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

Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

hasbrouck.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#21

Post by brokenmachine »

dsacco wrote: post #5

This was a fascinating read. The money quote, in summary form: * The flight was technically a Republic Airlines flight subcontracting for United Airlines. * Almost none of the staff involved worked directly for United Airlines; they are subcontractors required to wear United Airlines' branded uniforms. * Republic Airlines is bankrupt, and none of the parties involved in the lawsuit has attempted to shift blame to the…

How can a bankrupt airline still be flying?

The whole thing really exposes the cracks and deliberate obfuscation in an industry I thought would be regulated like crazy.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#22

Post by dragonwriter »

dsacco wrote: post #5

This was a fascinating read. The money quote, in summary form: * The flight was technically a Republic Airlines flight subcontracting for United Airlines. * Almost none of the staff involved worked directly for United Airlines; they are subcontractors required to wear United Airlines' branded uniforms. * Republic Airlines is bankrupt, and none of the parties involved in the lawsuit has attempted to shift blame to the…

Since Republic is contracting for United, United is probably liable under vicarious liability principles anyway, so conspiracy theories about why they don't try to deflect blame aren't really needed.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#23

Post by sowbug »

brokenmachine wrote: post #21
dsacco wrote: post #5

This was a fascinating read. The money quote, in summary form: * The flight was technically a Republic Airlines flight subcontracting for United Airlines. * Almost none of the staff involved worked directly for United Airlines; they are subcontractors required to wear United Airlines' branded uniforms. * Republic Airlines is bankrupt, and none of the parties involved in the lawsuit has attempted to shift blame to the…

How can a bankrupt airline still be flying? The whole thing really exposes the cracks and deliberate obfuscation in an industry I thought would be regulated like crazy.

There are several kinds of bankruptcy. One is the kind you're thinking of, where whatever's left is divided up and given to creditors. Another provides a sort of time-out for the business to work its problems out without creditors hassling them. When a business "emerges" from bankruptcy it's a successful conclusion of that second kind.

There are more kinds.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#24

Post by tuna-piano »

I see this whole event kind of like the Rosa Parks situation. I'm not comparing the magnitude of injustice, just that (a)There was an unjust system and (b)It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules.

Also, the author is wrong in this passage:

From the article: "The gate agents offered offered $800 in airline scrip to anyone willing to deplane, which from past observation I think is the maximum that was allowed by United policy. That's an illegal cheapskate policy for which United fully deserves the condemnation it has received, and the fines it should be assessed for violating Department of Transportation regulations on denied boarding compensation. Obviously, the gate agents should have been allowed to offer more, and in cash, as Federal law requires. "

The truth:

The airline can try and get people to voluntary give up their seats with whatever method they would like. They can offer free kittens, cash, vouchers, etc. If no one accepts the airlines arbitrary amount, THEN DoT rules take effect, mandating the cash compensation amounts. So Dr Dao and the other 3 passengers that left the plane are entitled to a completely separate amount from what United offered.

From the DoT website[1]:

"DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers. DOT does, however, require airlines to advise any volunteer whether he or she might be involuntarily bumped and, if that were to occur, the amount of compensation that would be due. Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation."

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#25

Post by fatbird »

sandworm101 wrote: post #4

The how and why these people were asked to get of the plane isn't the story. There is a big mash of different companies behind the uniforms. We know they are all cut-throats. But people are asked/told to get off planes every day. It isn't right but happens without issue every hour of every day. So for me this story begins and ends with why violence was used against this particular person. That has much less to do wit…

Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy.

I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that people's generally co-operative nature has led to routine infringement of consumer's rights. Dr. Dao was not clearly obligated to exit the plane, and the justification for the "police"'s removal of him depends upon the now-questionable claim that they were okay to do so.

Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. Your story should start with whether Dr. Dao was, in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#26

Post by dsacco »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22
dsacco wrote: post #5

This was a fascinating read. The money quote, in summary form: * The flight was technically a Republic Airlines flight subcontracting for United Airlines. * Almost none of the staff involved worked directly for United Airlines; they are subcontractors required to wear United Airlines' branded uniforms. * Republic Airlines is bankrupt, and none of the parties involved in the lawsuit has attempted to shift blame to the…

Since Republic is contracting for United, United is probably liable under vicarious liability principles anyway, so conspiracy theories about why they don't try to deflect blame aren't really needed.

Agreed, but I was reiterating the author's (admittedly speculative) point here. It is interesting even if it's not conclusive; the incentive is at least there, if not the intention.

That said, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. I'd call it shrewd business acumen. If the law permits you to reduce your costs using contracted third parties, you'll likely avail yourself of the opportunity when shareholders are demanding returns. It sounds sensational, but I think it's really quite mundane.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#27

Post by true_religion »

fatbird wrote: post #25
sandworm101 wrote: post #4

The how and why these people were asked to get of the plane isn't the story. There is a big mash of different companies behind the uniforms. We know they are all cut-throats. But people are asked/told to get off planes every day. It isn't right but happens without issue every hour of every day. So for me this story begins and ends with why violence was used against this particular person. That has much less to do wit…

Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy. I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that…

> Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment.

I think we're not. In the civil world, you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence, and then later bring your case for damages.

Attempting to mitigate damages often does not go as far as violence, since after all (a) that'd result in criminal claims and (b) medical recovery is often more costly than whatever civil damages you were trying to protect against.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#28

Post by true_religion »

brokenmachine wrote: post #20
rdiddly wrote: post #12

The American economy is running on fumes and wishful thinking. Various industries have had to cut costs, try to carry on, and try to conceal the inherent and inevitable crappiness. This is how United does it.

It's not only America, but I suspect that it's because of the expectation of infinite growth, which is a fantasy, because nothing can grow indefinitely. So the market becomes more competitive, but the shareholders still want their return. So first you get the fat cut off, then you end up with corners cut right up to and over the point of illegality. Eventually stuff like this incident and much worse happens.

Aha. I think in the case of airlines its more due to deregulation. Airlines used to be tightly regulated on price, forcing them to compete instead on things like comfort and convenience. Deregulation allowed them to compete on price, and thus it became unknown what level of service that the population honestly expected out of an airline.

It's as if we've had airplane tech for 70+ years, but only modern airlines since the 1980s.

We're unhappy because airlines now charge 1/3rd of their previous prices, and carry 3x as many passengers and operate a proportionately greater number of flights.

Being asked to do more with less money is a recipe for disaster when public expectations of service remain the same.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#29

Post by blizkreeg »

Does anyone else worry from a safety perspective that the pilots flying these "subcontracted" flights are probably paid very low? I read somewhere that even Captain pay at some of these guys can be 60-70K. I know FAA license requirements are stringent but I would have a hard time believing that working for shitty, bankrupt or nearly bankrupt low-cost airlines that don't pay well has to affect your performance to some degree?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#30

Post by sjburt »

Spooky23 wrote: post #14
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #3

This is a great article, worth a read. Plus the guy has an awesome cartoon avatar. The summary is: United on their smaller flights has lots of people pretending to be united employees but they aren't, and they aren't as well trained as united employees. The police in airports often aren't regular police forces, but are special airport police who might or might not be on a regular police force. To me, that says there'…

The assistant manager at the car wash I go to is a pilot for one of these airlines. He makes about $25k as a first officer. He considers getting hotel points as a bonus. He kept the car wash gig to make ends meet until he gets a better gig or promotion.

The sad thing is that there is a huge workforce of regional pilots hoping to gain hours and switch to the majors, but the majors are converting routes to regionals faster than they are hiring new pilots.
Post reply on HN