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

141–150 of 178 posts

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

#141

Post by ryanmarsh »

untog wrote: post #61
ryanmarsh wrote: post #18

I've been saying for years that the only thing holding back massive disruption in the airline industry is the FAA. American and United are two of the most poorly run mega-corps in the US. Customers hate them, but need to fly. Warren Buffet thinks they're notoriously bad investments. Why?

Apparently Warren Buffet has changed his mind in recent years and invested in airlines. Largely because of what you describe: consolidation means people have no choice but to use them.

That kind of proves my point.

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

#142

Post by thedudemabry »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #130
devoply wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 assault…

Even a pilot has to operate within the constraints of the law or be sanctioned. They have operational authority to do pretty much anything while a plane is in flight, but that doesn't shield their airline from the legal consequences of forcefully pulling a man from a seat in order to shuttle airline employees to their next destination.

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

#143

Post by ryanmarsh »

chrisper wrote: post #64
ryanmarsh wrote: post #18

I've been saying for years that the only thing holding back massive disruption in the airline industry is the FAA. American and United are two of the most poorly run mega-corps in the US. Customers hate them, but need to fly. Warren Buffet thinks they're notoriously bad investments. Why?

I don't think the FAA is bad. It's the companies that are. What disruptions do you need? Other airliners can provide service just fine even though they have to follow FAA rules when flying to and from the US.

The FAA stands in the way of innovation and sees it's job as supporting a healthy industry. Which can only mean one thing...

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86618/html/CHRG-11...

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

#144

Post by throw7 »

There really isn't clarity here. The article argues that the flight wasn't overbooked, therefore UA couldn't kick anyone off. I agree if it wasn't overbooked, but it's not clear that that's evidently true. It's certainly gonna be contentious and probably up to a judge or jury to decide if it actually gets that far. I doubt it.

The more pressing matter is what do you do as a passenger when YOU are involuntarily denied boarding due to overbooking? Are you gonna sit in place, say, "I don't believe you." and wait for the stasi to take you away for a beating?

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

#145

Post by techsupporter »

dwyerm wrote: post #135
techsupporter wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I empathize with them, though. It is completely rational to limit the impact of lawsuits on your organization. If someone hands you a Get Out Of Jail Free card, you take it, no matter how good of a person you think you are.

I don't. I consider it to be morally objectionable to say "man, I really hate arbitration clauses as a customer" and to then turn around and say "well, I should impose arbitration clauses on my customers." Besides, limitation of risk is already possible in a variety of ways: insurance, company formation structure, and being reasonable with your customers. It is atrocious that a core feature of our constitution is so quick to be contracted away by people who are in the position to effect change.

This goes double for Y Combinator-enabled companies because they operate under the guise of being better for their people, their customers, and their industry than others.

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

#146

Post by devoply »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #138
mturmon wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law." One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA.

> One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA. Those regulations do not trump the pilot's authority to directly order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight, even for trivial reasons. See this article that discus…

> order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight

Passenger was not disrupting the flight in any way. Passenger was behaving properly and then was forced to leave for the convenience of the airlines at great inconvenience to himself, despite the fact that he was as entitled to remain on the flight as any other passenger -- as in this was unfair to him and him alone. It was also made clear to him that he was not responsible for being forced to leave as well as the fact that all the other passengers felt the exact same way as the passenger who was being forced to leave.

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

#147

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

jack9 wrote: post #136
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 assault…

> requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law. Except that's not who dragged him off. Representatives of a customer safety federal aviation department physically dragged him. I don't think everyone fully understands the sequence or "players" involved (I had to look it up too). - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-pa... Otherwise, you're absolutely…

The article you linked says the individual was from the City of Chicago's Department of Aviation. While you do bring up an important clarifying point, I'd be surprised if the individual in question didn't have most or all of the same authority/powers as a police officer within his jurisdiction.

Some additional information from the Wikipedia article on airport police that seems to be relevant: "The City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police perform safety, security and law enforcement functions at O'Hare International Airport & Midway Airport. The department was formerly called the Department of Aviation Special Police. The Chicago Police Department Airport Unit also performs many of the law enforcement duties in and around Chicago area airports." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_police) However, that information may or may not be current.

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

#148

Post by t0mbstone »

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…

An interesting comment I ran across... not sure if it's valid or not, though:

"Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. Here is how United illegally kicked him off the plane:

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco."

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

#149

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

devoply wrote: post #146
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA. Those regulations do not trump the pilot's authority to directly order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight, even for trivial reasons. See this article that discus…

> order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight Passenger was not disrupting the flight in any way. Passenger was behaving properly and then was forced to leave for the convenience of the airlines at great inconvenience to himself, despite the fact that he was as entitled to remain on the flight as any other passenger -- as in this was unfair to him and him alone. It was also made clear to him that he was not res…

I think linked article and regulation adequately address that. If the pilot asks an individual to debark, s/he is not, in fact, entitled to remain on the flight, other regulations notwithstanding.

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

#150

Post by tanderson92 »

criddell wrote: post #124
Animats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was worse than that; they even published information on the wrong doctor (with the same name). One was from Louisiana, the other Louisville. Shameful.
Post reply on HN