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

311–320 of 464 posts

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

#311

Post by landryraccoon »

086421357909764 wrote: post #209
tyfon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a source for this? When did the previous administration put this policy in place? I am skeptical that this was happening under the previous administration.

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

#312

Post by throwaway2048 »

tarlinian wrote: post #263
technofiend wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a spot to recharge your electronics along with free wifi! Don't forget those parts.

What kind of airports are you people flying out of where the entire airport doesn't have free wi-fi and outlets (this is actually one thing about most airports that has gotten significantly better in the last 10 years), but is still large enough to warrant a United club...I feel like I've been seeing more and more of these exaggerations since the incident...flying on any American airline is kind of crappy, but compla…

O'Hare dosent have free wifi, presumably because they are being paid by one of those "30 minutes of wifi for $20" ripoff companies.

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

#313

Post by technofiend »

tarlinian wrote: post #263
technofiend wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a spot to recharge your electronics along with free wifi! Don't forget those parts.

What kind of airports are you people flying out of where the entire airport doesn't have free wi-fi and outlets (this is actually one thing about most airports that has gotten significantly better in the last 10 years), but is still large enough to warrant a United club...I feel like I've been seeing more and more of these exaggerations since the incident...flying on any American airline is kind of crappy, but compla…

The kind where the FBO has decided to make a little extra money via a revenue sharing agreement for wifi.

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

#314

Post by dmitrygr »

nradov wrote: post #206
_red wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The operating costs of a VLJ are still insanely huge. Example: a piston plane - SR22 can fly 200mph for 1200 miles on one tank of fuel. Approximate cost of that flight including amortised repair and maintenance costs: $1000. A VLJ, like SF50 can do that same flight at 320mph, but at an amortized cost of about $2600. Mostly it is due to engine overhaul costs. Overhauling a piston engine like in an SR22 is about $40k and done about every 2000 hours. Overhauling a jet like the in the SF50 is about $700k, and done every 4000 hours.

Until that comes down, jets will simply not approach uber-useful affordability for even people who buy full-fare first class seats.

(Fuel consumption is also much higher both in gal/h and in $/hr for jets compared to pistons)

And piston planes are not nearly as useful for air taxi due to them being unable to fly high enough to avoid most weather. Oh and in general turbines are an order of magnitude less likely to fail per hour.

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

#315

Post by Symbiote »

microtonal wrote: post #220
wazoox wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrast that to my flight to Edinburgh on Air France last year; we arrived slightly late and were directed to the wrong line, getting us to miss the plane, arguably partly because we were late, and partly because the wrong instructions. We were offered access to the lounge for the many hours wainting for the next flight, without paying anything for food, drinks and internet, while having only paid for economy class.

Same here with Lufthansa, economy class. We missed the connection due to a delay on the first leg. We were booked to the next flight two hours later (IIRC). We asked if they could accommodate our prolonged stay. They gave us a good amount in vouchers to spend at the airport, which we used to have a nice dinner (Munich airport has some proper restaurants). The two hours fly by in no time. Despite the delay, we were ha…

You may have been eligible for compensation under EU rules. This can be EUR250-400, depending on the delay and distance.

Some vouchers or access to the lounge, with the passenger then not bothering to claim compensation, is much cheaper for the airline.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights...

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

#316

Post by yeukhon »

anovikov wrote: post #307
e40 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will never do that, since it impacts profit.

Due to airlines' razor thin margins, this is simply impossible. That simple. Every single traditional airline will go bankrupt if it stopped overbooking. Unfortunately it is the greed and stupidity of us consumers that drove this market into the ground. We shouldn't blame airlines. Think about this next time when you pick 'order by price' in skyscanner...

This is a scary statement that no one is willing to test it. But is it really true? I offer an alternate theory.

It won't lead to an airline bankruptcy.How about we create a cancellation fee. UA can add an incentive (not sure if one already exist) to their mileage club membership giving club member free cancellation up to 5 hours before the onboard time.

* Free cancellation up to 24 hours, and thereafter no refund plus a $30 cancellation fee.

* 50% refund for up to 24 hours

* no refund if no show

* club members get up to free cancellation and 50% refund up to 5 hours, except

* ultra gold club members free cancellation and 80% refund without cancellation fee

IDK. Someone on their business team make up a profitable number.

The truth is though, airline does this because they have a proven statistics the percentage of customers are no-show. According to [1]:

> On average, the number of people not turning up to flights is around 5 percent, but, in certain circumstances, that number can be up to 15 percent. Obviously, that puts airlines in an interesting position.

In the long run as airlines struggle to keep up with profit if overbooking is illegal, airlines will be forced to implement the above. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/

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

#317

Post by talmand »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #301
talmand wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I fail to see where my statement makes the claim I accept such idiotic rules. My statement makes the claim that it is stupid to act stupid in an effort to fight stupid rules. And then I agreed with the TSA security theater notion and bloated budget which goes against your thought I've given up my last ounce of humility in return for "security". I suggest you read my statement again because you clearly misunderst…

You tacitly accept rules you refuse to oppose or do anything about.

So, arguing that one should be smart when fighting stupid rules means I accept the rule? Being stupid in an effort to fight stupid rules guarantees more stupid rules in response.

What kind of nonsense are you people preaching here?

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

#318

Post by ptero »

rsync wrote: post #234
ptero wrote: post #78

At the moment I wish United gets beaten up well for forced passenger removal earlier this week. However, IMO this article just tries to pile onto the "United stinks" meme and is poorly written (more emotions than facts). Some things missing (for me): 1. When did this happen? The article makes it look like this just happened, but does not mention a date. I suspect the omission is on purpose (if so, boo!; if not, sorry…

"IMO the main point is valid -- the person was first to the seat and in general whoever gets into the seat first keeps it in case of a seat collision or a duplicate ticket." I would be extremely annoyed if I were in the same situation as this flyer. However, I'm not really sure what United is supposed to do here ... according to the article they had a mechanical problem with the original plane and the replacement pla…

Duplicate / messed up tickets happen and IME (I travel roughly once a month and saw this maybe 3-4 times) the "first in" is always how things are resolved. Whoever is first keeps his seat, whoever is late is reseated, gets an apology and some goodies especially if this is a downgrade / later flight. I think (but not 100% sure) this might even be codified in some airlines policies.

I saw duplicate assigned seats, I saw seats assigned in the toilet -- the plane had last row of ABC seats and lavatory where DEF seats would be. Sure enough two people show up with tickets in the DEF section. After some (weary) chuckles the folks just got squeezed into any open seats.

What is messed up about this case though was the lack of clear policy (so the person does not feel he is discriminated against), threats instead of apology and no compensation.

I am also surprised at the price: $1000 for a first class ticket on a long flight is low. Was that be one of the "gate upgrades" he purchased instead of the real first class ticket? This does not absolve United at all, but at least gives some potential sanity to their choice of a purchased seat over a gate upgrade.

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

#319

Post by mirimir »

diminoten wrote: post #286
mirimir wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not legal. Edit: See lawyer quote from tiatia.

I'm getting tired of people claiming that United can't break their own contracts legally. Of course they can, and no it's not "illegal". Why is that the bar everyone look to for whether or not they should be doing something? If you believe what United did in this case or the case of the doctor being dragged out is illegal, please continue to pay close attention to what happens in the latter case, as I'm sure it will…

OK, breaking contracts isn't criminal. Just grounds for legal action. But assault and lying to police officers, those are criminal offenses.

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

#320

Post by davidf18 »

eCa wrote: post #303
davidf18 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm very sorry your employees missed out on visiting NYC. As a NYC resident and as someone who has been to Paris many times, Paris is very nice. But people that come to NYC have a much greater experience. In the past month I met both an Italian who came here for the first time and an Israeli and both of them were so happy to be here. I think your employer should schedule a trip to NYC for these 70 employees --…

> But people that come to NYC have a much greater experience. That's quite a statement. I certainly enjoyed my NYC trip a couple of years ago, but there are many european cities that I rather (re)visit before going back to the US. This is not only because of the current administration (though that doesn't help). People have different preferences.

NYC has a 24/365 hour Apple Store which reflects the vibrancy of the city 24/365. Need I say more?

Europe is very beautiful. But for the creative energy and vibrancy NYC is the place to be.

Post reply on HN