Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hey, so, these four are being jerks, so we're starting over again, but they're not allowed to participate."
So they're guaranteed a seat on the flight? Sounds like a winning strategy for them.
[deleted]
A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
381–390 of 549 posts
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. Whoever set the incentives badly and set some arbitrary cap at $1350 should be fired.
I dream of a world where bump compensation is unlimited. The same people who now churn miles to fly everywhere for free would then start strategically chasing storms to get bumped from flights and make tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. We have mileage runs and mattress runs already; why can't we have bump runs as well? Someone get Carl Weathers on the phone!
The bump fee only works if it's not weather related. Mechanical and overbooking only. Oh, and pilot scheduling mistakes.
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes down to the balance I guess. We can kick four people off and offer them each shitty compensation (usually a first class ticket for the next flight and worthless $200 vouchers for the same shitty airline that expire in less than 6 months) or cancel the flight this crew is for and lose an entire plane load worth of income. I understand the economics, but it's still bullshit. Those customers want to get home an…
You have to understand why they overbook - jetfuel is extremely expensive and produces a massive amount of carbon pollution - most of the airlines barely operate at margin as it is. Cargo is cheaper to fly than passengers and many of them are converting more and more towards cargo for that reason. You don't want to be flying around in jets which aren't at capacity, it's an enormous waste of money and fuel - your tick…
> most of the airlines barely operate at margin as it is.
You're spreading very outdated information. Airlines are currently making record profits:
"2017 is expected to be the eighth year in a row of aggregate airline profitability"
"These three years are the best performance in the industry’s history"
From: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> debt requires violence Any kind of property requires violence to exist. If I say "this is my land" and you disagree, the only way I can enforce my claim is through violence. Debt is just a specific case of a general phenomenon. (This applies to communal property, too.) > Before the US destroyed Libya, it had the highest GDP in Africa Do you have a source for this? I see Libya's GDP circa 2005 at $41 billion (in 200…
Property is theft already if you believe Proudhon.
[deleted]
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to understand why they overbook - jetfuel is extremely expensive and produces a massive amount of carbon pollution - most of the airlines barely operate at margin as it is. Cargo is cheaper to fly than passengers and many of them are converting more and more towards cargo for that reason. You don't want to be flying around in jets which aren't at capacity, it's an enormous waste of money and fuel - your tick…
> most of the airlines barely operate at margin as it is. You're spreading very outdated information. Airlines are currently making record profits: "2017 is expected to be the eighth year in a row of aggregate airline profitability" "These three years are the best performance in the industry’s history" From: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more because air traffic is up rather than their margins having gone up?
Maybe oil prices of the day play a role too... but I wouldn't count on that to be true for long.
Even in this report though, you'll note that the fares are down 63% since 1995 - the competition is pretty fierce here. The absolute profit is only around measured 5% even today. I wouldn't exactly call that a great margin.
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be a regulator or Congress. The airline would set no cap, if they could get away with macing you to get you off the airplane, they would. "Next time, just get off the plane when we ask the first time." When a family member, or associate of Congress gets hit with this experience, then maybe the fines get adjusted accordingly. Anyway, hopefully the guy gets a good lawyer.
> That would be a regulator or Congress. No, it's a United policy: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... The airline hasn't commented yet on why they didn't go above 800, when they could go to 1350.
No, that's US law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#387The real thing to fear here is the normalization of violence. Good perspective in the WP comments: "The truly shocking thing here is that violence - with the real possibility of serious injury - was viewed as appropriate in a situation that was purely logistical. The airline wanted seats for its own employees. This was not an emergency - such as a terrorist attack or a drunk passenger endangering people. The lack of…
They're not just normalizing violence, they're routinely using state power as an agent of the corporation to resolve issues that don't involve criminal activity.
This is an internal business matter for a private company, and United had several alternatives.
United didn't have to overbook the flight in the first place.
United could have accommodated their additional crew on a competing airline or private plane.
United could have offered more compensation to volunteers to leave the flight.
There is absolutely no reason for a taxpayer-funded police force to intervene in this private matter. The passenger violated no laws.
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#388Sure it was a dumb/unethical thing to do on behalf of the airline and should have been handled differently etc. I'm wondering why nobody is commenting on the absurd behavior of the passenger however - insisting on forcing police to physically drag him from the plane. Once it was decided and the guys in uniforms with guns show up, what sane person is honestly going to do that? The decision to remove the passenger we c…
I understand what you're saying. But on the other hand I'm impressed. And I think good on him for standing up for himself and making United pay in bad PR for trying to bully him.
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a horrible reason in my opinion. What other industry could get away with doing this? If someone sold 105% capacity for a concert or sports game and just told the last 5% who arrived "sorry, no more room" people would be extremely upset.
The Telecoms have been selling > capacity for... ever(?). When a major event occurs & everyone picks up a phone to call in/out you get "all circuits are busy". Ever notice the hit to your inet speeds on holidays when all your neighborhood is home & idle? On one hand, infrastructure costs for idle capacity would/could become cost prohibitive. On the other hand, the provider should be held aaccountable for their failin…
That's not really a fair analogy. It's difficult (or impossible) to predict major events like terrorist attacks or weather phenomena that cause phone circuits to overload. And when these events occur, telecom companies lose money.
But flights fill up every day. When they do, airlines maximize profit.
Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you ask the police to intervene, you are explicitly requesting a violent resolution. You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent.
> You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent. The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or im…
'ryandrake expressed that by asking for the police, United was explicitly requesting a violent resolution. My initial comment is a reaction to the expectation that the resolution must be violent, which I don't believe is a foregone conclusion just by asking for the police to become involved.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence
United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force.
One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this.
I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point.
In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?