Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

resistancereport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

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

#141

Post by cr1895 »

devy wrote: post #105
cube00 wrote: post #4

If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would take some of the savings made overboo…

One of the reports I heard from interviews of some other passengers on that flight was that the United issues voucher in $50 denominations, or 16 $50 vouchers expires in a year and have lots of restrictions and fine prints. In other words, the offer was NOT worthy the face value and hassle of "re-accommodation".

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

The airline may offer some alternative compensation (and of course one can accept it) but you have a right to a check.

Of course the airline may try to hide this from you, or give you a hard time, but according to the Dept. of Transportation you're entitled to cash.

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

#142

Post by phonon »

mavelikara wrote: post #82
cube00 wrote: post #4

If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would take some of the savings made overboo…

I believe this is capped at a maximum of $1300. From [1]: If it’s more than two hours (four hours for international flights), or if the airline does not offer alternate flights, the compensation is 400 percent of your one-way fare, with a $1300 maximum. [1] http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-09-04/bumped-due-to-o...

It's 4x the price of the plane ticket, up to $1350 (the $1300 is indexed to inflation).[1]

Which explains why the crew offered $800 (it's a $200 ticket.)

BUT! Just because the the government caps the airline's liability does not mean the airline could not have offered more compensation to make it right. In fact given the unusual nature of the situation (flight was already fully boarded; the seats were needed for internal airline purposes, not other customers; the rule is for delays of 4 hours or more, while here the delay would have been close to 24 hours; the situation was escalating) they could have easily sweetened the deal further with an additional voucher or two, instead of calling the cops.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12...

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

#143

Post by cmurf »

As it turns out the explanations are completely false, as in, not based on facts:

a. It wasn't overbooked. It was apparently exactly 100% booked and filled. Four paying customers were replaced by four non-paying crew. That is not an overbook situation, so United's entire rule 25 in the contract of carriage doesn't apply.

b. The removed customer didn't violate a single listed reason under rule 21 of the contract of carriage. Where else in the contract is passenger removal permitted?

c. Even if it were an overbooking, the airline's contract only says boarding can be denied. It doesn't say anything about rescinding an authorization to board, i.e. changing their mind.

What's going on here, are unwritten rules that they just made up out of thin air, convinced the police they exist, and got the police to do their dirty work. That rule is "upon refusal to comply with a polite request, the airline will petition an ignorant police force to (violently) remove the passenger from the plane."

This perverted, uncivilized, unwritten rule needs to be challenged. I hope this passenger takes them to court without settling. It needs to become part of the public record. If he settles, the details will get buried behind a non-disclosure agreement, and we won't actually learn that it's the airline who violated their own contract of carriage, and the police almost certainly broke the law not just their policies, in physically removing this person from the plane.

And unfortunately most of the media has spread false information by saying that the airline can have a person thrown off a plane for pretty much any reason, which is only true if you agree. If you look at the written contract, removal in this case is not supportable, even with a very vivid imagination.

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

#144

Post by bertil »

tyingq wrote: post #16
bradleyjg wrote: post #7

Doesn't anyone with an ounce of PR sense work at this company? No one is impressed by the legal technicalities. No one cares that the internal policies were followed. If they want to get out ahead of this they need to understand and come to grips with the fact that they are well nigh universally perceived to have been in the wrong.

United is somewhat famous, even in the generally unfriendly airline industry, for being ham-handed around PR and customer relations. See http://untied.com , a parody/complaint site.

Oddly enough, the actual United website still praises their CEO for winning a PR award.

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

#145

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

hedora wrote: post #101
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

s/plane/bus/g s/leave/sit in the back of/g

Well, one of the differences is that it's easier to kick someone off a bus mid-travel. That's why the rules are different. Also, racial discrimination ist still illegal on a plane. Just don't fight this fight while on the plane.

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

#146

Post by GavinMcG »

mavelikara wrote: post #82
cube00 wrote: post #4

If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would take some of the savings made overboo…

I believe this is capped at a maximum of $1300. From [1]: If it’s more than two hours (four hours for international flights), or if the airline does not offer alternate flights, the compensation is 400 percent of your one-way fare, with a $1300 maximum. [1] http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-09-04/bumped-due-to-o...

That's the cap for compensation of involuntarily removed passengers. There's no cap on how much airlines can offer for a voluntary bump.

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

#147

Post by revscat »

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…

In this case, though, the flight was not overbooked. They forcibly removed an otherwise compliant passenger so that their own employees could get a ride.

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

#148

Post by protomyth »

tyingq wrote: post #43
cortesoft wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative to commercial airlines for someone who isn't crazy rich?

High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason. When I was in the UK, I took the Virgin Rail from London to Manchester. The additional room and ability to walk around made it so much better than a flight. I would have paid more. The time difference was negligible once you count all the extra screening time for airports.

> High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason.

Looking at what is happening in California, cost is the largest issue[1]. The other reason is the US optimized its rail for cargo which it does well.

Frankly, I do believe that automated cars with solve the less than 50 mile commute problems better than light rail. I actually am a little optimistic that one of the hyperloop companies will get it together to create a short elevated line that can actually start a new building phase for rail (well, tube) transport. The danger is that they realize they will probably make more money on cargo and go that way.

1) the compromises on speed are going to make for a lot of controversy if it ever does get done

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

#149

Post by valuearb »

tsunamifury wrote: post #63
valuearb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their "staff" was a flight crew that needed to get to Louisville or another plane full of 200 passengers would be stuck on the tarmac unable to fly.

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

#150

Post by true_religion »

josho wrote: post #115
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… The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc. A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with…

> Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room?

Yes.

Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement and exercised it to allow me to move back home when I really needed it.

It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is.... awkward.

People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.

Post reply on HN