Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident • Hacker News Board

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#201

Post by awongh » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

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…

ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#202

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #191

masondixon wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down

If they keep their expenses down is does benefit customers in paying less for tickets.

> They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350.

Legally, they can negotiate with customer. If they refused to offer cash that is illegal. But they can offer whatever they like.

"As you can see, in many cases you’re entitled to a sizable cash payment, up to $1,350. However, here’s the dirty secret of the airlines. In a vast majority of cases they’ll only offer cash compensation if you specifically ask for it. Otherwise they’ll offer you the same voucher they gave anyone who was voluntarily denied boarding."

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#203

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

> They offered $800 to get off the flight.

Another problem, as (if you had read the article) United is _required_, by the DOT, to offer at least up to $1350. If the passenger can show that United refused to go up to $1350 they are in violation of DOT regulations (and indeed there's video of the gate agent laughing at someone who offered to deplane for $1500, "No, that's not happening. Someone is getting off this plane or it's not going anywhere") - indeed it's a challenge because United doesn't want to compensate more than it has to, but it also has obligations.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#204

Post by AdamN » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:03 PM UTC

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…

Only on HN would somebody compare the United incident to Rosa Parks in the segregated South.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#205

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:05 PM UTC

awongh wrote: post #201

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…

ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...

I do not think Dr Dao was aware of his rights or asserting them.

Yes, in court he can make this argument.

But is it really acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane? I don't want to live in a society like this, and I don't think the correct solution is to "never drag people off planes". We have a court system to resolve disputes and I think it is far better that whatever injustice people feel, it is resolved in the courts, not kicking and screaming.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#206

Post by bb611 » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #196

bb611 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It appears you're confused by the use of variations on volunteer in different

The facts of the situation were this:

1. United offered vouchers up to $800 - this is the volunteer phase.

2. They received no volunteers.

3. Moving on from the volunteer phase, they selected 4 passengers to be removed from the flight.

4. They informed those passengers they needed to get off the flight (so now they're covered by the DoT minimum compensation, which is unrelated to #1).

5. Mr. Dao refused to VOLUNTARILY leave his seat, but 3 other passengers did.

6. Police were called, video was taken, lawsuits were started.

"Voluntarily" in the sentence you're quoting doesn't refer to #1 above, it refers to the fact that Mr. Dao, after being told by a gate agent to leave the plane, did not do so. It does not have any relationship to the DoT "volunteer" rules, it has to do with whether he was willing to leave the plane after being told to do so by a person who was empowered by their employer to get people to leave the plane (although their exact legal right to do so remains somewhat grey).

edit: your -> you're

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#207

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:09 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #203

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…

> They offered $800 to get off the flight. Another problem, as (if you had read the article) United is _required_, by the DOT, to offer at least up to $1350. If the passenger can show that United refused to go up to $1350 they are in violation of DOT regulations (and indeed there's video of the gate agent laughing at someone who offered to deplane for $1500, "No, that's not happening. Someone is getting off this plan…

> Another problem, as (if you had read the article) United is _required_, by the DOT, to offer at least up to $1350.

"Request for Volunteers

UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate)."

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

The can offer what they like. Once it becomes involuntary, they can still offer whatever they like. But legally the passenger can claim the maximum amount in cash.

The final compensation is also more complicated and depends on the replacement flight, original ticket price, etc.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#208

Post by losteverything » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:10 PM UTC

To me, the overarching point is we would not be talking about this if phones with cameras (and feeling it's okay to film another human without their permission)

We always seem to whip out our phones as novice reporters anytime we feel like it.

It's not privacy that matters it anonymity.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#209

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #197

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…

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.

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

Honestly, I see no difference regarding the intention of the law. Essentially it is the same. You would only be able to argue that Dr Dao might have thought that once onboard he was not able to be bumped and made arrangements based on not having been bumped. But I don't think this happened in this case.

Yes, you can argue it legalistically, but I don't think Dr Dao was making this argument, nor does it make sense in the spirit of the law.

> $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.

" Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily

For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD."

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

Compensation depends and is customer-specific. So would need to be resolved with the customer - who could always claim the maximum amount or agree to alternate arrangement.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#210

Post by dmh2000 » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 2:15 PM UTC

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…

how many of them have crashed in the last 10 years? 20 years? Ever?

Republic has never had a fatal crash. American Eagle has had 2 in the last 20 years. none in the last 10. after 11 million flights.