Continental threats

"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

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.

"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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

"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

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