of
> years ago and as far as I can tell the policy is found only on their website,

Baggage policies are found

By telephone
On ticket jackets
In the inflight magazine
On websites

a I've heard from several passengers who've asked Continental agents in
airports for copies of the written policy and have
> not found one yet nor are they posted anywhere.

Did CO remove it out of the inflight magazine and ticket jackets.
Regarding the comments this was a "new" size limit
http://tinyurl.com/nclp will show you the limits from a 2001 post
The CO website will show you the limits today
http://www.continental.com/travel/policies/baggage/check.asp?SID=739CFBD32282490DB04746B95D891819#usa

The maximum then was 62 linear inches. The maximum now is 62 inches.

The max weight was reduced from 70 pounds per bag to 50 pounds.
However, the second bag can now have larger measurements than in the
previous policy. (62 in vs 55 in)

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:35:56 GMT, mrtravel >
wrote:

>Te Canaille wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mrtravel :
>>
>> This is the second time you've used innuendo to accuse me of trying to get past policy. Believe it or not the facts are that 6
>> years ago
>
>It isn't up to me to believe it. We were discussing a legal issue. This
>would require prooving that you were always permitted to check it
>without penalty.
>
>
>I first check this duffel through and since it has been checked it
>through with Continental quite a few times without
>> comment from them. I didn't check the written policy because, first of all I didn't have access to a computer until a couple of
>> years ago and as far as I can tell the policy is found only on their website,
>
>Baggage policies are found
>
>By telephone
>On ticket jackets
>In the inflight magazine
>On websites
>

And free computers are found in practically every public library in
the US, which tells you all you need to know about this guy, along
with his equally stupid assertion that the CO people should have told
him what to do with his $60 dollar whatever it was.

[Randy Hudson]

In article >,
mrtravel > wrote:

> Did CO remove it out of the inflight magazine and ticket jackets.

> The max weight was reduced from 70 pounds per bag to 50 pounds.
> However, the second bag can now have larger measurements than in the
> previous policy. (62 in vs 55 in)

The Continental ticket envelope I was handed on 29 August 2003, two weeks
ago, had printed on the inside (where it can't be read without tearing the
envelope open), under the heading "GENERAL BAGGAGE INFORMATION," subheading
"CHECKED BAGGAGE," the following text:

Continental will accept up to two pieces of checked
baggage free of charge. Each piece is subject to a
maximum weight of 70 pounds and size of 62 inches. Size
is the total outside dimension: length + width + height.

This doesn't agree with what mrtravel posted, that the weight limit has been
lowered to 50 pounds per piece.

The ticket jacket has what may be a verion ID of TJFC (09/02); a version
labeled TJCC (09/02) has identical text, but a different front cover (not
labelled "First Class," and no gold-colored stripe at top and bottom).

I don't recall what the original poster said were the dimensions or weight
of the refused baggage. A duffel bag would probably have to be close to 4
feet long to exceed the 62 inch limit.

One effective "labor action" that is used by employees unhappy with their
treatment by their employer is to enforce the letter of the rules in cases
where it is customary not to do so. It is not unlikely that the employee in
question was trying to provoke exactly the reaction that the original poster
had: that the carrier was being unreasonable, and it will cost them a
customer.

--
Randy Hudson

[Ray Lozano]

wrote in message >...

> Now the two of you can go form your own newsgroup. Call it
> rec.nutsandrantersRus.travel

jbk,

Good god, man, you are nasty. What festering sore do you live in?

Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[Ray Lozano]

(Randy Hudson) wrote in
:

> One effective "labor action" that is used by employees unhappy with
> their treatment by their employer is to enforce the letter of the
> rules in cases where it is customary not to do so. It is not unlikely
> that the employee in question was trying to provoke exactly the
> reaction that the original poster had: that the carrier was being
> unreasonable, and it will cost them a customer.
>

There IS someone who sees the bigger picture!

--
Flyer beware!
Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:04:59 GMT, Ray Lozano
> wrote:

(Randy Hudson) wrote in
:
>
>> One effective "labor action" that is used by employees unhappy with
>> their treatment by their employer is to enforce the letter of the
>> rules in cases where it is customary not to do so. It is not unlikely
>> that the employee in question was trying to provoke exactly the
>> reaction that the original poster had: that the carrier was being
>> unreasonable, and it will cost them a customer.
>>
>
>There IS someone who sees the bigger picture!

Neither of which is you or this guy.

[[email protected]]

On 14 Sep 2003 17:33:20 -0700, (Ray Lozano)
wrote:

wrote in message >...
>
>> Now the two of you can go form your own newsgroup. Call it
>> rec.nutsandrantersRus.travel
>
>jbk,
>
>Good god, man, you are nasty. What festering sore do you live in?
>
>Ray Lozano
>http://www.usairways.tv

Certainly on a different planet than the likes of you and your
thieving buddy, that's for sure.

[mrtravel]

Randy Hudson wrote:

> This doesn't agree with what mrtravel posted, that the weight limit has been
> lowered to 50 pounds per piece.

But... his complaint wasn't about weight :)
>
> The ticket jacket has what may be a verion ID of TJFC (09/02); a version
> labeled TJCC (09/02) has identical text, but a different front cover (not
> labelled "First Class," and no gold-colored stripe at top and bottom).
>
> I don't recall what the original poster said were the dimensions or weight
> of the refused baggage. A duffel bag would probably have to be close to 4
> feet long to exceed the 62 inch limit.

He said the bag was about 4 feet long.

[Ray Lozano]

TMOliver > wrote in message >...
> "Te Canaille" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
>

>
> Your plight inspires more empathy than the guy, embarassed in front of kin
> and kinder, while taking his family to Yamaker.
>
> TMO

No shame here, bud.

Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[Ray Lozano]

wrote in
:


> Certainly on a different planet than the likes of you and your
> thieving buddy, that's for sure.

jbk,

Judging from the rancid bile you have sprayed throughout this and other
newsgroups, I am thankful for that.

--
Ray Lozano
http://www.usairways.tv

[TMOliver]

(Ray Lozano) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

> TMOliver > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Te Canaille" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
>>
>
>>
>> Your plight inspires more empathy than the guy, embarassed in front
>> of kin and kinder, while taking his family to Yamaker.
>>
>> TMO
>
> No shame here, bud.
>

Well, you should have been emabarassed, having forgotten the paperwork.
Ask your neighborhood shrink about "Transference". Being mad at USless Air
is, I suppose, considerably less destructive than punching out your spouse
would have been, but it wasn't USAir who forgot the documents required for
your family's entry into Jamaica...

That they didn't work the system to find a way to fit you into a later
flight is a unfortunate manifestation of how airlines all too often respond
to customer problems, but I suspect the USAir agent (who using that line
out of DFW on rare occasions, I sort of recognize from your descript)
probably had already decided that relationship and the opportunity for a
mutually rewarding encounterr had already departed on the dawn sortie.

But the same sort of poor attitude is hardly airline-specific, extending to
sales counters and service desks worldwide. Stanley Marcus wouldn't have
liked it; Herb Kelleher spends a lot of time trying to keep his staff from
slipping into it; and since you as I claim to be self employed, we're of
necessity likely to keep the mask/game face on a bit longer than peons in
the trenches feel any responsibility to, but in all honesty, the uSAir
agen't response was predictable and consistent with the norm.

These days, short of first cabin and not much there, either "status" with
an airline or the finely honed capacity to cajole/conn/threaten counter
staff displayed by a handful of frequent travelers highly skilled at
quickly developing and exploiting interpersonal relationships is a
requirement for "working" the system to much benefit.

Dr. Phil might be able to tell you why complaining here is unlikely to
bring either much sympathy or any compensatory response. If it makes you
feel better to howl at the moon, for mercy sake, howl away.

TMO

[Ray Lozano]

TMOliver > wrote in message >...

> Well, you should have been emabarassed, having forgotten the paperwork.
> Ask your neighborhood shrink about "Transference". Being mad at USless Air
> is, I suppose, considerably less destructive than punching out your spouse
> would have been, but it wasn't USAir who forgot the documents required for
> your family's entry into Jamaica...
>
> That they didn't work the system to find a way to fit you into a later
> flight is a unfortunate manifestation of how airlines all too often respond
> to customer problems, but I suspect the USAir agent (who using that line
> out of DFW on rare occasions, I sort of recognize from your descript)
> probably had already decided that relationship and the opportunity for a
> mutually rewarding encounterr had already departed on the dawn sortie.
>
> But the same sort of poor attitude is hardly airline-specific, extending to
> sales counters and service desks worldwide. Stanley Marcus wouldn't have
> liked it; Herb Kelleher spends a lot of time trying to keep his staff from
> slipping into it; and since you as I claim to be self employed, we're of
> necessity likely to keep the mask/game face on a bit longer than peons in
> the trenches feel any responsibility to, but in all honesty, the uSAir
> agen't response was predictable and consistent with the norm.
>
> These days, short of first cabin and not much there, either "status" with
> an airline or the finely honed capacity to cajole/conn/threaten counter
> staff displayed by a handful of frequent travelers highly skilled at
> quickly developing and exploiting interpersonal relationships is a
> requirement for "working" the system to much benefit.
>
> Dr. Phil might be able to tell you why complaining here is unlikely to
> bring either much sympathy or any compensatory response. If it makes you
> feel better to howl at the moon, for mercy sake, howl away.
>
> TMO

TMO,

Thanks for the solid, even-handed response.

Best regards,
Ray Lozano
http://usairways.tv

[TMOliver]

(Ray Lozano) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...


>
> Thanks for the solid, even-handed response.
>

Even handed if not even keeled, that's what they say about folks from
waco...

TMO