REALITY vs. AIRLINE CONTRACTS
 

A “No funny” satire

Now comes the honorable Plaintiff REALITY with a complaint of breach and damages in its contractual relationship with AIRLINE CONTRACTS. Namely that intentional and fraudulent violations do not fit under the “fly it now, grieve it later” clause.

Defendants AIRLINE CONTRACTS moves to dismiss stating REALITY does not exist and therefore has no standing as a party to complain.

Defendants AIRLINE CONTACTS also moves to have the introduced evidence, a petition from the pilot group (signed in blood from their @$$ez), thrown out as hearsay and irrelevant.

REALITY counters that it does exist and that a simple 3 step testing process using nothing moar than a suitable pair of yoga pants can produce observable, measurable, and repeatable conclusive results to prove it has standing.

REALITY provides the steps as follows;

1. Find a suitable pair of yoga pants.

2. Grab yoga pants at any location to determine “suitability” and acceptability of the material.

3. Observe reality;

A. Reality is readily discernible if you find yourself knee’d to the nuts, hammer fisted all the way to the ground followed by a few additional kicks and a final face stomp. Reality may include yelling, cursing, spitting, or additional unmentionable tortures.

B. If reality is indiscernible, return the yoga pants to your sister or mom and find a “suitable” pair of yoga pants for this reality test.

REALITY attests that several conclusions can be deduced from these observations;

1. Reality does exist

2. Reality can be in your face painful when provoked

3. Reality will not fly it now, grieve it later when intentionally wronged

4. Reality will not “exhaust administrative resources” prior to seeking remedial action

5. Reality displays the time tested maxim “for every wrong there IS a remedy”

REALITY moves to grant justice to the Plaintiff and award damages as stated in the complaint.

AIRLINE CONTRACTS is silent on the matter preoccupied with holding their groin, spitting blood, and mumbling “mommy” or something as insignificant.

Is this about the UAL non-revs who refused to follow the dress code that came with their FREE tickets and raised a twitter sht-storm about it?

Pretty sure that employee just had their passes cancelled for the rest of the year, might want to think twice about who they give them to.

Did they refuse though? It sounds like they complied and everyone made it on their way. It sounds more like a nosey busybody from the gate next door raised a twitter s storm.

For real? Someone was using non-rev passes and got ****ed they were turned away for dressing like a @#&*ing hobo?

Reason 4,651,876 to never look at twitter for any reason.