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

171–180 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#171

Post by dghughes »

djsumdog wrote: post #101
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…

Read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years." I cannot endorse this book enough. It is the most influential non-fiction book I've ever read. Basically it's called using money as a means to make money, and this was frowned upon in many civilisations. Even today, in much of the Muslim world they do not charge interest. They do have higher bank fees (no free accounts, no free checking or electronic transfers). Keep in mind if we…

>Basically it's called using money as a means to make money, and this was frowned upon in many civilisations.

I was watching the history of York castle on Netflix. In England the Christian people wouldn't charge interest on loans but the small Jewish community did, I assume it meant a person could borrow more?

Anyway there was a huge riot by the Christian townsfolk they wanted to kill the Jewish men, women and children. Which also meant all debts held in Jewish books were wiped out.

All the Jewish people of York took refuge in the York castle keep but in the end were going to be killed by the people of York. The men slit the throats of their wives and children then the mend committed suicide.

http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massa...

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#172

Post by benmmurphy »

metafunctor wrote: post #113
hueving wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is the big mistake that united/republic made. if you deny boarding before the gate the passenger has very little recourse. if they try and run the gate they are going to get very little sympathy. however, once the passenger is seated they suddenly have the option of not moving which is going to cause lots of problems.

i don't travel much and i've been on a flight where they have deboarded people after people had seated so i don't think this is that uncommon. we also thought it was a really good deal. like ~200 EUR + accommodation for the night + ticket for the next day but none of us could take it because we had luggage in the hold.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#173

Post by masondixon »

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…

> 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.

But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does.

If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat.

Now the fact that it can be argued legalistically that he was not "denied boarding by bumping", but was "deplaned", is something he can pursue in the courts if he chooses to. But I don't think he was even arguing this at the time.

His behaviour was simply childish.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#174

Post by fatbird »

true_religion wrote: post #111
fatbird wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 imprison…

I agree that's not a great example from the perspective of what the individual should do. It's just the best example off the top of my head of an organization using its size to make lawsuits largely worthless as a remedy.

That said, I disagree that Dr. Dao is responsible for the violence that occurred or that he chose violence. His was a classic act of civil disobedience: he simply didn't comply, even when violence was used against him, and it's turning out that the predicates for using violence against him are falling apart. He wasn't trespassing, the police acted incorrectly, the gate agents acted incorrectly, and the whole airline business leading up to that moment has built up a faulty expectation of what's allowed and expected. The Walmart equivalent wouldn't be attacking a floor manager, it would be staging a sit-in, which would be much more clearly a simple case of trespassing because it's a store rather than an airplane.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#175

Post by Mithaldu »

masondixon wrote: post #173
fatbird wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be…

Did you miss the part where the law says they were not only under the legally mandated entitlement, but also not fulfilling the part where the law demands they pay out cash?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#176

Post by fatbird »

PeterisP wrote: post #144
fatbird wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It does matter, because the airline is not a king that can order police into action. The airline can (and occasionally should) call the police. However, the police have a duty to investigate the dispute - if they instead act like a hired goon squad, then they should be blamed (and punished) for that, it's a violation of how they are allowed to work.

Agreed. I only wanted to dispute that the primary blame should be on the police themselves. And "Chicago police" is a whole topic itself.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#177

Post by DomreiRoam »

djsumdog wrote: post #104
edent wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You need the pigs. They're helping all the animals. That horse isn't really going to the glue factory. We just reused that glue factory truck, but really he was going to a retirement home (paraphrasing Orwell's Animal Farm). When people plant themselves in the middle, they essentially sell themselves as being necessary. Are they necessary? It depends .. but usually not.

Middleman have some utility but I think often they extract more money than the value they provide.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#178

Post by drakonandor »

masondixon wrote: post #167
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…

> (a) There was an unjust system and There was a legislated racist system. The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach. (b) It took an in…

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#179

Post by [deleted] »

drakonandor wrote: post #178
masondixon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (a) There was an unjust system and There was a legislated racist system. The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach. (b) It took an in…

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

[deleted]

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#180

Post by freehunter »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #139
djsumdog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years." I cannot endorse this book enough. It is the most influential non-fiction book I've ever read. Basically it's called using money as a means to make money, and this was frowned upon in many civilisations. Even today, in much of the Muslim world they do not charge interest. They do have higher bank fees (no free accounts, no free checking or electronic transfers). Keep in mind if we…

> Board executives at JPMorgan Chase, PNC and the other banks that caused so much destruction in 2008 should have been thrown in jail next to rapists, paedophiles and murders. What strange ideas of justice the world has! In an ostensibly advanced country, America, one side of the political spectrum would be have us remain willfully oblivious to police abuses, corrupt prosecutors withholding or fabricating evidence, a…

What you're implicitly arguing is that since we don't prosecute injustice evenly, we shouldn't prosecute injustice at all. There's always going to be something worse happening, it shouldn't distract us from doing what is right. You could easily make the argument that since we allow North Korea to have prison camps, we can't throw murderers into prison because actual justice doesn't exist evenly around the world.

Also finish the food on your plate, there are starving kids in Africa.

Post reply on HN