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

41–50 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#41

Post by smcl »

rdtsc wrote: post #35

> , but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines management. What's the point of mentioning that? They are wearing United Uniforms even. However United wants to distribute its routes, how it hires its contractors, flight attendants etc is its business. It seems like a way to divert blame. (United is great, it's…

If you keep reading it becomes apparent why this is actually quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. It's an attempt to use lower-wage non-union workers, made more interesting by the fact that Republic are going through bankruptcy (and therefore aren't themselves being sued by the passengers, since there's some sort of limit on the compensation they could get) and that United are semi-OK with taking the blame to permit Republic to recover a bit

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#42

Post by smcl »

sjburt wrote: post #30
Spooky23 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've read about this before - US pilots getting shockingly low wages. The Explanation given previously was that the senior pilots get insanely well remunerated and you're expected to work for peanuts until you hit this point (or switch to a European or Emirati airline)

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#43

Post by joering2 »

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…

Jesus! So far I naively thought that the rotting of commercial flying in America is created only by corrupted politicians who instead of forcing Government to investigate price fixing by major airlines, look somewhere else (over the last 5 years my summer ticket to europe went up about 10% Y/Y; meanwhile oil price went down some 40%, clearly there is a fix as oppose to gas stations where price of gallon follows cruide oil ups and downs). But this crazy trick of working with bankrupt company to avoid union that's pure devil's genius!

I can only pray someone from the Committee they meeting on soon read this or the article and can actually inquiry about this when they have a chance!

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#44

Post by Naritai »

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.

Conversely, it's common for contracting firms to include a clause requiring the subcontracting firm to indemnify the contractor. So United would be able to push it back onto Republic.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#45

Post by joering2 »

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.

It is "regulated like crazy", by corrupted politicians like David Samson.

United even created his own route from Newark to SC so he can fly home...

In January 2015, federal prosecutors subpoenaed records related to Samson's personal travel, and his relationship with Newark Liberty International Airport's largest carrier, United Airlines, as part of a probe into a flight route initiated by United while Samson was chairman of the transportation agency that operates the region's airports. The route provided non-stop service between Newark and Columbia Metropolitan Airport in South Carolina, located about 50 miles from a home where Samson often spent weekends. United halted the non-stop route on April 1, 2014, three days after Samson resigned from the position. Samson referred to the twice-a-week route — with a flight leaving Newark on Thursday evenings and another returning on Monday mornings — as “the chairman’s flight.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Samson_(lawyer)

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#46

Post by Naritai »

blizkreeg wrote: post #29

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…

Are you trying to say that 60k is low?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#47

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

Naritai wrote: post #44
dragonwriter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conversely, it's common for contracting firms to include a clause requiring the subcontracting firm to indemnify the contractor. So United would be able to push it back onto Republic.

Wouldn't that still leave United liable, and only obligate Republic to pay United for their loss?

Probably leaves United in a bad spot, considering Republic is bankrupt and United depends on them for services.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#48

Post by rdtsc »

Terribledactyl wrote: post #40
rdtsc wrote: post #35

> , but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines management. What's the point of mentioning that? They are wearing United Uniforms even. However United wants to distribute its routes, how it hires its contractors, flight attendants etc is its business. It seems like a way to divert blame. (United is great, it's…

It's highlighting the fact that this stuff is complicated, and can't just be reduced down to "united employee told united passenger to leave united flight" because each 'united' might not be the same, or even related to united

My point is that it doesn't matter how United distributes and picks its contractors. It should bare the brunt of the blame and responsibility.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#49

Post by edsheeran »

They could have used common sense. Be polite. Raise the ante. Negotiate. There was a manager/person in charge who didn't use common sense and then it escalated to more parties without common sense. Low EQ who only know threat of force and escalation of force.

Our loss of wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#50

Post by tw04 »

Naritai wrote: post #46
blizkreeg wrote: post #29

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…

Are you trying to say that 60k is low?

For the amount of time and effort it takes to become a pilot? Not to mention the constantly being away from your family, and having the lives of thousands of people in your hands month in and month out. 60k is absolutely low.
Post reply on HN