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

191–200 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#191

Post by fatbird »

masondixon wrote: post #182
Mithaldu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.

They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. They'd already failed to exhaust their legal duties in this situation, and if this actually ends up in court, one argument sure to be raised is that they used the police and an abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down, which was what they seemed to actually be doing: Republic is a subcontractor operating under bankruptcy protection.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#192

Post by masondixon »

bkkssnn wrote: post #168
masondixon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offered $800 to get off the flight. This is what they have to pay by law. Bumping is legal, and must pay if the bump involuntarily. I don't know how a grown adult can get into the kind of situation where they need to be carried off a plane. Absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks the behaviour of the passenger is acceptable in society. And he is a doctor. This is so unprofessional and I would fire the man if he…

No offense but did you read the article and the referenced texts it's citing?

Yep. And I am arguing that there is a lot of analysis over something that should not have been a media firestorm, but a simple dispute with an airline that probably happens 1000s of times per day.

Take away the kicking and screaming and you have a standard airline dispute of which you can find thousands.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#193

Post by hammock »

ubernostrum wrote: post #83
kem wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not. In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on…

The trespassing argument is very shaky. There's good analysis out there of the regulations and contract of carriage suggesting the airline had no basis to order him off in the first place, and generally to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there. And since the instruction to leave his seat may n…

>to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there.

It doesn't? Trespass is criminal while a contract is civil. The police don't enforce contracts do they?

Further, I should be able to break a contract at will (how could that ability even be taken away?) and accept the consequences.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#194

Post by madaxe_again »

jacquesm wrote: post #149
fennecfoxen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, TeaPigs? With the dachshund mascot on the Darjeeling Earl Grey, and the brown-paper boxes, and the overpriced wares? Yeah, you can get those everywhere; they're clearly _way_ too mass-market to be properly independent. If you're spending cash money the on indie feel of things, you'll be buying BigCorp sooner or later. Better to just buy quality. > Then... where do you draw the line? Is private equity backing prob…

> If you're spending cash money the on indie feel of things, you'll be buying BigCorp sooner or later. Better to just buy quality. Most of these start out as quality. Then what happens is that during some survey BigCorp finds out that SmallQualityCorp is nibbling away at their sales & profits and then the next thing you know SmallQualityCorp has been acquired by BigCorp.

Although what you find frequently is that SmallQualityCorp was started by BigCorp at arms length with a view to bringing them under the umbrella once they have traction.

"Sports nutrition" (the "what the hell do we do with all this cheese making byproduct industry") is rife with this - there are only two suppliers, and many, many brands and offshoots. It happens in retail, too - you see a single entity pushing multiple seemingly independent brands to target different market segments.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#195

Post by compsciphd »

metafunctor wrote: post #114
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.

a bit more complicated. I believe what I read was

United knows the cheapest tickets on the flight are $200. They know DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping is 4x cost of ticket. Hence, its not worth it to them to offer more than $800 in compensation as they can just bump people involuntarily for the same value.

Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#196

Post by FireBeyond »

bb611 wrote: post #159
metafunctor wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Until United staff say "Your ticket is revoked", you are still a volunteer. You are in the negotiation phase for volunteering until they actually come tell you that your ticket has specifically been revoked for the flight, at which point the DoT minimum compensation rules take over. This particular policy does appear to be in line with DoT's requirements - you can get volunteers for any price you're willing to negoti…

Yeah, there's also a plausible argument that you're not really a volunteer, especially when United has released a statement saying "Police were called after the passenger refused to voluntarily deplane".

"You can volunteer or be arrested" is an interpretation of "volunteer" that is neither the letter nor spirit of the definition.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#197

Post by DanBC »

masondixon wrote: post #163
edsheeran wrote: post #49

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...

They offered $800 to get off the flight. This is what they have to pay by law. Bumping is legal, and must pay if the bump involuntarily. I don't know how a grown adult can get into the kind of situation where they need to be carried off a plane. Absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks the behaviour of the passenger is acceptable in society. And he is a doctor. This is so unprofessional and I would fire the man if he…

Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't.

$800 is not "what they have to pay by law"; it's the maximum someone would be able to claim if they had to force the claim. There's nothing stopping the airline offering more.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#198

Post by madaxe_again »

jacquesm wrote: post #147
madaxe_again wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

> 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. And whose employees aren't even near the UK. Call centers are some of the most easily outsourced jobs. And what with the UK having exported the ability to communicate fluently in English through its many years of empire building they've only themselves to blame for that one.

Actually, over the past few years you've probably found more British accents than not - because they are using domestic prison labour at an increasing rate.

Oh, for added gags, one of the massive call centre operators (Serco) also operates prisons, which have quietly gone private over the last decades.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#199

Post by FireBeyond »

benmmurphy wrote: post #172
metafunctor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, because European airlines are a lot nicer in that regard. "200 EUR" (or whatever amount).

In the US you hear "offered $800 compensation". It's not cash. It's a voucher for use only on that airline, only within 12 months, and only on select full-fare ticket classes. So an $800 ticket may only get you another round flight from Chicago to Louisville (around 500km/300mi).

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#200

Post by Ensorceled »

briandear wrote: post #72
kem wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not. In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on…

Why do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...

Not at all. They are saying that classism exists and people wouldn't care if it was a plumber, that doesn't mean they think that plumbers are lower status.

If they had said this happened because racists chose Dr. Dao since he was Asian that wouldn't make them racist either.

Post reply on HN