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

United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

nakedcapitalism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 178 posts

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#11

Post by mason55 »

jpollock wrote: post #2

Even if it wasn't a passenger overbooking, it was overbooking in that they failed to properly account for the likelihood of having to ship crews around their network. If their occupancy ratio was lower, then there wouldn't have been a problem, they could have fit the crew in. If they reserved 4 seats for crew on every flight, again there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had even reserved 2 seats and run sufficie…

> run sufficient flights such that the crew got to the target airport in time

Many (some? most? warning, weasel words) airports operate at capacity so just adding more flights might not have been possible even if they wanted to

See, for example, the fights going on at Love Field over gate space

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#12

Post by ubernostrum »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10
droithomme wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make good points. Airplanes used to have jump seats, fold down seats, specifically for accommodating these sorts of crew transfers, so that they wouldn't interfere with normal passenger seating. I wonder if the jump seats were removed at some point in order to increase normal seating.

They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.

If you look in the /r/aviation threads you'll see various people who are airline crew claiming they can fly jumpseat but it's beneath them and they want their regular-seat privileges enforced at basically any cost.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#14

Post by jph »

This is a new kind of UI/UX dark pattern. The United app lets customers pay for seats, and any reasonable person thinks that's the whole of it. But the fine print says that's not true, and says you can be forcibly removed if the flight is oversold.

https://darkpatterns.org/

"When you use the web, you don’t read every word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a company wants to trick you into doing something, they can take advantage of this by making a page look like it is saying one thing when it is in fact saying another."

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#15

Post by LeifCarrotson »

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4
jpollock wrote: post #2

Even if it wasn't a passenger overbooking, it was overbooking in that they failed to properly account for the likelihood of having to ship crews around their network. If their occupancy ratio was lower, then there wouldn't have been a problem, they could have fit the crew in. If they reserved 4 seats for crew on every flight, again there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had even reserved 2 seats and run sufficie…

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

I assume you meant "taze", as in incapacitated him with a Taser electroshock weapon. It's an unfortunate typo, because he seemed quite thorougly distressed, disheveled and without composure - fazed.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#16

Post by yincrash »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10
droithomme wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make good points. Airplanes used to have jump seats, fold down seats, specifically for accommodating these sorts of crew transfers, so that they wouldn't interfere with normal passenger seating. I wonder if the jump seats were removed at some point in order to increase normal seating.

They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.

I have definitely been on Delta flights in the last year where crew in transit used the jumpseats.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#17

Post by dionidium »

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4
jpollock wrote: post #2

Even if it wasn't a passenger overbooking, it was overbooking in that they failed to properly account for the likelihood of having to ship crews around their network. If their occupancy ratio was lower, then there wouldn't have been a problem, they could have fit the crew in. If they reserved 4 seats for crew on every flight, again there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had even reserved 2 seats and run sufficie…

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force

My understanding is that there was a lengthy conversation that took place before the outrage-inducing video starts. They did attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. At some point there is an impasse. Police are making a request and he's ignoring it. There are two ways that can go: 1) Police shrug their shoulders, leave, and let the man have his way; 2) He's going to be forcefully removed.

That is, as far as I can tell, the actual reality of the situation. And anybody advocating for outcome #1 probably has some thinking to do about what it actually means to have a police force at all.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#18

Post by ryanmarsh »

I've been saying for years that the only thing holding back massive disruption in the airline industry is the FAA.

American and United are two of the most poorly run mega-corps in the US. Customers hate them, but need to fly. Warren Buffet thinks they're notoriously bad investments. Why?

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#19

Post by zeteo »

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure that it's virtually certain for a corporate lawyer to find some justification somewhere for almost anything. The corporate employees and the police both operate on this assumption. As a customer, your only recourse is to meekly accept whatever treatment is coming your way.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#20

Post by daenney »

dionidium wrote: post #17
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force My understanding is that there was a lengthy conversation that took place before the outrage-inducing video starts. They did attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. At some point there is an impasse. Police are making a request and he's ignoring it. There are two ways that can go: 1) Police shr…

> 2) He's going to be forcefully removed.

Yet why does the forceful removal of that passenger justify knocking him down and dragging him off the plane? There's plenty of ways to forcefully remove someone from something without doing what they did.

Police is allowed to apply force, but that doesn't immediately give them the right to go loco.

Post reply on HN