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

301–310 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#301

Post by [deleted] »

gumby wrote: post #295
treehau5 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident. Indeed don't know you, treehau5 and how your life has been, any more than you know mine. But yes, I do have some idea: when I first came to America in the 1960s with my parents we landed in D.C. My parents knew to drive north because had we tried to stay in Virginia we would not have been permitted to all stay in t…

[deleted]

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#302

Post by tuna-piano »

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…

Edit:

I didn't explain the Rosa Parks analogy fully, so here's my thought process:

1. Sometimes there are unjust laws or company policies

2. People have busy lives, and in general just go with the flow.

3. Putting a face and a concrete story to a policy is what really makes the general population realize the unjustness of a policy. Public uproar leads to market and political policy changes. Rosa Parks' story led to uproar and changes in a similar way that Dr. Dao's story has. United has already changed their law enforcement policy and crew booking policy. Delta upped their max amount for compensation. The situation was talked about in a presidential press conference, and by countless politicians. This wouldn't have happened without the public uproar, which wouldn't have happened if Dr Dao went peacefully. Future airline consumers now have more rights because of Dr Dao, and they should be thankful for his actions (I know I am).

I will clarify again, all analogies break down, and I am not comparing the magnitude of the injustices or the societal importance of the policy changes... just the general process. They do seem similar to me.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#303

Post by dalbasal »

tzs wrote: post #294
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.…

> 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. If you frame it that way, then it does sound outrageous. This: > They were informed th…

I think you make a fair point, and I concede that my accusation is not airtight abstracted from this incident and industry. I don't know what the absolute dividing line to corporatism is. This is murky water.

I would say that calling Dr Dao a trespasser is stretching either the term or the truth. The actions of police vis-a-vis passengers are not dictated by just general laws (like trespassing) that govern everything. They a dictated by industry specific regulations & policies about what is & isn't OK for the passenger and/or airline to do. These regulations are implicitly and explicitly written around the business models of the airlines, in collaboration with them.

We could probably litigate the details of this incident incident at length along the lines you suggest, but I don't think you can ever find the smoking gun of corporatism in individual details. Corporatism is about the systemic.

Corporatism exists where corporate and state power are merged.

In this case, a tell tale sign is how confused commenters on this thread (and journalists) get about about what is airline policy and what is industry regulation.

For example, it turns out (I think) that the regulator sets maximum compensation for involuntary deboarding while airlines set their own max for voluntary deboarding. I imagine that most passengers, crew & airport police have as much trouble demarcating these as journalists do.

When the regulator sits down to try and prevent future incidents like this (maybe right now), they'll ask to see United's policies on involuntary deboarding. They might get United to revise the lottery policy. They might issue new guidelines. They might standardise deboarding policies banning lotteries. Or United might, it's hard to tell.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#304

Post by logfromblammo »

FireBeyond wrote: post #277
tacostakohashi wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 StubHu…

I was arguing that at minimum, he would have to be refunded on the spot. That is the absolute, ground-zero starting point for even beginning to reneg on a ticket sale.

Some contracts include explicit rescission terms. No doubt United's adhesion contract contains some that are overwhelmingly tilted in their favor. But no matter what sleazy terms United puts in for itself, it absolutely cannot get away with keeping the money and refusing the service. That would be beyond the pale. But considering the way airlines operate, I would not be surprised if that is the bare minimum they would do on their own initiative. It takes a government pointing a gun at their heads for them to grudgingly give more.

On a matter of a car, it might be enough to refund the buyer before delivery of the vehicle and before titles were exchanged. After title is transferred, the deal is done. That's like demanding your money back after getting kicked off the plane at your final destination. You got what you bought. That's why if you don't trust your counterparty, it's always safest to pay only when you take delivery.

If you go to a movie theater, the management could refund you to kick you out before the end of the show. At an amusement park, kicking you out would requires nothing more than a refund. In those cases, people are not relying upon provision of those services to make money or avoid additional expenses.

For an airline ticket, there may be a tangible cost to not getting to your destination on time. And the compensation regulations may be designed to account for reasonable consideration. The airline can't know ahead of time that if passenger X is not in city Y by time Z, they will not be able to work at that time and will therefore lose $W as a direct result of their breach. But they should have a pretty good idea that disrupting people's travel plans can cost them, because travel insurance exists.

But that refund is the minimum necessary to revoke one's legal right to be on someone else's restricted-access private property. You have to at least take care of that before calling on the cops to remove someone. It doesn't absolve you of any other obligations resulting from your breach, but would be a gesture that recognized the paying customer's right to be present.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#305

Post by opo »

tzs wrote: post #294
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.…

> 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. If you frame it that way, then it does sound outrageous. This: > They were informed th…

>...The airline owns the plane. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed on the plane. They allowed that particular passenger onto the plane, and then later they revoked that permission. When he refuses to leave at that point, doesn't he become a trespasser?

I think an argument can be made against treating this as trespass. There is a (rather long) contract between the passenger and the airline. There are many reasons they list on the contract why they can deny transport, but wanting that seat for their own use is not one of the reasons. If a landlord rents you an apartment, there are reasons they can have the police evict you, but wanting to kick you out because the landlord wants to use the apartment for the use of his family is not one of them.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#306

Post by tacostakohashi »

logfromblammo wrote: post #304
FireBeyond wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 StubHu…

I was arguing that at minimum , he would have to be refunded on the spot. That is the absolute, ground-zero starting point for even beginning to reneg on a ticket sale. Some contracts include explicit rescission terms. No doubt United's adhesion contract contains some that are overwhelmingly tilted in their favor. But no matter what sleazy terms United puts in for itself, it absolutely cannot get away with keeping th…

On the matter of a car (or, anything else), delivery and titles are irrelevant - if you've accepted payment ("consideration"), the deal is done (and enforceable in court), and the delivery, titles, etc are things that must be done to avoid defaulting on the deal.

Your assertion that the purchase price is the "minimum necessary" is completely baseless in law. I guess it's the minimum necessary for the offer to not be a joke, but beyond that it carries no weight.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#307

Post by ceejayoz »

tarlinian wrote: post #290
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…

This guy didn't get kicked off the plane...he was put in an lower class (and some guy in Economy maybe got bumped).

The article states first he "was asked to get off the plane by an airline employee because the flight had been overbooked".

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#308

Post by sangnoir »

logicallee wrote: post #128
sangnoir wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discreetly accepting blame GP isn't suggesting there isn't any blame, but that United is low-key accepting the blame/'taking one for the team'. United has decided not to throw any of the involved parties under the bus, even though it is likely that most of them - possibly all of them - do not work directly for United.

This makes no sense to me. The subcontracted brands are worthless, like actually bankrupt, and nobody knows them. Why take the brand hit on "United"? I wouldn't call it "throwing them under the bus" to at least mention this. The amount of backlash against United and its brand is hideous.

> Why take the brand hit on "United"?

Maybe because United badly wants Republic to not go into liquidation? As to how badly - the dollar value is the difference between how much United is paying to contract versus how much they would have to pay their own Union staff.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#309

Post by mike-cardwell »

IIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #67
mike-cardwell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably, the "the lack of training" is related to how to resolve situations without resorting to force. When people say that they lack training, it's not about being trained not to attack somebody, it's about being trained (and more importantly empowered) to resolve situations before they get to that point. Because when there are no options left, you only have force.

That does not change anything I wrote. > Because when there are no options left, you only have force. It actually makes it worse that you try to justify it. You used your brainpower to find a justification for what is. But there is none. This is a non sequitur - there is no reason to use force even when people don't cooperate! Also, the vast majority of such instances require no special level of competence to deescal…

"there is no reason to use force even when people don't cooperate"

This is utter nonsense.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#310

Post by IIIIIIIIIIII »

SilasX wrote: post #287
acqq wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the claim you have put inside the quotes as being made by IIIIIIIIIIII, therefore your argument seems fake.

Well, I'm trying to parse it, but as best I can tell, III...'s claim is just "Americans suck at this" combined with implausible claims and explicit rejections of any plausible ones. Somehow, the mere act of evicting someone is evidence of needing to de-escalate more, as if that could somehow avoid needing to ever remove someone. Or even if you did, you could somehow do it both without training and without attacking,…

From your previous comment, above, that I didn't respond to:

> that substantiates your earlier claim that "no one is ever forcibly removed by police and if they needed to be, it wouldn't require training".

Fortunately anyone can easily see what I wrote. Your style disgusts me.

Post reply on HN