A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off • Hacker News Board

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#541

Post by mcv » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 10:47 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #536

mcv wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the airline makes a mistake and realizes that mistake too late, they should take the hit themselves, not punish an innocent passenger for their own mistake. Airlines should make a better effort to avoid overbooking. If they can get away with this kind of despicable behaviour, they'll never improve.

> they should take the hit themselves, not punish an innocent passenger for their own mistake. If they don't get their crew to the other airport, the next day a full plane load of people (or more, due to knock-on effects) might have been denied a flight.

That just means they should plan better. It's no excuse for intentionally screwing over their paying passengers.

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#542

Post by FabHK » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 11:18 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #541

FabHK wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should take the hit themselves, not punish an innocent passenger for their own mistake. If they don't get their crew to the other airport, the next day a full plane load of people (or more, due to knock-on effects) might have been denied a flight.

That just means they should plan better. It's no excuse for intentionally screwing over their paying passengers.

Nobody disputes that better planning would be better, or that they should not have let everyone on board.

However, mistakes happen. For operational reasons, now the flight had a smaller capacity. Could have been that the seatbelt for a seat didn't work, or weight & balance issues.

At that point, it strikes me as perfectly legit to seek volunteers, and then, well, disembark pax involuntarily (while giving them all the help and compensation that they're entitled to, and more).

That's hardly "intentionally screwing over paying passengers".

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#543

Post by mcv » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #542

mcv wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means they should plan better. It's no excuse for intentionally screwing over their paying passengers.

Nobody disputes that better planning would be better, or that they should not have let everyone on board. However, mistakes happen. For operational reasons, now the flight had a smaller capacity. Could have been that the seatbelt for a seat didn't work, or weight & balance issues. At that point, it strikes me as perfectly legit to seek volunteers, and then, well, disembark pax involuntarily (while giving them all the…

What they're entitled to, is a seat on the plane that they booked and paid for. And whatever the problems that this airline might run into if they don't do this, they're not taking into account the problems they're causing for others by doing this. The guy was a doctor who had to be in a hospital the next morning. What if a patient dies because of this?

Sure, mistakes happen. But the real mistake here is that the airline punishes passengers for the airline's mistakes. They should be taking responsibility for their own mistakes, rather than take them out on their customers.

Given this situation with an overbooked plane due to their own stupid lack of planning, they could and should have offered more money until someone did volunteer. That would have been cheaper than this travesty, and not a single person would have complained about it. Instead, they short-sightedly try to save some money by having the police (who also don't work for free) drag a perfectly legitimate customer out of the plane.

It's a distressing rejection of responsibility for their own actions.

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#544

Post by mtgx » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 10:06 AM UTC

acchow wrote: post #268

mtgx wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines shouldn't be allowed to overbook. Causing people to miss their flights just because the company wanted to ensure 100% profitability per flight is unacceptable, and it shouldn't be legal (the overbooking, not the throwing off a plane for whatever other serious reason per se).

They'd have probably staying profitable if they couldn't overbook. Overbook it, sure, but offer escalating incentives to get people to voluntarily disembark. Physical removal is ridiculous and should be removed from the carrier's legal rights.

Putting profits ahead of anything else is what causes so much problems in the U.S. these days.

If only one company decided to overbook, then sure, I agree with you. But if it were a law, and every airline was forced not to overbook, then it simply means the ticket prices would be a little higher. And if because of those slightly higher ticket prices, the airline might have to retire a plane or two, then so be it, but no airline would go bankrupt because of it.

We have all sorts of laws that protect consumers and employees that "hurt" the absolute maximization of profit. This wouldn't be any different. When it's a law, it just means everyone plays at a higher standard and prices are a little higher than they would be without those protections.

Also, Canada is likely going to pass such a law soon:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3370381/canada-overbooked-flights-...

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#545

Post by tunap » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 3:26 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #389

tunap wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, major phenomena are exceptions to the norm, did not intend to convey any judgement on the practice. Those same phenomena affect airlines too. In fact, weather delays had hampered United's ops leading up to the ejection event in the news. My point was airlines are not the only ones who sell > capacity.

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#546

Post by passivepinetree » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 5:09 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #423

passivepinetree wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously United was in the wrong here, but you might be going a little far. The main purpose of the stretcher might have been for restraining the man. It's wise to avoid making such inflammatory statements until we know more.

Whether he was beaten to the point he couldn't walk or restrained on a stretcher doesn't substantially change the colossal fuckup that is this situation nor the fact that they assaulted at least one passenger.

I totally agree with you, but the parent said "The airline assaulted its own customers beating them till they had to be carried out on a stretcher" when

a) the police department assaulted the customer, not United staff (although they did call the PD in the first place)

b) "beating them till they had to be carried out on a stretcher" obviously implies he was beaten until he couldn't walk, which is an allegation that hasn't been substantiated at this point.

I totally agree that United colossally fucked up here, but the statement the parent made that I quoted earlier is patently false. I'm all for being righteously outraged, but can we please stick to factual statements while we're doing it?

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#547

Post by CamelCaseName » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #498

CamelCaseName wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm amazed that in a whole plane, no one jumped at $800. I was very, very, happy to take a $1,000 voucher for a flight to China that required me to take an extra flight (Dallas to Chicago then to Beijing as opposed to Dallas to Beijing) -- Then again, perhaps my day is less valuable than others'.

Maybe they should give people actual money instead of vouchers. With the few vacation days you get in the US they become really valuable.

It's part of the game I suppose. Few vouchers get used. Heck, I had to waste $90 of it buying a ticket I didn't use to extend it for another year.

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#548

Post by nzlgraham » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 6:56 AM UTC

panarky wrote: post #387

vwcx wrote: post #101

The 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…

Actually the passenger did violate laws by refusing to leave when he was asked by a part who had the right to ask and the Police. He became a trespasser and can be removed by force if necessary.

Re: A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off

#549

Post by nunez » Sat, Apr 15, 2017, 8:54 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #534

nunez wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the max that an airline can compensate people for an oversold flight is $1000 plus lodging.

USD 1350. DOT, Air passenger "Bill of Rights" https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo... > If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

You are correct