What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Wait, she booked two seats for herself? I completely missed that. -500.

Yes, she bought two seats, the flight was overbooked, so they gave the extra seat to a human being and refunded her money. That was the atrocity.
 
Yes, she bought two seats, the flight was overbooked, so they gave the extra seat to a human being and refunded her money. That was the atrocity.

I thought she booked an economy plus seat (or whatever Delta calls their economy seats with leg room), but was bumped from it. Not that she'd bought a second seat.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I thought she booked an economy plus seat (or whatever Delta calls their economy seats with leg room), but was bumped from it. Not that she'd bought a second seat.

That was my understanding too. I also thought she had picked a specific seat and not just a seat in that group. If she did pick a specific seat its pretty messed up they could give her the boot unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I thought she booked an economy plus seat (or whatever Delta calls their economy seats with leg room), but was bumped from it. Not that she'd bought a second seat.

Ah. OK, I can see that.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Yeah I'm not so sure now either, it was originally reported over the weekend as a second seat, but that may have been based on someone's misreading of her tweet.
 
That was my understanding too. I also thought she had picked a specific seat and not just a seat in that group. If she did pick a specific seat its pretty messed up they could give her the boot unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances.

Meh, that happens all the farking time. Until you get your boarding pass, the airlines can do pretty much anything to you.

I think it's hilarious that she claims to have spent an hour picking her seat, and that she claims her time is worth 10 grand an hour.

If you're spending an hour to pick an airline seat, your time definitely is not worth 10-large.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Meh, that happens all the farking time. Until you get your boarding pass, the airlines can do pretty much anything to you.

I think it's hilarious that she claims to have spent an hour picking her seat, and that she claims her time is worth 10 grand an hour.

If you're spending an hour to pick an airline seat, your time definitely is not worth 10-large.

If "your time is worth 10-large" then you're not flying coach. Period.
 
Meh, that happens all the farking time. Until you get your boarding pass, the airlines can do pretty much anything to you.

I think it's hilarious that she claims to have spent an hour picking her seat, and that she claims her time is worth 10 grand an hour.

If you're spending an hour to pick an airline seat, your time definitely is not worth 10-large.

After some more research there likely was a legitimate reason they bumped her. I think she did actually have her boarding pass and was in her seat. It sounds like they just bottled the handling of moving her. Why not make up some reason, even if it's bogus? The 'I don't know' routine is very irritating.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Meh, that happens all the farking time. Until you get your boarding pass, the airlines can do pretty much anything to you.

Honestly, I'm going to take her side here if that's the case. I know they do it all the time, but they shouldn't be able to.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

My understanding was that she booked an aisle exit row seat, and was moved to a window exit row seat, so in classic DYKWIA fashion she pitched a fit. She also photographed the passenger who was assigned to sit in "her" seat, and posted it to Twitter without asking the woman's permission, which is a big no-no, and IMO that action should earn her a lifetime ban from the airline. However, because she's a C-list celebrity she'll probably skate.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

My understanding was that she booked an aisle exit row seat, and was moved to a window exit row seat, so in classic DYKWIA fashion she pitched a fit. She also photographed the passenger who was assigned to sit in "her" seat, and posted it to Twitter without asking the woman's permission, which is a big no-no, and IMO that action should earn her a lifetime ban from the airline. However, because she's a C-list celebrity she'll probably skate.

Unless the photo defames the woman, violates her right of publicity or invades her privacy, permission is not needed as far as I know. Why is it "a big no-no"?
 
Unless the photo defames the woman, violates her right of publicity or invades her privacy, permission is not needed as far as I know. Why is it "a big no-no"?

An airplane is not a public space, for one, so you can't claim the first amendment protects your right to photograph there. (If I invite you to come to my government office, that doesn't mean you get to take pictures of the non public portions of it.)

I'm guessing airline rules/contract of carriage likely prohibit unauthorized photography.

Considering the professional troll is essentially using the woman's image for marketing purposes, you could also argue misappropriation if she didn't get the woman's permission.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Unless the photo defames the woman, violates her right of publicity or invades her privacy, permission is not needed as far as I know. Why is it "a big no-no"?

Twitter discourages, to help prevent bullying. The airline may have a policy against it, under some umbrella of obscure passenger safety rules.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

An airplane is not a public space, for one, so you can't claim the first amendment protects your right to photograph there. (If I invite you to come to my government office, that doesn't mean you get to take pictures of the non public portions of it.)

I'm guessing airline rules/contract of carriage likely prohibit unauthorized photography.

Considering the professional troll is essentially using the woman's image for marketing purposes, you could also argue misappropriation if she didn't get the woman's permission.

Does having an substantial influence or harassing the person play into that?
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

A modest proposal.

One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

“Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.
 
An airplane is not a public space, for one, so you can't claim the first amendment protects your right to photograph there. (If I invite you to come to my government office, that doesn't mean you get to take pictures of the non public portions of it.)

I'm guessing airline rules/contract of carriage likely prohibit unauthorized photography.

Considering the professional troll is essentially using the woman's image for marketing purposes, you could also argue misappropriation if she didn't get the woman's permission.

This. It's completely up to The Widget's corporate policies. They barred a particularly obnoxious (and possibly drunk) Trump voter for life, a handful of months back, after he antagonized the entire cabin.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

An airplane is not a public space, for one, so you can't claim the first amendment protects your right to photograph there. (If I invite you to come to my government office, that doesn't mean you get to take pictures of the non public portions of it.)

I'm guessing airline rules/contract of carriage likely prohibit unauthorized photography.

Considering the professional troll is essentially using the woman's image for marketing purposes, you could also argue misappropriation if she didn't get the woman's permission.


A plane may or may not technically be a public place but I thought this generally hinged on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy? You have it in your home, you may have some in your office, but I'm not seeing how a person has that expectation in a large airplane cabin full of strangers?


I believe you are correct about the airlines rules. They may be able to stop you in the course of taking a picture, or even kick you off the plane when they see your do it, but I'd argue that unless they are fairly uniformly suspending passengers for taking any of the thousands of pictures I've seen published from inside of planes after the fact, they'd have a hard time suspending her over this one. I don't believe they can just arbitrarily apply their rules in that way.

Misappropriation seems a stretch, but sure you can argue it. A lawyer can argue anything they can imaginate up with any chance at all of a given group of yokels buying into it! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top