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

221–230 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#221

Post by mikeash »

FireBeyond wrote: post #199
benmmurphy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yeah, the compensation offered by American airlines is a joke. There have been many times where I could have easily volunteered to be bumped, but I've never bothered to volunteer because I'm effectively being asked to do so for free. I don't fly frequently enough on the same airline for those vouchers to be worth anything to me.

Offer me some cold, hard cash, and that would completely change the game. I have, very rarely, seen airlines resort to that if the vouchers don't do the trick. I'd be utterly shocked if an offer of $800 cash couldn't produce four volunteers on a fully loaded plane.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#222

Post by muh_gradle »

masondixon wrote: post #192
bkkssnn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The kicking and screaming. That's certainly a nice way of putting it.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#223

Post by awongh »

masondixon wrote: post #205
awongh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reso…

I think we agree on the basic principle of the case, but not the solution that follows it.

I do agree that it is not acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane.

I think it's a straw man to say that don't "never drag people off planes" is one of the possible solutions. if he turns out to be within his rights, even if he didn't have a full understanding of the legality of his decision at the time, then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight.

Saying that hypothetically he could have resolved it in court later, without being dragged off the plane is missing the point- I don't want to live in a society where it's acceptable to be dragged off a plane either, so let's not give united a pass on this situation just because it should be able to make similar actions in other (possibly legal) circumstances.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#224

Post by gumby »

AdamN wrote: post #204
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.

That's a facile truth about an overblown analogy, buy there's good insight in that analogy: this could be a tipping point for a rights of individuals and the mass public vs exploitative rules of large corporations. Like 'The Jungle' a century ago. Probably won't be, but could be. Hasbrouck shows how the evidence has been building over the past few years, each time picking up more steam.

And in the regards, Rosa Parks was just a small, single incident that has become iconic, so in that regard it's a good choice.

Now this United event was spontaneous, while Rosa Parks was planned action (NAACP leaders saw what Claudette Colvin had done and recruited an activist, Rosa Parks, as part of a managed publicity campaign). It was used to good effect (in both the sense of working well and in support of an important and good cause). The thing that has fascinated me the most about the United event is that now that everyone has a camera and the opportunity to write, some balance of power is being restored.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#225

Post by FireBeyond »

bb611 wrote: post #206
FireBeyond wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 min…

In your point 5, the word "voluntarily" is a misnomer, is the point.

"5. Mr Dao refused to leave his seat."

Refusing to voluntarily leave implies he ever had an option to reject the request, which he did not.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#226

Post by jliptzin »

dmh2000 wrote: post #210
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.

Colgan Air 3407 crashed and many reports cited very poor pilot pay and poor pilot skill as probable cause

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#227

Post by rhino369 »

compsciphd wrote: post #195
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.

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 o…

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

Without the law, United wouldn't even have to pay 4x. The remedies for regular breach of contract aren't very good.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#228

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #218
masondixon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perso…

I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing.

Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation.

I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me.

I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets.

I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation.

I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#229

Post by parenthephobia »

masondixon wrote: post #166

I don't get it. Airline bumping is legislated. You get bumped involuntarily, you get $800. He got bumped, he can get the money. If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they suppose to do? I don't know how a grown adult can get into a situation where they need to be physically carried off a plane. His behaviour was childish, unprofessional, and completely unacceptable.

> If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they supposed to do?

Refuse booking at the gate.

Not give seats that paying customers are already occupying to their staff.

Not remove paying customers using so much reckless force that they break their nose and teeth in the process.

Accept that they've made a mistake and send their staff in another vehicle.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#230

Post by jacquesm »

madaxe_again wrote: post #198
jacquesm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wow.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/aug/08/prisoners-ca...

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

That's disgusting and ought to be illegal.

Post reply on HN