What's the best routine to train for flying on United?

This is true.

This frustrates the butt of /pol/tards tho as seen above.

I've actually developed a formula for this after hours of research. Here it is;

Size Factor + Strength Factor + Truth Factor = # of United Airlines Employees Defeated (UAD)

Where UAD = 1 is equivalent to a 100% defeat of a single employee. Calculation is rounded down to single decimal place.

Size Factor is calculated as; (Your Weight / Average Weight of the American Male) -> this is a constant, equaling 195.5lbs.

Strength Factor is calculated as; (Bench + Deadlift + Squat) / (195.5*4) -> the 4 being since you only have 4 limbs.

The Truth Factor, factors in any previous "fighting experience" one may have, calculated as;

+0.3 for anyone with;
>redneck fight club experience
>back alley bar fight experience
>sport "fight" experience (hockey, rugby, etc.)
>high school wresting experience

+0.7 for anyone with;
>greater than 1 year actual combat sport experience

+0.0 for anyone with;
>neckbeard/NEET/autist syndrome

Where the 0.3 represents a 30% chance of defeat and the 70% represent a majority chance (70% of defeat) of a United Airlines Employee.

Sample Calculation;

(205/195.5) + ([315+365+325]/[195.5*4]) + (0.3) = 2.6337595991

UAD ~= 2.6

Therefore I would most likely be able to defeat 2.6 UA Employees before being dragged off the plane.

Try it yourself!

You try hard to impress us with nonsense numbers but when other anons do it they actually base their posts on some type of data you autist

>Frusted poltards
No user we are simply telling him and you to eat a dick becouse shitposting is in this boards culture. He mentoined pol.

Autism speaks

2.03 here.

sounds about right, idk

2,98

>2.38

fucking manletism

In that case though, Veeky Forums is a containment board for fitness faggot

/pol/ is your President and you're complaining about a Veeky Forums board relating to non-political current events?

This isn't /pol/, but
Anyone bitching about what happened fell for the kikes' narrative.

UA acted lawfully and followed standard procedure. The police acted lawfully and followed standard procedure. Absolutely nothing wrong happened and the chink was entirely at fault, but because of "muh bolise brudalidee" (which, interestingly enough, is being blamed on the airline), this made international news.

Once the crew told Dao to leave, he was trespassing, whether he was entitled to his seat or not (*), he should have left, and later tried to seek damages.
*: He wasn't. As per the terms you agree to when buying a ticket, you can be involuntarily directed to another flight (after a call for volunteers, keeping priority and compensation in mind, etc.) at any time until boarding is complete; in the 1963 Treaty of Tokyo (which the US ratified, and therefore defines the legal meaning of "boarding" when applied to aircraft in the US), "boarding" is defined as ending when the doors are closed and passengers are seated. Since once the doors close (bar emergencies before takeoff) they stay closed until the plane is at its destination, it is safe to assume they hadn't been closed yet, and UA was fully within rights to kick Dao out.

With that out of the way:
Once they told him to leave and he didn't, he was trespassing, no way around this. (Note that planes and airports follow an even stricter set of regulations than standard property, but that's not the core issue here.)
He didn't want to leave on his own, so they called the police.
He refused to comply with police, and as such was removed by force.

But no, bash the airline, and post shitty low-effort memes. It's all most of you people are good for anyway.

t. autist-in-chief

PS: evidence suggests he wasn't an expert surgeon urgently needed, but rather a (crooked) third rate physician (who wouldn't really have been in any rush besides having to postpone a few appointments), so this is most likely some clock boy tier bullshit.

So bloodying a doctor trying to get to work is "correct."
The officer used excessive force and could have definitely handled the situation in a much better way, whether that's finding some peaceful way to get him off or finding someone else to get off.

>So bloodying a doctor trying to get to work is "correct."
Yes, of he refuses to leave peacefully.
Keep in mind that planes are a delicate subject.
>The officer used excessive force and could have definitely handled the situation in a much better way
Not really, see above
>whether that's finding some peaceful way to get him off
They had already tried.
>or finding someone else to get off.
No, it doesn't work that way. If they tell you to get off, you get off.

You're retarded.
You don't know the law at all.
He was not trespassing, and you cannot give a man a concussion without repercussions.

>He was not trespassing
Yes he was. If you're on private property and the rightful owner (or someone representing the owner) tells you to leave, and you don't, you're trespassing. Even if you had a contract saying you're allowed to be there (in which case you should sue for damages), you're still trespassing.
>and you cannot give a man a concussion without repercussions.
The police did, not the airline.
And they had every reason to do so, since he wasn't complying and airplanes are an especially delicate subject.

They cannot throw him out, without offering big bucks. "Randomly selecting" people is not a legit, you gotta make people leave voluntarily.

And are you autistic? An old man was beat till knock out, and then he was bloody and visibly shocked so much he basically turned autistic. You can't do that no matter what, it's excessive force.

Do you want big corporations to fuck consumers in the ass?

>They cannot throw him out, without offering big bucks.
Wrong
>"Randomly selecting" people is not a legit, you gotta make people leave voluntarily.
Also wrong.
It's all in the terms you agree to when buying a ticket from United, and all airlines have very similar terms.
>And are you autistic?
Where do you think you are?
>An old man was beat till knock out, and then he was bloody and visibly shocked so much he basically turned autistic. You can't do that no matter what, it's excessive force.
No it's not. He refused to comply with lawful orders by police, and air marshalls are given more freedom to operate than standard police, for reasons that should be obvious.
Additionally, you make it sound like they cornered him and punched his face in, whereas they just grabbed him a bit roughly and he hit his face on the seat or the armrest or something.
>Do you want big corporations tp fuck consumers in the ass?
No, I'm saying that you should complain about the fact that it's legal to fuck them in the ass, not disregard facts and claim that it's illegal, as you've been doing all this time.

I find it ironic that /pol/ are the jews of Veeky Forums

Wrong, their contract states different terms for refusing boarding and refusing transport. You can refuse boarding for people if you ask for volunteers first etc. But you can't refuse them transport after they've boarded. They fucked up, Asian guy is lucky he has such an open and shut case that they LITERALLY broke their OWN contract with him. Free fucking money. Not to mention they can probably be held accountable for his injuries more so than the police that pulled him out since to them he was simply an unruly passenger but since it occurred only after United broke their contract with him they could be held responsible for it.

>You can refuse boarding for people if you ask for volunteers first etc. But you can't refuse them transport after they've boarded.
Aha, so we agree on that. Now, please read , namely the third paragraph, about the definition of boarding.
>Not to mention they can probably be held accountable for his injuries more so than the police that pulled him out since to them he was simply an unruly passenger but since it occurred only after United broke their contract with him they could be held responsible for it.
I fail to understand your reasoning here.
While I strongly believe the use of force was justified, they didn't tell the police "ayo nigga fuck this guy up good", they just told them to get him off the plane.
And he wasn't "just an unruly passenger", he was trespassing.

I couldn't find anything about that definition of boarding in the mentioned treaty, where is it?

sage goes in all fields

>act like an adult instead of a 3 year old
>1xF

From Wikipedia:
>The pilot is responsible for the boarding as soon as the doors are closed because by law the aircraft is then "in flight".
>Treaty of Tokyo 1964, Title III, Section 5 Chapter 2
which actually implies boarding can continue even once the doors are closed, and thus the "boarding means getting on the plane" argument is void.

Saw that when I looked back at it but still doesn't actually define that in the section of the treaty itself. It only specifies it is 'in flight' once the external doors are closed, all the way up until you disembark. That seems to ambiguous

Veeky Forums is containment

12 hours in and not a single routine proposal.

Sad.

SS + gomad
There happy.
Now this may be autistic but it fails to take into account the dimensions of the plain as the aisles are narrow and the UAD will be forced to attack one at a time unless things escalate and they're required to use deadly force but that is unlikely considering the risk of casualties. Also sitting, are you in a window seat in first class or are you in an aisle in economy?

>Fly's
Are you even trying

Yupp, and is to what America is to Israel