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

United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

nakedcapitalism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#101

Post by colmvp »

> This seems to reflect the deep internalization in America of deference to authority in the post 9/11 world, as well as reporters who appear to be insufficiently inquisitive. And there also seems to be a widespread perception that because it’s United’s plane, it can do what it sees fit. In fact, airlines are regulated and United is also bound to honor its own agreements.

I'm extremely pro-journalism (donate to various organizations, listen to podcasts hosted by journalists) but I'm completely baffled by how very few if any journalists dived into the details on what happened here in the very video, specifically the legalities and technicalities, compared to Redditors (who happen to be laywers) and bloggers. Going forward, readers who happen to be consumers and passengers could easily be adopting misinformation spread by trusted media sources and have the wrong frame of reference to view what happened.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#102

Post by AlexandrB »

ikeboy wrote: post #13

So how many people will get fired over this?

My guess is it will be like the Wells Fargo fiasco. Some low-level employees - probably the staff that worked that flight - will lose their jobs while those that actually created the policies that led to this will be just fine.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#103

Post by dionidium »

ambulancechaser wrote: post #90
dionidium wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't ) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill .

I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breach…

I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the property owner and make the obvious and expedient decision to evict you from my property.

The contract wouldn't even enter into it. If there's a grievance, then it should be handled later. The police aren't there to litigate that issue. They're there to resolve the immediate conflict.

Crucially, it doesn't matter that the contract is 100% in your favor. That's not what the police are there to discern.

Everybody is trying to play amateur aviation attorney, but this is really about understanding the role of police in resolving disputes like this one.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#104

Post by zeteo »

Animats wrote: post #35
zeteo wrote: post #19

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure that it's virtually certain for a corporate lawyer to find some justification somewhere for almost anything. The corporate employees and the police both operate on this assumption. As a customer, your only recourse is to meekly accept whatever treatment is comi…

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The problem is that people now believe that. In fact, lawsuits against big companies often are settled on very favorable terms for the customer. As the article points out, United violated their own contract of carriage and FAA regulations. This is going to cost them.

How many people have a) many thousands of dollars sitting around to pay for lawyers b) the requisite leisure to attend arbitrary court dates and locations c) the ability to deal with the loss of the above if the company wins the case based on some technicality? The company will happily take the proceeds from illegally squeezing the 99% who don't press charges to pay for the 1% who do.

Technically the blacks in the South had the right to vote after the Civil War. It took another hundred years of struggle to also secure the practical right. Theoretical rights don't matter much for those who can't exert them.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#105

Post by andmarios »

ambulancechaser wrote: post #94
andmarios wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the police didn't know who was wrong then maybe instead of using force, they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. Instead they chose a side to favor by force.

> If the police didn't know who was wrong The police won't arbitrate a civil matter. > they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. If they asked the airplane to cancel the flight they could then remove the man from the plane? You're arguing that if Un…

Yes. If they removed the passenger and the flight went on, then they would favor one party. If the flight was canceled, they would favor neither party, a much more just approach if you can't know which party is in the wrong.

If the flight was canceled, the contract wouldn't be moot but the case would need to be resolved outside the plane anyway. As the plane wouldn't be anymore part of the problem, the airline could ask for the passenger to be removed on the ground that he was trespassing. The passenger could also ask the police make sure that the plane stays grounded.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#106

Post by eridius »

rhizome wrote: post #98
eridius wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overbooking is generally used as a synonym of oversales. Trying to redefine overbooking right now to mean something else is just going to cause confusion.

There's a rhetorical difference where "overbooking" puts the onus on the customer, and "oversales" puts it where it should be: on the airline who sold the extra tickets. And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity.

How can "overbooking" possibly put the onus on the customer? Overbooking is entirely within the control of the airline, and the customer doesn't have the capacity to overbook, or even the knowledge as to whether overbooking could possibly occur.

> And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity.

Well yes, that's the whole point of this discussion, that calling it "overbooking" or "oversales" is wrong.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#107

Post by rconti »

jazzyk wrote: post #25

No, the real failure (and the source of this and many other issues in the airline industry) is the lack of competition in the US domestic market. Pure and simple. The huge, 350-million US domestic market is served by 4-5 major airlines, while the EU with 500 million people is served by tens of airlines. I recently flew from Barcelona to Nice for 30 euros, round-trip (with seat assignment). Where are the (potentially…

Foreign carriers are not allowed to operate domestic flights within the US.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#108

Post by hsod »

cmurf wrote: post #99
hsod wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understanding of the sequence of events, the passenger violated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 "An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight a…

Your reading is flawed. 49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions (1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding— (2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: And to preempt more of this nonsense, FAR 91.3 and 91.11 don't apply either, those are for operational safety purposes. This is a contract of car…

Thanks for the clarification.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#109

Post by jksmith »

Seems to me that what is most unfortunate is that surrounding passengers didn't support the passenger dragged off the plane. 4 or 5 people standing up and threatening something along the lines of "Why don't you take my seat too jackass; I don't want it anymore" would have been far more effective at righting this situation than proper media reporting or crying about passenger contracts.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#110

Post by dguo »

AlexandrB wrote: post #102
ikeboy wrote: post #13

So how many people will get fired over this?

My guess is it will be like the Wells Fargo fiasco. Some low-level employees - probably the staff that worked that flight - will lose their jobs while those that actually created the policies that led to this will be just fine.

In the Wells Fargo case, the CEO actually did resign (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/12/497729371/...). Though he was replaced by the COO.
Post reply on HN