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

121–130 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#121

Post by chinathrow »

dingaling wrote: post #118
chinathrow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Paying more could help relocate and live in a comfortable distance to where you are based as a pilot.

Renumeration is part of the structure.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#122

Post by rollingRelease »

tw04 wrote: post #50
Naritai wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree, excepting for indirect compensation that might not appear as part of taxable salary.

Considering how much expensing for (airline) food and (corporate rate) hotels enters the picture, there's probably a substantial additional cost lurking behind that salary.

Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone.

But, the 10 or 300 souls on the plane are absolutely a good reason to pay pilots a little bit more.

But then again, teachers should be paid more for working with children. And airplane mechanics are every bit as important as the pilots.

So I guess it comes down to how much passengers care about whether their plane crashes, and how much they'll spend to gamble on getting somewhere faster than by boat or train or bus. Passengers don't have to fly, do they?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#123

Post by flukus »

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…

> The cleaning worker does not have many connections to CEOs, to wich he can sell his services

I think you might of hit on a possible explanation there, maybe it's wealth inequality? When there was more equality that CEO (or company owner, or just someone near the top) might have been going to the same bars or been part of the same local sports clubs as the cleaner, their kids might have gone to the same school. Now they probably live in other parts of the city.

Politics lately has been an example of this divide.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#124

Post by narag »

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…

Not a free market if there is information assymetry, it's there in the first paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

It says that there is a less assuming version, but I'd always heard the information thing.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#125

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

leni536 wrote: post #92
maze-le wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Markets exist to magnify political inequalities, not to deliver cost-effective and efficient solutions.

Businesses don't compete for customers. They compete for investor and shareholder cash. For most businesses, the point of optimum return for investors is in a completely different part of the graph to the points that keep customers happy and employees secure and well-paid.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#126

Post by acqq »

SilasX wrote: post #105
IIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers for police actions comparing Germany and the US speak a clear language. Any kind of violence is on a far lower level than in the US. We don't need to talk about the reasons - policing in the US is harder - but your argument does not work. Nor does any of it contradicts my argument, I'm tempted to call yours "whataboutism" (that doesn't even have a basis). We certainly have our own issues, and things like…

Still not seeing how any of that substantiates your earlier claim that "no one is ever forcibly removed by police and if they needed to be, it wouldn't require training". You're just changing the topic to something more defensible.

I don't see the claim you have put inside the quotes as being made by IIIIIIIIIIII, therefore your argument seems fake.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#127

Post by rollingRelease »

chinathrow wrote: post #121
dingaling wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Paying more could help relocate and live in a comfortable distance to where you are based as a pilot. Renumeration is part of the structure.

But she didn't have to take that job.

No one can account for the fact that someone from Seattle didn't have the resources to take on the job she desperately fought for.

You know what I wanna be? A movie star!

Pay me more than other entry level movie stars because I can't afford to become one on my own, please. I don't want to work at the Starbucks down the street. I want to move to Hollywood, but can't afford it, so pay me more money now to make me the star I know I am going to become once I have the money.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#128

Post by logicallee »

sangnoir wrote: post #106
logicallee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>discreetly accepting blame Have you seen the news and social media lately? United has been the butt of the blame "discreetly" the way James Bond making his way from point A to point B in a city while blowing up, crashing, and destroying everything in his path is "discreet". Can you honestly name or a remember a PR disaster as bad as this one about any company in the past two years? I would phrase it as "loudly and p…

> discreetly accepting blame GP isn't suggesting there isn't any blame, but that United is low-key accepting the blame/'taking one for the team'. United has decided not to throw any of the involved parties under the bus, even though it is likely that most of them - possibly all of them - do not work directly for United.

This makes no sense to me. The subcontracted brands are worthless, like actually bankrupt, and nobody knows them. Why take the brand hit on "United"? I wouldn't call it "throwing them under the bus" to at least mention this. The amount of backlash against United and its brand is hideous.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#129

Post by malza »

ryandrake wrote: post #9
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…

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?

> Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore?

It's all about risk. Outsourcing means companies transfer risk to other parties. Governments love to do it too, that's why entities like the EU are given sovereign power or public transport is privatised. What's this? A train crashed because of a poorly maintained rail? Scheduled maintenance overran and commuters are angry? The power grid is experiencing brown outs because there's not enough power stations? Sorry, that third party is to blame... bad third party! I totally understand why it's annoying, but I have nothing to do with third party etc.

So in a way, United taking the blame for these things is refreshing. They are treating the outsourcing as their own responsibility.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#130

Post by nebabyte »

malza wrote: post #129
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?

> Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore? It's all about risk. Outsourcing means companies transfer risk to other parties. Governments love to do it too, that's why entities like the EU are given sovereign power or public transport is privatised. What's this? A train crashed because of a poorly maintained rail? Scheduled maintenance overran and commuters are angry? The pow…

> refreshing

sigh

> they have a vested interest in keeping Republic afloat through its bankruptcy (and therefore, discreetly accepting blame)

Post reply on HN