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

31–38 of 38 posts

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

#31

Post by grecy »

maxerickson wrote: post #21
grecy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

Is it somehow controversial that selling more tickets for flights will tend to lower costs per ticket? The particular incident isn't really a good one to base discussions on, it was so egregious that the discussions are boring. It shouldn't have happened. There is a more interesting discussion to have about overbooking, whether to allow it and how to deal with the situation where they get it wrong and don't have enou…

We're not even talking the particular incident.

We're talking about how companies view the loss of "extra money" as a loss of revenue, when in fact they are already perfectly well making all the revenue they were before they invented the "extra money".

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

#32

Post by k-mcgrady »

rhizome wrote: post #28
k-mcgrady wrote: post #12

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…

Stop overbooking flights. The flight was not oversold. There were 70 seats, 70 passengers, and 70 tickets. It was only the four deadheaders who put capacity over the limit.

Yes, in this case. But overbooking is common, causes similar issues, and this incident has at least highlighted it in the media.

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

#33

Post by powerfoolx »

Some people seems to be really buying the shit united was selling with CNN. Using a contract seems to be the silver bullet to get the company of everything.

That's just pathetic, as a consumer, if you buy a ticket from United. The thing is between you and the United, no matter how United manage their business, it's completely irrelevant for the consumer.

If we buy a poisoned food, I have no interest in finding who's responsibility it is, I go directly to the person who sells it. It's falls on the United to file lawsuit etc to determine their messy relationships and responsibilities.

Consumers don't need to know that, the case for contract. Period

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

#34

Post by ReligiousFlames »

sugarpile wrote: post #6

"Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect, the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became necessary." Looks like United's fault to me. On a side note, I'll never understand wanting to side with a corporation on a matter like this.

This op-ed feels like confirmation bias, rationalization tribalism.

Instead of offering cash-on-the-spot up to the limit for people already boarded in seats , they picked people at random and then used violence to remove anyone whom refuses to vacate said seats.

They could've picked other passengers, offered cash as mentioned or rented the deadhead flightcrew a car.

But no, "just following the rules/orders" leads to broken teeth, blood everywhere and dragging through aisle. I sure hope the family wins a large civil lawsuit because that seems one of the few ways to teach corporations a lesson.

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

#35

Post by andreyf »

notacoward wrote: post #26
andreyf wrote: post #7

United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone, likely in violation of their contract with them: https://www.facebook.com/erik.bauman/posts/10106083654220072 The crew should absolutely have exhibited some agency and basic human dignity and intervened to prevented airport security for de-boarding a passenger who had already been seated. It would have saved everyone tons of time and their company a…

> United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone Actually no, it was Republic who did that. United definitely screwed up, but not in that particular way.

Fair 'nuff, didn't realize another airline was involved. Seems clear to me that everyone is at fault for not standing up in the face of something so blatantly wrong and inhumane happening.

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

#36

Post by jjeaff »

notacoward wrote: post #25

As a pilot, the author should know that Dao was not interfering with a crew member, because the flight attendants did not become crew members in law until the door was closed (according to 49USC§46501) and/or the aircraft was moving under its own power (according to 14CFR§91). Yes, it's silly, and counterintuitive, and even contradictory. Welcome to law. This is the law that United's defenders keep trying to invoke,…

I really hope that specific law comes into play. Especially since it seems to be used to justify not paying flight attendants until they are "officially" part of the crew.

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

#37

Post by Ritjert »

grecy wrote: post #15
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 the…

THIS!

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

#38

Post by misingnoglic »

charles-salvia wrote: post #24
maxerickson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it somehow controversial that selling more tickets for flights will tend to lower costs per ticket? The particular incident isn't really a good one to base discussions on, it was so egregious that the discussions are boring. It shouldn't have happened. There is a more interesting discussion to have about overbooking, whether to allow it and how to deal with the situation where they get it wrong and don't have enou…

Some upper-scale restaurants charge you a "no-show" fee, using the credit card used for the reservation. Maybe airlines could do this? (Of course, the difference is that restaurants don't receive the actual payment for services with no-shows.)

Why would that make sense for airlines? Missing a flight and then paying extra sounds awful, especially since the justification is "we could have also sold your seat to someone else."
Post reply on HN