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

241–250 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#241

Post by masondixon »

FireBeyond wrote: post #233
masondixon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 $8…

> You know what trumps United's Contract of Carriage?

Agree.

> clearly legally obligated to have offered AT LEAST $1,030

Disagree.

It says they can negotiate with the customer:

"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation. DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily. Finally, don't be a "no-show." If you are holding confirmed reservations you don't plan to use, notify the airline. If you don't, they will cancel all onward or return reservations on your trip."

But the customer has the right to ask for the minimum. If the customer agrees to something else, then that is that.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#242

Post by bonzini »

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…

It's not at least up to $1,350. They can offer _as little as_ $1,350 even if the ticket costs more than $1,350/4 = $337.50, but there's no upper limit.

Apparently their policy is to never go above 4x the cost of the ticket (they said it's $800 in this case, your computation in another message said $1030, but airline fares are really complex). That's a valid policy. But they should definitely have offered cash instead of vouchers.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#243

Post by masondixon »

parenthephobia wrote: post #229
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.

I mean once they decide someone should not be on the flight. Most people would just do as they are told and seek compensation or pursue in courts. Mistakes happen, but most people don't seek physical confrontation. Society doesn't function if people seek physical confrontation with law enforcement.

This man was different for some reason. I hope he is a rare case.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#244

Post by masondixon »

bonzini wrote: post #242
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…

It's not at least up to $1,350. They can offer _as little as_ $1,350 even if the ticket costs more than $1,350/4 = $337.50, but there's no upper limit. Apparently their policy is to never go above 4x the cost of the ticket (they said it's $800 in this case, your computation in another message said $1030, but airline fares are really complex). That's a valid policy. But they should definitely have offered cash instead…

> But they should definitely have offered cash instead of vouchers.

They are allowed to offer vouchers or free flights.

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

Should the law be different. Maybe. But the law is the law.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#246

Post by bonzini »

rdtsc wrote: post #35

> , but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines management. What's the point of mentioning that? They are wearing United Uniforms even. However United wants to distribute its routes, how it hires its contractors, flight attendants etc is its business. It seems like a way to divert blame. (United is great, it's…

For example it may mean that they're not allowed to put you on the next United flight. It makes the situation even more complicated.

It doesn't shift the blame from United to Republic or vice versa of course.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#247

Post by 1024core »

rhino369 wrote: post #220
gnopgnip wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not a "tenuous interpretation of the law". That is the right interpretation of the law. Once you have been accepted as a passenger and boarded the plan and been seated, there's no legal reason for the airline to eject you without cause.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#248

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #216
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…

"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.

Ok "completely free market approach" was a bad statement.

A "generous free market approach" maybe is better, as the penalty for bumping is steep.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#249

Post by 1024core »

hueving wrote: post #70
dba7dba wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation." How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?

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.

> Any time you hear them asking for volunteers at the gate and offering money.

I can't believe people keep bringing this up. THIS WAS NOT "AT THE GATE". The passenger had already boarded and been seated. The "volunteer at the gate" and "overbooking" situations do NOT apply anymore.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#250

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

I would argue that Dr. Dao continued to have a legal right to be on the plane until at least after the purchase price of his ticket had been refunded in cash. At that time, he could possibly be trespassed off the aircraft. But until then, he remained boarded and seated, with a valid lease on that seat, with the default rights of all humans, plus any additional rights granted to airline passengers by US law. He didn't voluntarily leave, because he had no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't actually have a choice in the matter. You can't voluntarily do anything if not doing that thing is attached to the threat of force. He refused to be coerced out of his seat, and had to be forced. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it, if there is no meaningful choice.

And then, the instant he's off the plane, they can either hand over another 4x multiple of his fare in cash, and tell the guy to sod off, or they can make a best effort to get the guy to his destination and possibly still pay him something when the alternate transportation arrives, according to how many hours of delay the passenger experienced.

While the media have been quoting $1350 as a maximum, 14CFR250.5(e) mandated reviews in 2012 and every 2 years thereafter, that use the CPI-U index to adjust the maximums. The CPI-U of August 2011 was 226545, and the CPI-U of July 2016 was 240647. So the 1-to-2-hour-delay compensation cap should be $675 * 240647/226545, rounded to the nearest $25, which is $725, and the over-2-hour-delay compensation cap is twice that, or $1450. Inflation.

Furthermore, the airline may offer vouchers and discounts only if their value equals or exceeds the cash value they would otherwise be required to pay, and the passenger is not required to accept them in lieu of cash. I would argue that an $800 travel voucher that expires in one year is worth much less than $800 in cash, especially when the average American travels by air only once per year. I would personally value $800 in expiring vouchers at around $200 cash.

Post reply on HN