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

231–240 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#231

Post by mikeash »

masondixon wrote: post #228
mikeash wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft.

When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#232

Post by brewdad »

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.

Funnily enough, these "police" were actually rent-a-cops, not sworn officers. In effect, they were a "hired goon squad."

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#233

Post by FireBeyond »

masondixon wrote: post #207
FireBeyond wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-carr…

You know what trumps United's Contract of Carriage?

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

"If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum)."

Refusing to offer any more than $800 is illegal for any passenger who paid more than $200, fees inclusive, for their flight.

Given that the lowest fare currently offered by United for a one way adult fare between Chicago O'Hare (ORD) and Louisville (SDF) is $228.20, with at least $29.32 in fees (not including bags), then United is clearly legally obligated to have offered AT LEAST $1,030 (another example of their sterling customer service, even that would be the absolute minimum legally required and they couldn't even bring themselves to do that).

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#234

Post by masondixon »

awongh wrote: post #223
masondixon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight.

See I don't agree with this. Its an argument for vigilantism. The courts are the appropriate place for this to be disputed. Private property and law enforcement should be respected, especially on airplanes. This is how we uphold a civil society.

If a security guard is going to kick me out of somewhere because they think I am someone else, I am not going to physically resist even though they may be wrong. I will discuss it outside if there is a problem. Same applies to any situation. I can't see how it can ever benefit someone to physically resist something like this. It will always end up the same.

> so let's not give united a pass on this situation

I don't see what other option United had and don't see wrongdoing. The only thing this media firestorm does is set a precedent that if you are kicking and screaming you won't be bumped from a flight.

Even if he was in the right, when you are told to get off a plane, or leave a store, it is the right thing to do regardless of whether you were legally in the right. Encouraging people into physical confrontation does not create a nice society to live in.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#235

Post by tmd83 »

From the DoT site

If the airline must substitute a smaller plane for the one it originally planned to use, the carrier isn't required to pay people who are bumped as a result. In addition, on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 passenger seats, compensation is not required if you were bumped due to safety-related aircraft weight or balance constraints.

I'm not sure I understand this exception. Yes it kind of make sense that when it becomes a safely issue the airlines don't have to pay in that they will not play around with safety but isn't it still mostly airlines fault .. lack of proper maintenance or planning. But even it's an accidental case with no fault for the airlines it's also no fault of the customer and you are making individuals pay for the incident and protecting the corporation how does that make sense?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#236

Post by stult »

tmd83 wrote: post #235

From the DoT site If the airline must substitute a smaller plane for the one it originally planned to use, the carrier isn't required to pay people who are bumped as a result. In addition, on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 passenger seats, compensation is not required if you were bumped due to safety-related aircraft weight or balance constraints. I'm not sure I understand this exception. Yes it kind of ma…

They don't want to incentivize the airlines even a little bit to fly with safety issues.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#237

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #231
masondixon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reser…

> If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft.

You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No.

> When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.

In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#238

Post by mikeash »

masondixon wrote: post #237
mikeash wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reser…

> If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent…

Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed.

I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#239

Post by dalbasal »

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…

I'm not American, so I guess it's a bit out of place for me to comment . That said, my reading of this incident is naked corporatism.

Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner.

(A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.

(B) Police enforcement is a required for these business practices to actually be practiced.

The only reason they can practically have this involuntary removal by lottery policy is police are willing to enforce it. If police of any city/airport refused to execute these corporate polices, the policies would have to change.

That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

I'm not as concerned about United or anyone else having nasty policies. Many companies do. I care more about police enforcing those policies. There is no consumer protection against police action.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#240

Post by FireBeyond »

masondixon wrote: post #202
fatbird wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

> "negotiate"

A negotiation with an entity that "can" (for varying definitions), and will, have you trespassed or otherwise forcibly removed is not a particularly fair "meeting of the minds". It's somewhat what happened here. Passengers _were_ negotiating. Someone offered to leave for $1500, then $1300, on video, and the gate agent responded. "Not happening. Someone's getting off or the plane's going nowhere", and look at the result.

That's "my way, or the highway", not a negotiation in any meaningful sense.

Post reply on HN