Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#11

Post by toufka »

Karunamon wrote: post #4

Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect, the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became necessary. The fact that there is an "authorized limit" is squarely on United. Start offering cash money to give up your seat, rather that near-worthless vouchers, as they are authorized and supposed to per FAA regs, and eventually, I guaran-freaking-tee you will find ta…

>United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place.

Yep. And that actually yet further shifts the blame towards United even from your split. If you call in security goons, you can't get mad when they act like security goons. Just because United didn't bust the guy's lip doesn't mean they couldn't reasonably foresee that happening once they picked up their telephone to call in security.

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#12

Post by k-mcgrady »

While the violent part of the incident is the fault of security (why should a non-violent, non-threatening passenger have violence used against him???) the airline should never have been in this position. Stop overbooking flights. Pay to put your 'deadhead' crew on another airline. OR offer passengers an incentive above the one they are entitled to by law instead of trying to get them to accept less than that before giving up. It's just terrible business practice because they know they can usually get away with it and can save themselves a few $.

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#13

Post by jeffjose »

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

The offending party (in the court of law) might be the security officers. But as a passenger, Dr. Dao bought the ticket from United and it was their responsibility to treat him with dignity and safely transport him to his final destination. The situation arose due to lapse in United's protocols -- which was probably enforced by Chicago Airport Security officials.

I could make another argument, for the security officers, that they were just following protocols. Maybe the gate agents let the security know that the passenger isn't leaving even after "politely" requesting him to. The security officers, hence rightfully, assumed he was a threat to other passengers and used force.

All of this comes down to the fact that United started this, and they could have easily avoided the whole thing.

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#15

Post by grecy »

charles-salvia wrote: post #9

Good article. But I have to ask for clarification for this statement: "Empty seats cost the airlines money, and they need to recoup those losses somehow." What does this mean? The issue here is overbooked seats. If a seat is physically empty during the flight because the passenger just doesn't show up, the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket/seat is still (pre)paid for. Overbooking is simply a way for the air…

> If a seat is physically empty because the passenger just doesn't show up, the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket is still paid for. Overbooking is simply a way for the airlines to make extra money on top of what they would normally make

Your logic is perfectly reasonable and sound, and it took me many years of working for Big Corp (TM) to understand that is simply not how a big corporation thinks.

Once they have a revenue stream, anything that diminishes it is a "loss", even if that revenue stream was kind of fake or invented anyway.

The massive company I worked for was making millions per week from something that was accidental and they shouldn't have been. But it went on for so long, they got so attached to it (those millions looked great on year-end reports) that soon any talk of "fixing" the problem was referred to as a "revenue loss" and it was completely unacceptable to the business, unless your proposed change kept the revenue.

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#16

Post by sergiocarnitas »

I think there are two issues here:

1) That United could have him removed to begin with. Call this the social issue.

2) That he was removed violently. Call this the physical issue.

It's because these things are combined that we get the outrage we're feeling now.

Police interact violently with people all the time. Often it gets overlooked because they were doing something wrong to cause it.

People also get removed from flights all the time, but usually it gets ignored because we can't see their frustration as easily as we could see blood on Mr. Dao's face.

United is absolutely responsible for the social issue, but I don't agree that they're responsible for the physical one. The police should have explored other options that didn't involve violence in order to get him off of the plane.

At the point Mr. Dao was at, he was essentially trespassing on United's plane (not something I agree should be the case, but the way that I understand the policies of the airlines' governing body, that is the way it is looked at once they decide he should leave).

Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

#18

Post by nxc18 »

charles-salvia wrote: post #9

Good article. But I have to ask for clarification for this statement: "Empty seats cost the airlines money, and they need to recoup those losses somehow." What does this mean? The issue here is overbooked seats. If a seat is physically empty during the flight because the passenger just doesn't show up, the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket/seat is still (pre)paid for. Overbooking is simply a way for the air…

Not defending United, but the airline industry is known for having pretty slim margins.

Air travel is fantastically expensive and we all want it to be cheaper than it really is. This is one of the ways that is done (people who don't show up pay for other people and displaced passengers move to underfilled flights).

The practice is annoying, but I think with the exception of bungled reqccomodation is a net plus for the consumer.

Post reply on HN