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

United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 464 posts

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#201

Post by ferentchak »

gnode wrote: post #142
yodsanklai wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers. Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and th…

>Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too. On the other hand, planes may become electric, and the cost of solar power is rapidly falling. If this trend continues, it will likely become cheaper to fly in the future. Even if planes don't become electric any time soon, other demand…

Is it possible to make something like a jet electric? If someone knows of one I want to see a picture. Sounds like something from one of my dad's old sci-fi novels.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#202

Post by criddell »

gambiting wrote: post #104
adekok wrote: post #8

Can someone read this: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... and explain where it allows them to refuse transport to a well-behaved passenger after boarding ? Rule 21 seems to apply, but nothing there looks like "United can refuse to transport you 'just cause'". I've seen lots of people claim this behavior is legal, all without a shred of evidence to back them up.

Quite simple - United defines boarding as having everyone seated and the doors closed. Until that point you haven't boarded yet, as stupid as that sounds.

If it got to court, I'm thinking a judge is going to be a little skeptical of United's definition.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#203

Post by 1_2__3 »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #167

Been flying for 25 years, 1.5 million miles total, most of that on United. US airlines have been through hell over the last 16 years. Bankruptcies, union battles, fierce competition, and not to mention, the real threat that someone could blow up or intentionally crash the plane they're flying, all contributed to a mentality that the employees have to stick together to survive. The end result is that US airline employ…

What you call "hell" I call record profits. Sorry if you're trying the tired old "the best way to lose millions is to buy an airline" bullshit this probably not the thread to do it in.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#204

Post by cobookman »

drewg123 wrote: post #166
linker3000 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked United whether I could use their lounge at SFO as they cancelled my flight to Heathrow and I was going to be waiting the best part of a day for a flight to Dulles to take an alternative that would get me home 1.5 days late. By the look on the faces of the two lounge receptionists, you'd think I'd asked if I could take a dump on their desk. "Other people have paid membership to use this lounge" I was told in a…

Something similar happened to me in CLT with US Air (now part of American) back in 2013. My family and I (3 of us) had 1st class tickets from a podunk east coast airport -> CLT -> SFO. They cancelled the 1st leg for their own reasons (not weather), and then rebooked us on another flight that got into CLT 40 mins later. We ran to the gate of our SFO flight, but they'd sold our first class tickets out from under us, an…

They can do that? You never missed the second leg flight.

I wonder if that is grounds to sue.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#205

Post by HarryHirsch »

colmvp wrote: post #158
HarryHirsch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The receptionists were likely not United employees, they were contractors with some Sodexo-type rent-a-body company. Overworked, underpaid, why would they care about someone else's first-world problems?

Calling it a first-world problem is being a little dismissive about the situation. He/she was going to arrive 1.5 days later to his destination because of a flight cancelation. Politely asking to use the lounge as minor compensation is not an unreasonable ask. If it can't be done, it can't be done. I'm sure the OP would've been disappointed but reasonable with a different response. Something like, "I'm sorry your fli…

The choice of words was deliberate. On one side of the counter is the OP, with a stable, well-paying job, on the other side is the on-contract employee working one, possibly several jobs that won't pay much about minimum wage. The US are a pretty harsh country to live in when you are at poverty level. Of course there are people who have it worse than a front-desk guy at an airport, but that doesn't change the fact that that person didn't have it good.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#206

Post by nradov »

_red wrote: post #137
Klathmon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything. From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry abou…

IF the VLJ (Very Light Jet) segment would ever fully blossom a major Uber-style disruption would be possible. The biggest thing that could prevent this welcomed development? The government. Specifically that the FAA is likely to clamp down on "Uber Air Taxi" market and declare them common carriers. Got to protect those monopolies.

Nonsense. The FAA actively encourages general aviation and small air charters. They bent over backwards to help the VLJ manufacturers through the certification process. The VLJ segment failed (so far) because they're still too expensive, too slow, and too dangerous. But perhaps further improvements in engines and lightweight materials will eventually make it viable?

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#207

Post by bmh_ca »

ricw wrote: post #140
yodsanklai wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers. Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and th…

Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory.. In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

> Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again.

Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

When the current supplies start to dwindle, I would not be surprised to see oil prices strike $200 or more a barrel.

The oil crash removed the cost of exploration from oil prices, so current prices are no longer a indication of probable future supply.

There's a multi-year lag between exploration and crude coming to market. While futures/derivatives can cover that exploration for future crude extraction, there's a growing spectre of competitive alternative energy that will likely reduce the attractiveness of crude – i.e. there being higher risk of relative oil obsolescence, the anticipated return on futures diminishes, meaning less money going into exploration, even with what will be present-day high prices.

Given the lag in investment, I suspect that when the "spike" comes people will look as much to ramping up more immediate alternatives (solar, wind) than exploring for oil.

The above is all speculation of course, but the 5-10 year market forces at work are not pushing towards lower or even stable oil prices, but towards much higher ones – at least until demand drastically drops, which some figure is at least 15-20 years out.

Just my 2¢.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#208

Post by bmh_ca »

ferentchak wrote: post #201
gnode wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too. On the other hand, planes may become electric, and the cost of solar power is rapidly falling. If this trend continues, it will likely become cheaper to fly in the future. Even if planes don't become electric any time soon, other demand…

Is it possible to make something like a jet electric? If someone knows of one I want to see a picture. Sounds like something from one of my dad's old sci-fi novels.

Sure, Boeing's working on it now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/boeing-te...

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#209

Post by 086421357909764 »

tyfon wrote: post #108
tici_88 wrote: post #17

Travelling in the US or with US airlines is not looking very good right now. Not just the United incident(s) but also TSA, Trump travel restrictions, flights constantly overbooked, massively late etc. I wonder if it will start impacting traveller and tourism numbers at some point. I think anyone who doesn't really need to be in the US and/or is planning travelling with kids is likely to have some second thoughts at t…

The company I work at (in Norway) had planed to take all 70 employees to NYC this summer to celebrate a milestone reached. We just moved the whole thing to Paris instead as we had issues with all of the above, including employees that have visited "dangerous" countries. The thing that pushed everyone over was when our former prime minster was harassed[1] at the border for having been to a meeting in Iran. It says in…

It's sad to see that you've had this experience, but the Prime Minister specifically, that was a policy enforcement for a policy that was put in place with the previous administration. So sadly, it's not as new an issue as people think, it's been an issue for over 6 years.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#210

Post by natch »

coldpie wrote: post #144
stuff4ben wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a big deal? You're warned not to bring bottles of liquids before you even get into the TSA line. Sure the TSA is bunch of security theatre in some cases, but if there's a rule there, why do you have to be a prick about it?

Because it's a huge waste of time and resources. No one benefits. There's no reason for these clowns to be wasting my time and making people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint. It's just one huge welfare program for unemployable morons, and I have to waste two hours every time I fly to put up with their dumb horseshit. I'm gonna throw a brick through your front window. No reason for it, just gonna do it. H…

We are dealing with zealots who think a reward is waiting for them in heaven.

How was he supposed to know that it's really water?

Just because it is clear liquid in a sealed bottle proves nothing, even if you are willing to drink it on the spot. See above, the part about heaven and zealots.

If he said "water" repeatedly, that's not because he actually knows or cares whether it is really water. It very well may be water. He's just saying that that is the rule; even if your liquid is just water, you need to ditch it. He's not going to say all this stuff about "how do I know it's really water" because he's not there to argue; he's just trying to move the line along.

This information all seems like common sense to me.

Post reply on HN