Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#61

Post by goatherders » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #24

libc wrote: post #6

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).…

This is silly. If every plane had every ticket sold and no one showed up, the airlines would make out even better. Less cost of food and drinks, fuel, labor costs in moving baggage. Airlines should HOPE people don't show up and take seats on the plane. This idea that they overbook because people don't show up is a money-grab and when it bites them in the ass I, for one, am glad.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#62

Post by protomyth » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #48

Overbooking is an indefensible practice. You sell a service that you knowingly have no intention to provide to people who base their travel plans on that expectation. This is like playing Russian roulette with your customers. No sympathy for United.

How is this an over sold (overbook) situation? The flight was not overbooked. It was United that added employees that shouldn't have and I'm more and more convinced they did it illegally.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#63

Post by tsunamifury » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #31

tsunamifury wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not se…

The plane couldn't leave until this person left. So there was a plane full of people who couldn't leave because of this jerk. And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out. Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest. It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from the over…

The plane absolutely could have left, entirely full of ticketed passengers. United held the plane to force this scenario -- since they wanted to replace ticketed paid passengers with their own staff to fly for free.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#64

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #45

creaghpatr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should do a live auction on the plane, "I need 4 people to get off for $100...$200..." The competitiveness to "win" would save airlines money, make the "winners" feel even better about getting booted, and the "losers" don't actually lose anything. Probably more efficient too.

They got up to $800 and had no takers. Not sure why they didn't go higher, wondering if United doesn't allow employees to offer more compensation than that. Which is a problem if so.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#65

Post by quantumhobbit » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #24

libc wrote: post #6

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).…

He was a doctor trying to get to the hospital he works at. In this case he actually is "too important to accept being bumped".

Not that that would justify doing this to anyone else but he had a very good reason to not want to get off the plane.

This is why offering more and more money is a good strategy. There almost certainly were people on the flight willing to get bumped for $1500. But the doctor likely would have turned down nearly any sum of money if it meant putting his patients in danger.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#66

Post by _fizz_buzz_ » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #18

mvdwoord wrote: post #13

I feel the current system of overbooking and how it is "regulated" is backwards, and airlines should rethink. Perhaps they could do some sort of an auction without a maximum. It is their problem after all, and a market mechanism seems a reasonable way to deal with this. Sometimes this would mean someone who does not care as much will gladly take $150 as compensation. Other cases might lead to much higher numbers. The…

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not se…

The thing is, on a plane the crew is king and you have to follow their orders. If they decide that you have to leave the plane, you must leave the plane. Now, their reasons might be questionable. You have every right to fight the airline once you are off the plane. But there is no room for this while on board. Basically, as soon as he started to refuse to follow the crew's orders, it was a lost case for him.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#67

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

wedowhatwedo wrote: post #41

valuearb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).…

One person who "decided he was too important to accept being bumped"? How about one person who expected the contract that he paid for in good faith to being fulfilled? Someone who made commitments to others based on that contract. Why is it now that the consumer always has no rights? Don't want your private information sold when using the internet? Don't use the internet. Don't want to be forcibly removed from a plan…

The whole point is that the ticket doesn't actually guarantee a seat on a given flight. Bumping is in the contract.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#68

Post by WkndTriathlete » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #24

libc wrote: post #6

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).…

Let me correct that for you: 200+ people who decided that United hadn't offered enough incentives/financial compensation to be bumped.

If United ran an escalating auction system - like Delta does on overbooked flights - they would eventually have found someone to volunteer to take the incentive and that person would have voluntarily disembarked. Because they were apparently too cheap to do this, their share price is getting pounded into the ground today.

Whether that gets United's sociopathic CEO to change policy or not remains to be seen. If it doesn't, I'm inclined to agree with the OP: the consumer protection laws, at least for commercial flights, need to be updated so this doesn't happen again.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#69

Post by cm2187 » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #45

creaghpatr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should do a live auction on the plane, "I need 4 people to get off for $100...$200..." The competitiveness to "win" would save airlines money, make the "winners" feel even better about getting booted, and the "losers" don't actually lose anything. Probably more efficient too.

They got up to $800 and had no takers. Not sure why they didn't go higher, wondering if United doesn't allow employees to offer more compensation than that. Which is a problem if so.

If there is a lawsuit, I bet the settlement will be several order of magnitudes that. Particularly given that the guy was a physician.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#70

Post by Noseshine » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:40 PM UTC

benji-york wrote: post #58

I honestly don't understand the outrage. A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do, he refused to relent and escalated the situation. The passenger is the only person I see as having done anything wrong here. I don't claim that there aren't better ways to handle the situation, but I also don't see any wrongdoing in how this shook out.

> A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do

That is your claim but it does not appear to be true.

Read this comment on reddit from a lawyer (unless someone shows that to be wrong I'll assume it to be true):

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_dou...

(EDIT: The comment is actually just a quote of another comment here: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-...)

According to that guy's reasoning they violated the law and that's all.

> and escalated the situation

I don't understand the mental gymnastics unfortunately performed numerously by people like you which can be found all over the comments to somehow let United be in the right here. Apparently in your eyes customers have no rights, and anything the corporation demands must be done, period. Especially when I look at how you phrase it: It seems more than obvious that if anyone escalated the situation is was United. The other people on board apparently saw it that way too! Nor did they do what they were required by law to do, to the end the compensation they offered was below what they were legally required to offer. Who escalated, tell me again?