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

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#341

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #332

mikeash wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane. Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have. By taking the decis…

We can both say what we think both parties should have done, but this is entirely subjective and would come down to ideological differences and feelings. > Where United went wrong This is where we can find some truth to the matter. What does wrong mean here. Each side could have averted this event. And each side lost something from this event. Dr - Lost his dignity, became a celebrity with his face plastered around t…

Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary.

This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well?

Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily.

Why do you insist that "it is" childish behavior from a professional adult, exclusively and ignore the behavior of the airline, which brought violence into a situation that did not call for it?

This is why I don't say that you're wrong, but that you are being extremely one-sided. You continue to attack the passenger's behavior while ignoring or outright justifying the airline's behavior.

The passenger should have complied, and the airline should never have put themselves in a position where they might have needed to threaten force. Do you not agree?

If you do agree, then understand that people focus more on the airline for some really good reasons, namely that they started it, and they wield all of the power. We place more responsibility on entities which start something than those who merely respond, and more responsibility on entities with power than those without.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#342

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #333

chillwaves wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its their private property and they can do as they wish. This statement right here so totally exposes your pro corporate bias. No, a person cannot "do as they wish" even on their own private property. We still have rights as citizens. We still have rights as CONSUMERS even. Do you disagree? If not then you need to reevaluate your whole stance because the foundation is incorrect. We do not lose our rights as consume…

I said: "Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property." You said I said: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish." I chose my words carefully, and you have removed some to create your scarecrow. They have interpreted the contract in one way and acted upon it. Even if the man interpreted it diffe…

Wat? That's a direct copy/paste from your comment. It's right there: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish."

Did you forget that you wrote it, neglect to go back and check, and then attack this person for quoting your literal words? Unbelievable. It's not a "scarecrow," it's a literal, unadulterated quote.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#343

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

wayn3 wrote: post #261

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

With regards to your proposed solution... I've often wondered how it is not considered fraudulent to overbook a flight already.

Isn't the act of overbooking akin to writing a check for an amount of money that you do not have in your account balance? If this can be considered fraud, why do the airlines get a break?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#344

Post by wayn3 » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #343

wayn3 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

With regards to your proposed solution... I've often wondered how it is not considered fraudulent to overbook a flight already. Isn't the act of overbooking akin to writing a check for an amount of money that you do not have in your account balance? If this can be considered fraud, why do the airlines get a break?

because a ticket is not really a ticket. it is more like an agreement that if you show up at the airport and the airlins is down to transporting you, they could go through with that plan.

when you book a ticket, it says in the fineprint that you acquiring that ticket doesnt mean that you get to fly.

it is more like a bank pretending to have your exact balance available at all times. in fact, they do not. they kinda bet on the fact that not all customers want to cash out at the same time, which works almost all the time except when the banking sector melts down and all customers try to cash out at once and then banks have to admit that they cant really pay you out even if they wanted to.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#345

Post by mimmmi » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #305

tzs wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 airl…

I will change a few words in your question to make some senses. >>...A convenience store owns the place. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed to buy (candy, alcohol, cigarettes...). They sold to that particular client, the client paid it, and then later the store revoked the sell. When the client refuses to return the item at that point, doesn't he become a theft? I am sorry to say the client is not trespassing since he already paid, he got this seat number and is already seated in the plane. The trespassers were the 4 employers that the crew has decided to kick the 4 others clients. That is called favoritism.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#346

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #289

fatbird wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the linked article demonstrates, you actually can't reliably or easily. For practical purposes it is often a secret.

No, it is not a secret. Anybody who claims you can't reliably see if something is a codeshare or regional well in advance is lying, flat-out. I just went to Air Canada's site, punched in a one-way YVR-SFO and picked a date. And do you know what? I see three types of listings: * Air Canada flights, which show an Air Canada logo. * Codeshare flights, which show a Star Alliance logo and say "Operated by United Airlines"…

Do you know prior to paying for your discount fair?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#347

Post by mimmmi » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 12:47 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #266

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…

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…

A plane must followed it pre-defined Flight plans. A plane that does not take off as scheduled get pay a fine... that is the reason why, the rent-a-cop were used, to speed up the process so the airliner can take off as soon as possible.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#348

Post by rootsudo » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 1:00 AM UTC

taurath wrote: post #91

ryandrake wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infuriating thing about all of this is how deliberately obfuscated and phony everything is: * Airline employees who aren't quite airline employees * Cops who aren't quite cops * Reserved seats that aren't quite reserved Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore?

Microsoft employees that aren't Microsoft employees..

Yep, Wipro, Experis and Unisys are popular now for MSFT.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#349

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #289

fatbird wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the linked article demonstrates, you actually can't reliably or easily. For practical purposes it is often a secret.

No, it is not a secret. Anybody who claims you can't reliably see if something is a codeshare or regional well in advance is lying, flat-out. I just went to Air Canada's site, punched in a one-way YVR-SFO and picked a date. And do you know what? I see three types of listings: * Air Canada flights, which show an Air Canada logo. * Codeshare flights, which show a Star Alliance logo and say "Operated by United Airlines"…

Not all of us book our own flights. Sometimes my only input is "Air Canada, direct if possible please". I've also been bumped from an actual Air Canada flight onto one of their "partners" totally against my will long after my purchase. After a long day, and then being bumped, I'm not in the mood to fight petty contract battles with a gate agent.

The absolute worst version of this happened to me on a SFO-YVR flight with a stopover in seattle. The seatle-vancouver flight was cancelled due to "weather" ... or more likely that there were only five of us booked on the flight. Plenty of other planes were operating out of Seattle that night and ours was the only one cancelled. So we were bumped from "Westjet" to a BUS COMPANY for a drive to Vancouver as that was cheaper than putting us in hotels overnight.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#350

Post by opo » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 1:16 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #266

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…

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…

>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.

The correct solution in this case is that if an airline decides that they want to reclaim 4 seats that were sold to customers, that they figure out a way to get 4 people to voluntarily give up their seats. This was not the last plane out of Saigon. Likely a very small percentage of the flight would not leave the plane for any amount of money (family emergency, etc) and the rest would happily give up their seat for some amount of money. One person on that flight said they would give up their seat for $1500 and the employees laughed at him. For example, I imagine if they offered $10,000 that the vast majority of the plane would have raised their hands. Delta has increased their max offers to about that amount and I assume United will do the same.

>""We're very sorry, but due to scheduling conflicts caused by a disruptive passenger,

So someone who paid for something and doesn't want it taken away is now considered "disruptive"? If a landlord signs a lease with a tenant he can't just decide to kick the person out and use violence agains the "disruptive" tenant who wants the landlord to live up their side of the contract. The airline contract of carriage specifies reasons why someone might be denied transport, but wanting to reclaim your seat for use by their employee is not one of them.