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

211–220 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#211

Post by dmh2000 »

SyneRyder wrote: post #183
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…

Is that all? That's ridiculously low. Here's a news article [0] pointing out that Qantas pilots earn up to $536K a year, with second officer roles beginning at $110K. (At the time of the article, 1 Australian Dollar was worth more than 1 US Dollar [1].) [0] http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-t... [1] http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=20...

you are comparing US regional airlines to an international airline. apples to oranges

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#212

Post by viridian »

madaxe_again wrote: post #194
jacquesm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 multip…

Then how is MyProtein so much cheaper than like everyone else?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#213

Post by dpark »

losteverything wrote: post #208

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.

> It's not privacy that matters it anonymity.

Anonymity is a form of privacy.

And in this case, the recording eliminated both privacy and anonymity, neither of which are guaranteed or expected in a public setting.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#214

Post by madaxe_again »

viridian wrote: post #212
madaxe_again wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 multip…

Then how is MyProtein so much cheaper than like everyone else?

Volume over per-sale margin. It's the exact same stuff from the same suppliers as you'd get buying a premium brand like Sci-MX etc.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#215

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

Once you are seated it is too late for your ticket to be revoked.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#216

Post by mikeash »

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…

"A completely free market approach" would not allow airlines to involuntarily remove passengers who have already paid for and used a ticket. A free market approach would involve offering greater and greater compensation for voluntary removal until enough people took it.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#217

Post by losteverything »

dpark wrote: post #213
losteverything wrote: post #208

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.

> It's not privacy that matters it anonymity. Anonymity is a form of privacy. And in this case, the recording eliminated both privacy and anonymity, neither of which are guaranteed or expected in a public setting.

Before phones I expected to never be photographed. I could go anywhere and think nobody knows I'm here.

It's a different world, that's all. We can't turn back.

At any instant you could become an innocent photo-revealee.

Just avoid being in sight of the vertically held phone..

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#218

Post by mikeash »

masondixon wrote: post #186
drakonandor wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft.

Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#219

Post by mikeash »

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.

It's trivial. Announce over the PA that you need X volunteers and you're offering $Y for it, and anyone who's interested should push the flight attendant call button. If you don't get enough people, keep increasing $Y until you do.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#220

Post by rhino369 »

gnopgnip wrote: post #215
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…

Once you are seated it is too late for your ticket to be revoked.

A lot of people are saying that, but it's based on a tenuous interpretation of the law. Even if revoking the ticket would be a breach of contract at that point, there doesn't appear to be a law against it.
Post reply on HN