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

111–120 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#111

Post by true_religion »

fatbird wrote: post #39
true_religion wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 of…

"you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence" Only to a limited degree, and this forbearance is itself subject to abuse. When everyone politely agrees to "grieve later", it creates an organization-level moral hazard where large companies can pay less in lawsuits than they can save in expenses by abusing the individual's restraint. Walmart during the 1980s practiced a scorched-earth legal defence…

I'm not sure that's a great example. If Walmart employees had started to 'grieve' in store, they'd have been arrested for trespassing unless they moved away to a public street and picketed the location.

Picketing the location is a-okay, and counts as aiming to resolve the dispute without violence.

Resolving it "with violence" would mean attacking some floor manager who gets paid $13/hr, and immediately being imprisoned. This doesn't seem like it'd change corporate's strategy at all.

My real issue here is violence vs non-violence.... not necessarily using lawsuits as the only option---there are others, but I am a bit biased to believe lawsuits are best.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#112

Post by wfunction »

djsumdog wrote: post #95
ryandrake wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infuriating thing about all of this is how deliberately obfuscated and phony everything is: * Airline employees who aren't quite airline employees * Cops who aren't quite cops * Reserved seats that aren't quite reserved Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore?

Contracted pilots are often paid peanuts too. Some non-union pilots are even on food stamps. They might even be better off driving for Uber, and that's kinda terrible.

This is crazy! Any sources for this?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#113

Post by metafunctor »

hueving wrote: post #70
dba7dba wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation." How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?

If you fly with any frequency, you witness this very often. Any time you hear them asking for volunteers at the gate and offering money. It's an auction system used hundreds of times a day by airlines all over the US.

This incident occurred when the paying customer was already seated on the plane. Normal overbooking negotiations happen at the gate. There are no goons dragging you out of the airport in a normal overbooking situation.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#114

Post by metafunctor »

tuna-piano wrote: post #24

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 observati…

From what I've understood, the problem is the United policy to never go above $800. Not ever, even if it means calling the cops. To me, such a policy appears to be in direct violation of the DoT rules.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#115

Post by madaxe_again »

flukus wrote: post #16
ryandrake wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infuriating thing about all of this is how deliberately obfuscated and phony everything is: * Airline employees who aren't quite airline employees * Cops who aren't quite cops * Reserved seats that aren't quite reserved Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore?

This rubbish is everywhere. Contract cleaning (offices etc) for instance, used to be a profitable small business. Not enough to be rich, but enough for a big house with some decent amenities and to raise a family on a single income. Then in the 90's these gigs went into a pyramid of contracting and sub contracting companies where the company buying the service is paying more but the grunt doing the work is lucky to b…

Everything is marketing bullshit - I spent a decade running an ecommerce agency and got to see the bellies of many beasts.

For instance, there's a pig related tea brand in the UK which is universally seen as funky and independent and all that shite. They're owned by tetley, who are in turn owned by tata. The ownership structure is sufficiently complex to make them look independent - but they aren't. It's just good marketing.

Either way, this is just one of many examples that spring to mind - oh, also, call centres - in the U.K. you can call pretty much any large business you like and you'll be talking to one of two huge call centre operators.

Then... where do you draw the line? Is private equity backing problematic when its obfuscated? Or just contract primacy?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#116

Post by [deleted] »

maze-le wrote: post #86
dba7dba wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can vouch for this story. My parents went through this scenario exactly. They had gotten into office cleaning because it was relatively well paying in the 90's. But in the 90's middle men came into the mix. Someone with better sales ability would win the contract for cleaning office, and subcontract it to someone else. And even that 2nd person might subcontract it to someone else. Eventually, the person really doin…

That is a nice example of why the free market is not neccessarily the guarantor of efficiency.

[deleted]

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#117

Post by 4ad »

ubernostrum wrote: post #80

This is not a good article. For one thing, it goes out of its way to paint fairly ordinary things (the use of regional carriers, and the fact that there are many regional carriers, and many of them have contracts with multiple mainline carriers) as "deceptive" (and implying that code-sharing among partner airlines is also "deceptive"). Which says right off the bat that this is someone who doesn't know how airlines re…

> For one thing, it goes out of its way to paint fairly ordinary things (the use of regional carriers, and the fact that there are many regional carriers, and many of them have contracts with multiple mainline carriers) as "deceptive" (and implying that code-sharing among partner airlines is also "deceptive").

It is deceptive.

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001804.html

https://hasbrouck.org/articles/alliances.html

> Which says right off the bat that this is someone who doesn't know how airlines really work

Ridiculous assessment:

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001855.html

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001903.html

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002099.html

https://hasbrouck.org/articles/index.html

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/cat_airfares_and_airline...

https://hasbrouck.org/bio/

https://papersplease.org/wp/hasbrouck-v-cbp/

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#118

Post by dingaling »

chinathrow wrote: post #102
diminoten wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not worried, because the incidents aren't there to support any concern. Flying is safe if a poorly paid pilot is flying the plane, too. It seems like flying commercial flights has a "good enough" bar that the US government does a good job of making sure everyone who operates flights is over.

One such incident was Buffallo. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 "Members of the board said that the crew of the twin-engine turboprop that crashed, killing all 49 people on board and one on the ground, was set up for fatigue and inattention before they even took off, partly because of the structure of the commuter airline business. "

But that wasn't related to their remuneration, rather the structure of the commuter airline business. The copilot was fatigued by living in Seattle but working in Newark for a paltry $24k. Paying her more wouldn't have helped, in fact it might have encouraged more new pilots to try the same.

On the contrary side in Ireland last month we had two experienced pilots, each earning > 120k Euros, inadvertently and fatally fly a Coastguard helicopter into a rock at night. Accidents happen regardless of pay grade.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#119

Post by [deleted] »

maze-le wrote: post #99
leni536 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? It exactly looks like a problem that free market should be able to solve.

I am not an economist, but I think it is a problem with information assymetry. The cleaning worker does not have many connections to CEOs, to wich he can sell his services, but the middle men have. The middle men can leverage this situation to gain the profit, the cleaning worker would have gained. But I have no idea, why this would evolve into a pyramid scheme. One level of "management" would have solved the "inform…

[deleted]

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#120

Post by jaclaz »

edent wrote: post #79
tarsinge wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intrigued by how can it be cost competitive for the middle men, why aren't small business selling directly? Is the sales part the only edge of middle men?

Because a small company has the ability to supply cleaning to X square metres across one city. A middle-man can say "We will supply your cleaning in several cities no matter your office size." So a company pays a higher cost - but only has to deal with one contract, which saves them effort elsewhere. It's the same as taxi companies. It would be cheaper for you to call a small firm with lower overheads, but you're hap…

I see it in a slightly different angle, it is the company's Chief Officer for Cleaning Matters ;) that manages to work less (have convenience) at the expense of the company which pays more money for the service (besides the wage of the COCM ). Coincidentally that is also the same person that will convince everyone else in the company on how convenient the "global" contract is.

There are a lot of activities for which sub-contracting makes sense, particularly when there are possible economies of scale, but when the activity is merely (or largely) labour, there are only four possible overall outcomes:

1) the actual workers are paid less than what would be fair

2) the service is inferior to what was expected/agreed upon

3) the service costs more (the middlemen somehow have to take their part)

4) the contractor or sub-contractor has made wrong estimation of the costs and before or later they close or go bankrupt

Post reply on HN