Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident • Hacker News Board

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#271

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

Point of fact: maximum is now, by my calculation of the numbers, $1450. 14CFR250.5(e) included an inflation factor based on CPI-u, since August 2011.

And that's $1450 cash. If you want to give vouchers, they have to be worth more than the cash equivalent to begin with, and the customer has to give voluntary, informed consent to accept them. No one in their right mind would give expiring travel vouchers value equivalence with the same face value in actual cash.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#272

Post by tw04 » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

rollingRelease wrote: post #122

tw04 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the amount of time and effort it takes to become a pilot? Not to mention the constantly being away from your family, and having the lives of thousands of people in your hands month in and month out. 60k is absolutely low.

Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree, excepting for indirect compensation that might not appear as part of taxable salary. Considering how much expensing for (airline) food and (corporate rate) hotels enters the picture, there's probably a substantial additional cost lurking behind that salary. Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, beli…

>Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone.

I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in my life. I have never once had any company ever try to pitch travel as a "perk". There's a reason why they call out the amount of travel in the job description, and there's a reason any job I've ever had that has a lot of travel they make sure you realize it's part of the job due to the burden. Furthermore, every job I've ever had that included lots of travel compensated you MORE because they understand that burden.

If you're ever in a position where you're a hiring manager and you try to fill a travel-based position by telling candidates that they're getting a lower salary due to the "perks" of travel, you'reg going to be searching for a LONGGGGGGGG time.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#273

Post by tacostakohashi » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #250

bb611 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In general, that's not how selling things works. If you sell something, you don't have the right to change your mind later by refunding the money and taking the thing back. I'd argue that, even if the flight attendant had the cash in hand, Dr Dao would have been be under no obligation to accept it.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#274

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #109

ubernostrum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that he seizes on this "well I bet you didn't know the airline is DECEIVING you" to spin a whole sinister thing and it just destroys his credibility. Every industry has commonplace things that can be made to look bad, and usually the people who try to take advantage of that are quacks.

> Every industry has commonplace things that can be made to look bad, and usually the people who try to take advantage of that are quacks. Every industry has commonplace things that can be made to look bad, but then every industry has commonplace things that are bad and should not be happening. Those happen because people can't coordinate well enough to resist them, but that doesn't mean they're OK to have. The longe…

I don't buy the argument that regional affiliates and code-sharing are inherently bad, though. For example, there are certainly problems with specific ways regionals have been used by certain airlines (and United is the biggest offender), but the flip side of it is increasing the number of places you can reach by air. There are a lot of cities in the US that don't have enough demand to consistently fill 150-seat mainline planes but can fill 50- or 76-seat regionals.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#275

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #189

ceejayoz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. The contract with United says you can be denied boarding, but not much about boarding and then being kicked off after. > If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. That's no guarantee. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/328495-uni... > Geoff Fearns…

> The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... Seems this is part of the contract. Who would he be angry with if the weather caused the plane…

All of that's in the "denied boarding" section. This guy, given that he was on the plane and sitting in his seat, wasn't denied boarding. He boarded.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#276

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #193

ubernostrum wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trespassing argument is very shaky. There's good analysis out there of the regulations and contract of carriage suggesting the airline had no basis to order him off in the first place, and generally to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there. And since the instruction to leave his seat may n…

>to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there. It doesn't? Trespass is criminal while a contract is civil. The police don't enforce contracts do they? Further, I should be able to break a contract at will (how could that ability even be taken away?) and accept the consequences.

What you're arguing for is the ability to manufacture a crime on someone else's part, at will. I don't think you would enjoy living in a society which allows that.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#277

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #273

logfromblammo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In general, that's not how selling things works. If you sell something, you don't have the right to change your mind later by refunding the money and taking the thing back. I'd argue that, even if the flight attendant had the cash in hand, Dr Dao would have been be under no obligation to accept it.

Right. This was a similar situation to StubHub (I believe). Buyer buys tickets to a Lakers game for $950 for 4 tickets. Two weeks later, Kobe announces retirement. This game, which was to be a fairly low interest affair (two bottom dwelling teams, not play off bound), suddenly skyrockets. Now you could pay $1500 PER ticket for those seats.

Guy is pretty happy.

Until _six weeks_ later when he gets an email from StubHub saying "Sorry, the seller told us he sold those tickets in error, so we are refunding you."

Imagine I sell you a car. We sign a contract, you pay me, titles are transferred.

A while later I come back and say "No, I don't want to sell the car any more/ I made a mistake/ I got a higher/better offer" (like, say, the need to deadhead flight crew to a city?). You say "No. Sorry. It's my car now."

I take the car anyway, and leave you an envelope with the money you paid me, saying "Oh, we're good now."

Except in almost any situation, we're not, even with that envelope. It's theft.

I realize this is a service, not a product, and as a result, there are slight differences to the analog, but nonetheless, there are some very similar principles in play.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#278

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #252

mikeash wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence with…

You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it.

I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards.

However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off.

This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#279

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

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.

You really should read the analyses people are posting about that. I don't know of any credible people saying it's flat-out always illegal to remove someone after allowing them onboard, but I do know of credible people saying the legally and contractually permitted reasons for it are few in number and the reason given in this situation (to make room for deadheading crew) is not one of those permitted reasons.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#280

Post by chimeracoder » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

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).

> 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).

This is wrong. By Department of Transportation rules, the airlines is required to pay up to 400% (max of $1,300) for an involuntary rebooking that results in a two-hour delay or more. Airlines might try to get you to accept less by offering voluntary rebooking for less, but if they bump you involuntarily, that's what they're required to pay, and it's not sufficient to offer only a voucher with restrictions.

European airlines pull the same sorts of tricks to try to reduce the amount that they pay out, or to get travelers to accept vouchers instead. It's not limited to the US.