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

261–270 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#261

Post by wayn3 »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #254
dalbasal wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

There's plenty of naked corporatism at play in this incident, and police forces acting as de-facto corporate goons is a big problem in America. But I think in this case the individual cops who said "OK, I guess that's our job" were probably not at all supported by the law or even their own departmental policy - I think this is part of the reason the incident made such waves, because the police actions were so beyond…

theres also the fact that the person in question clearly posed no threat to anyone whatsoever. So even if he was a terrorist, theres no reason to potentially break his back, which is clearly a potential outcome when you yank someone out of a seat, past an armrest, as depicted in the video.

police in a lot of other countries achieve a lot more by just convincing uncooperative individuals with words than they do with blunt, pointless force, in murica.

there seems to be the strongly held opinion that "if they do something wrong, we have the right to treat them like shit and whatever that gets them is well deserved".

the idea that this was actually police, and not some random "security grunt" went completely over my head because this is not how police acts where I live.

for the overarching problem, theres a really simple solution: make it legislation that an airline may not book more seats than they have available. if you overbooked trains or busses or cruise ships or any other mode of transportation where you require a seat, people would call bullshit. airlines, however, somehow obtained the right to sell "the idea of a seat".

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#262

Post by FireBeyond »

bonzini wrote: post #257
masondixon wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but only for voluntary bumping. Involuntary bumping requires the airline to pay cash if the passenger insists on that. It seems reasonable to offer cash before moving to involuntary bumping. Anyone who can read would request cash rather than vouchers worth the same $$$ (a $2000 voucher might be different, but they didn't offer that, either). And even if they didn't, they could have drawn say 10 passengers instea…

> Involuntary bumping requires the airline to pay cash if the passenger insists on that.

Not even "insists on it", they are required to pay cash or check, only, for IDB.

Their "dirty little secret" (which makes it sound 'naughty', as opposed to the more accurate 'illegal') is that for many years they've been offering vouchers in this situation.

And then there's this argument that the gate agent came on to the plane, and asked for volunteers, and then having no/not enough volunteers began involuntarily denying boarding, and the argument is that "having boarded, any removal of a passenger is involuntary, because by definition/law, voluntary denial doesn't involve demanding passengers give up seats after boarding or refusing to fly the aircraft".

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#263

Post by ehasbrouck »

joshcrawford wrote: post #245

Statements like this need to be backed up with something of substance "victim of 'minor' but routine Chicago police torture who still feels the pain of my police-inflicted injury occasionally, more than 35 years later."

The article wasn't about me or my experience. I disclosed this background fact in case some readers might think it relevant in assessing my reporting and analysis. I've spoken publicly before about my experiences with Chicago police (not the Aviation Department police), including "minor" torture. (I repeat the qualifier, although in quotation marks because no torture is truly minor.) It hasn't risen to the top of my priorities to write about it in detail, largely because there are so many more significant stories of Chicago police torture, told and untold.

I wrote about my first arrest by Chicago police (not the one after which I was tortured) here:

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002168.html

If you want to discuss my personal history, get in touch with me directly, or leave a comment on my personal blog, which is probably a better place for that personal discussion than this third-party forum.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#264

Post by yebyen »

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…

They are also legally required to inform you of your rights once your ticket has been revoked. Judging from the fact they still were calling him a "volunteer" as of the CEO's press release the next day, I'd bet they did not actually go through any of this process of revoking his ticket. If this is a policy then these internal policies are wrong too.

I don't know what conversation they had with him, but I'd wager a guess their policies are slanted in the direction of calling it a voluntary bump no matter what actually happens. If you don't ever actually revoke their ticket, you never actually have to pay out at 400% of the ticket value! /s

It is not the passenger's responsibility to know their rights and request the cash payout either, it is the airline's responsibility to apprise them of their full rights when the ticket is revoked for any reason. Negotiating would be offering $1600 in vouchers (or say, a value in excess of 400% ticket price) to avoid a cash payout. I would call it "negotiating in bad faith" to offer a lesser value of non-cash vouchers than the amount that the passenger is actually entitled to receive in cash, by law. (At least once you've decided, as in this case, which passenger is the passenger that is being bumped.)

I don't know what exactly "revoking the ticket" means, or if it has anything to do with a physical boarding pass, but I've heard lots of conjecture suggesting that since he was boarded and in his seat, they would not have been within their rights to revoke his ticket at all. He would have had to meet one of the "Rule 21" criteria for Refusal of Transport, in other words, those cases limited to reasons including government request, safety, failure to pay, or in cases of international travel where your documents are found to be not in order.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#265

Post by treehau5 »

gumby wrote: post #224
AdamN wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you think there is insight to be gained by this analogy, you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident. They are not comparable in any way shape or form. There is literally no insight to be had. It's a horrible analogy.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#266

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate.

Planes aren't trains, either. They can fly on any heading, with speed and distance dependent only on fuel supply.

"We're very sorry, but due to scheduling conflicts caused by a disruptive passenger, this aircraft will now be departing for Fargo, North Dakota, instead of Louisville, Kentucky, with earliest possible takeoff slot in six hours. Please deplane and form a line at the gate agent's desk to arrange for alternate transportation, or stay on this plane as it is pushed back from the gate for six hours, with no airflow, locked bathrooms, and no easy way to return to the terminal, and then go to Fargo, where you will get no compensation from the airline, nor any assistance getting to any other destination."

I'd get off "voluntarily". If that's the bluff, I definitely wouldn't want to call it. After I get off, the pilot says, "Psych!" and the original flight to Louisville is back on, and everyone at the gate gets back on the plane without me. If any cop was called at all, he gives me a complimentary cart ride back outside the secured area, and talks the whole way about that one time Sheriff Andy let him put his bullet in.

A plane doesn't have to take off on time. It doesn't have to take off at all. Once the airline decides it isn't taking off with you on the plane, you're just not going to be seeing any cloud tops from where you're currently sitting. At that point, it's only a matter of what it's going to cost to make you leave. And you have to rely on the company's assessment of what would be the cheapest way to do that. Hopefully, the rule of law is strong enough that "beat him up" is costlier than idling a whole plane on the tarmac for a few hours.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#267

Post by kefka »

treehau5 wrote: post #265
gumby wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you think there is insight to be gained by this analogy, you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident. They are not comparable in any way shape or form. There is literally no insight to be had. It's a horrible analogy.

It seems the area where they are connected, is the rights of "Average Citizens vs Big Companies". Or better yet, poor people. (Yes I know he's a doctor, and has means to legally defend himself- he's an exception.)

But how would you or I fare in this? We'd get assaulted, arrested, lives put in turmoil, and for what? Yeah, a pile of debt.

Black people in the US have a substantially more of this to go through, primarily due to racial targeting and profiling. That's not to even discuss targeting crack cocaine and "nigger weed" for extra punishment (marijuana, go look up Hearst, Nixon, and others' comments *why marijuana was illegalized).

So yeah, the analogy does sound rather decent. Except it's not White vs Black, but Monied vs Poor.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#268

Post by zhte415 »

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.

A free market solution would include revevant laews and regulations.

Compensation would come from means to achieve it.

Pleaae tie free market solution as above to compensation

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#269

Post by ubernostrum »

4ad wrote: post #117
ubernostrum wrote: post #80

This is not a good article. For one thing, it goes out of its way to paint fairly ordinary things (the use of regional carriers, and the fact that there are many regional carriers, and many of them have contracts with multiple mainline carriers) as "deceptive" (and implying that code-sharing among partner airlines is also "deceptive"). Which says right off the bat that this is someone who doesn't know how airlines re…

> For one thing, it goes out of its way to paint fairly ordinary things (the use of regional carriers, and the fact that there are many regional carriers, and many of them have contracts with multiple mainline carriers) as "deceptive" (and implying that code-sharing among partner airlines is also "deceptive"). It is deceptive. https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001804.html https://hasbrouck.org/articles/alliances.ht…

The line was:

Which says right off the bat that this is someone who doesn't know how airlines really work, or who is deliberately trying to misrepresent how airlines work in order to make it seem sinister.

Good job on quoting only half of it.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#270

Post by dalbasal »

Berobero wrote: post #259
dalbasal wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I feel it's important to detangle overbooking and involuntary debaording, here. With overbooking itself, up until the point that someone is bumped against their will, the practice is purely a win-win for all; airlines save costs -- a boon for competition and prices -- and passengers volunteering for a later flight get compensation that they view as valuable enough for the inconvenience. For involuntary deboarding, th…

We disagree then, I guess.

One of the big dangers of industry regulating is eroding the border between the public and corporate domains. The line between state regulation and public policy is blurred.

Did United Airlines beat up Dr Dao or was it The State? Who should be prosecutted? Who needs to review their practices to make sure no one else gets ausulted.

In the current system, we need to do as ou suggest. Treat the complex of regulators, corporations & law enforcers as a sigle unit. Tweak the regulations (in collaboration with a half dozen corporations and police agencies) and the practices of all involved.

This is corporatism and it's dangerous.

Post reply on HN