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

121–130 of 178 posts

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

#121

Post by techsupporter »

thanksgiving wrote: post #86
Analemma_ wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never.

> No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never. I don't want to make it partisan but with all due respect TOS is not the law (oh btw, please keep pushing to repeal the CFAA in the US). We don't live in a libertarian "paradise". I've heard of anecdotes whe…

It doesn't matter what you think because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act, and the arbitration clauses enabled by it, is sacrosanct and denies all but the most egregious (and that bar is very high) of court challenges. Virtually all actions in court are barred by those clauses.

See, for just one example, AT&T v Concepcion.

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

#122

Post by techsupporter »

dwyerm wrote: post #49
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…

This is exactly why I'm fighting against Mandatory Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waivers. The system is slow, creaky, and arguably broken, but that's a _feature_ if it means that companies are afraid of it. I'm not having a whole lot of success in my fight, it seems.

What hurts even more is that the supposedly enlightened companies that come out of Y Combinator also put in these clauses. When I asked one why, the reasoning was "our lawyers made us." Yet there seems to be no consideration that the business owner hates to be on the other side of that kind of clause all the while imposing it on his or her own customers.

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

#123

Post by techsupporter »

sjg007 wrote: post #81
revelation wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why in the EU, most terms of service are essentially meaningless. If a judge finds your clauses surprising or an undue burden on the customer, they are null and void.

It's the same in the US if you go to court. There are expected warranties and consumer laws. Corporations try to take it away and use many levels of policy and obfuscation to wear you down but once you get to court you have the ball.

Very often you can't get to court because of mandatory arbitration clauses that the Supreme Court has ruled are all but inviolable.

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

#124

Post by criddell »

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.

I thought it was pretty awful when some news sites started publishing information on the passenger that was dragged off.

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

#125

Post by kevin_b_er »

thanksgiving wrote: post #86
Analemma_ wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never.

> No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never. I don't want to make it partisan but with all due respect TOS is not the law (oh btw, please keep pushing to repeal the CFAA in the US). We don't live in a libertarian "paradise". I've heard of anecdotes whe…

They replace the law. Supreme court decided can and does permit a total severance of your connection to courts of law against a corporation.

Your rights are replaced with a contract you didn't quite realize you agreed to. As such, you have no rights against a corporation. The arbitration kangaroo court is not required to observe the law. A meeting of the minds is not required where a contract with a corporation is concerned, as a human doesn't have to realize their rights were stripped by the contract.

When everything is privatized, you will have no rights remaining.

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

#126

Post by LeoNatan25 »

LordKano wrote: post #116
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. This is correct and I believe it's by design. Law enforcement officers are selected for high aggression and high intelligence is often/usually penalized in the screening process. In a lawsuit against New London CT, the courts found it legal to disqualify a candidate for being too smart.

I don't doubt it. It's not for nothing that the USA police is by large mocked around the world. Land of the free and home of the brave is quite ironic when it comes to USA police.

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

#127

Post by kevin_b_er »

heisenbit wrote: post #33
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…

Yes, passengers don't know their rights but pilots and other administrators should. So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. I found the argument interesting that United should have lied and just invented a plane swap with a smaller body. Would have left the affected passengers is a weak position. There is so much wrong on all levels including the r…

Their "rights" were replaced by a contract. You have no rights not enumerated in the contract of carriage. Rights are for government actions against you. In the United States, "rights" are discarded in favor of profit.

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

#128

Post by ItsDeathball »

ubernostrum wrote: post #12
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.

If you look in the /r/aviation threads you'll see various people who are airline crew claiming they can fly jumpseat but it's beneath them and they want their regular-seat privileges enforced at basically any cost.

This sounds plausible, and fits with the incident if basically no one trusts the airline to negotiate in good faith. Employees assume that if they don't make a fuss about getting a seat, then they'll have to fly jump-seat or standing-room-only from then on out. Likewise, passengers don't trust the airline offer of $800 and the next flight out for giving up their seat. I would have taken that offer if I could be assured it was legit, but I'd have a strong suspicion they'd deduct the cost of the flight and the hotel and give me what's left in the form of Chili's gift cards or something.

With trust that low it was probably only a matter of time before a dispute escalated into unnecessary use of force.

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

#129

Post by wflynny »

menssen wrote: post #92
differentView wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cap is the maximum of what passengers are legally entitled to. The airlines can offer more if they want.

I've been wondering: does this mean that a valid response to this situation would be "I will leave the plane if given my legally entitled $1350"? As in, among other reasons, is United in the wrong here because the maximum they offered for volunteers was $800, not the regulated $1350?

See the Involuntary Bumping subsection under Overbooking in [1]. The airline is obligated to give you either:

    `min(2 * your ticket price, $675)`; or 
    `min(4 * your ticket price, $1350)`
depending on how quickly they can reroute you to your destination. You also have legal standing to demand they pay you with a cashier's cheque instead of a voucher.

Judging by personal anecdotes I've read around the web, airlines may be willing to pay more if they are in a bind. But note that this whole voluntary/involuntary bumping procedure happens before you scan your ticket and board the airplane.

[1]: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

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

#130

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

devoply wrote: post #91
cmurf wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because the passenger peacefully resisted, and did not comply with the airline's request he depart the plane on his own volition. He didn't give into threats, and risked and received an assault, in order to arrive at the point where this is going to cost the airline.

He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkids would be millions of dollars richer. Not to mention all the dirt you can drag United through during the lawsuit in the media. Love to see some testimony from the dick CEO as well who tried even character assignation of the poor doctor they needlessly assaulted…

> He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkids would be millions of dollars richer. Not to mention all the dirt you can drag United through during the lawsuit in the media. Love to see some testimony from the dick CEO as well who tried even character assignation of the poor doctor they needlessly assaulted.

It'd be a cake walk alright ... for the airline.

Pilots have similar powers to the captain of a civilian naval vessel, and can legally refuse to carry passengers or order them off the aircraft: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-extra-ordinary-powers-tha...

Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law.

Even a jury has to operates within the constraints of the law or be overturned on appeal. Remember, the airline would be the defendant and has the right to appeal.

Sure, being bumped is lousy behavior by the airline but the doctor doesn't have a legal leg to stand on for his tantrum. If anything, the airline could probably sue him for delaying the flight and win.

Post reply on HN