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

Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

resistancereport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 274 posts

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#111

Post by tsunamifury »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #66
tsunamifury wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not se…

The thing is, on a plane the crew is king and you have to follow their orders. If they decide that you have to leave the plane, you must leave the plane. Now, their reasons might be questionable. You have every right to fight the airline once you are off the plane. But there is no room for this while on board. Basically, as soon as he started to refuse to follow the crew's orders, it was a lost case for him.

No that is not true. You do not have to put yourself in physical danger. You do not need to comply with abuse of others. You do not need to be complicit in illegal activity.

The crew is not "King." They have an expanded set of duties they can enforce.

This sort of grandiose interpretation of the law is why we have absurd egotistical displays of violence in the name of non-offenses.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#112

Post by tehwebguy »

valuearb wrote: post #75
Shivetya wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the idea it was over booked when it was the airline wanting to transport its own people in place of booked customers. If anything we shall get to witness if the power of social media can overcome such abuse, It has helped turn the tables a bit with policing but usually only when it occurs in a public setting. People do need to take note that this actually is another case of police abuse just at the…

So United should not have tried to board their flight personnel so that another plane full of passengers could sit on the tarmac for hours in Louisville with no crew?

What? No, they should have kept upping the offer.

It wasn't worth a penny more than $800 + hotel and rebooking x 4 to United so they called the police to enforce their profit margin rather than pay the market cost of doing business.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#113

Post by joelrunyon »

valuearb wrote: post #75
Shivetya wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the idea it was over booked when it was the airline wanting to transport its own people in place of booked customers. If anything we shall get to witness if the power of social media can overcome such abuse, It has helped turn the tables a bit with policing but usually only when it occurs in a public setting. People do need to take note that this actually is another case of police abuse just at the…

So United should not have tried to board their flight personnel so that another plane full of passengers could sit on the tarmac for hours in Louisville with no crew?

They have inter-airline relationships that they can put people on Southwest/Delta/American flights for a discounted rate. Easily avoiding this type of situation.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#114

Post by ensiferum »

Seriously, next time this happens how about raising the compensation for someone willing to take the later flight.

The Aircrew could announce on the PA that "we're very sorry that the fligth will be be delayed but we're overbooked and still looking for X ppl willing to take the next flight. We're offering a X $ compensation for your trouble."

Then you just increase X until you will find people willing to take the deal.

Idiots.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#115

Post by josho »

benji-york wrote: post #58

I honestly don't understand the outrage. A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do, he refused to relent and escalated the situation. The passenger is the only person I see as having done anything wrong here. I don't claim that there aren't better ways to handle the situation, but I also don't see any wrongdoing in how this shook out.

> A person was legally required…

The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc.

A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#116

Post by true_religion »

protomyth wrote: post #87
devy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It simply wasn't - until United's crew members came on board. And United put prioritize employees over its boarded customers (if there are going to bump passengers out, they should never issue boarding pass in the first place).

Reading the law, it seems very much like prioritizing employees over passengers is actually illegal.

I don't actually think so. Prioritising employees may very well be essential to the continued or optimal operation of your airline.

For example, getting person A to a city so they can crew in place of a sick employee, where otherwise we would have a plane with no pilot.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#117

Post by Stasis5001 »

cube00 wrote: post #4

If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would take some of the savings made overboo…

Right. Airlines overbook because they make more money, and they are bound by laws like "If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum)."

Thus, if expected revenue from overbooking > expected payouts, overbooking is worth it.

HOWEVER, the legal compensation required scales really weirdly - $1350 maximum for anything over a two hour delay? Why would being delayed three hours be equivalent to being delayed something like 12-18 hours? I'm also not sure that maximum number has scaled with inflation.

Anyway, some airlines already do auction off this. All airlines ask for volunteers because the compensation they offer is always less than the legal requirement for involuntary bumping.

This is just a mess because United had already let the passengers on the plane, and weren't even offering that maximum, much less over it. If somebody here actually knows contract of carriage laws, does this sort of 'required compensation' thing hold after boarding happened?

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#118

Post by tbrownaw »

Karunamon wrote: post #42
valuearb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).…

Another way of looking at this would be to point out that internet service and air travel are the only two industries where it is legally allowed to sell people something you know in advance you can't provide. In a sane world, overbooking would be at best illegal, the airline would realize the savings from the flight they were paid for but didn't actually have to carry the 200 pounds of passenger + luggage. (That's a…

Another way of looking at this would be to point out that internet service and air travel are the only two industries where it is legally allowed to sell people something you know in advance you can't provide.

There's also fractional-reserve banking, hotels, old-style phones, online / mail-order shopping ("sorry, your stuff is in back order"), etc.

Statistical arbitrage is a thing.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#119

Post by maxerickson »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #99
maxerickson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is that the ticket doesn't actually guarantee a seat on a given flight. Bumping is in the contract.

The whole point is that the contract is shit.

The post I replied to is written as if it is something different than it is (they write as if the contract guarantees a seat on a flight at a particular time; of course it doesn't).

I think it's a bad situation, but I also think people giving very high priority to price is a big part of the reason that the contract is shit.

Re: Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal

#120

Post by tdb7893 »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #51
tdb7893 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What most people (and the news) don't seem to realise is that airlines are the worst because of market forces. There is very little brand loyalty in general for airlines so small changes in prices have a large difference and they've found the there just isn't a large market for a better airline with significantly higher cost.

For recreational travelers I am inclined to agree with you. Yet for business travels, which are the backbone of most airlines, they are very brand loyal. They will contort their schedule and deaden their pain threshold to no ends to fly their preferred airline. Also price isn't a key driving decision for them, if one airline is $100 less on a given flight but the more expensive flight is still "in policy" they will g…

That's true and it would be interesting to see an airline catering more to them but that's not the case for the majority of consumers and it would be unlikely that an airline could fill a plane if a seat cost much more. The trend in airlines currently is actually providing cheaper and less services
Post reply on HN