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

171–178 of 178 posts

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

#171

Post by rhizome »

eridius wrote: post #106
rhizome wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a rhetorical difference where "overbooking" puts the onus on the customer, and "oversales" puts it where it should be: on the airline who sold the extra tickets. And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity.

How can "overbooking" possibly put the onus on the customer? Overbooking is entirely within the control of the airline, and the customer doesn't have the capacity to overbook, or even the knowledge as to whether overbooking could possibly occur. > And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity. Well yes, that's the whole point of this di…

Overbooking: People bought too many tickets

Oversales: The airline sold too many tickets

It's a thin distinction to be sure, but it reads with rhetorical significance to me.

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

#172

Post by cmurf »

ubernostrum wrote: post #166
cmurf wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAR 91.3 and 91.11 exist for operational safety of the flight. The purpose of the FAR is the PIC can ignore company, customer, and even Air Traffic Control orders that compromise the safety of the flight. Company says you must land at this airport tonight, and the pilot says well it's socked in, it's not safe to land, so no. That's the purpose. It's to make him accountable to flight safety, not the company or anybody…

I appreciate you making this comment. Too many places I frequent have had crews, and especially airline pilots, basically pulling the "my word is law, there is no appeal and no review and nobody above me but God and even He only has an advisory role" crap.

God complex in pilots. It's archaic, but still comes up from time to time. Before crew resource management it was absolute authority, and one of the most famous consequences of this thinking is the Tenerife accident in 1977. The PIC was basically all, no goddamnit we're cleared for takeoff and we're going now - 5 minutes later nearly 600 people are melting and burning.

More recently, examples of pilots refusing to fly with Muslims on board. It's more of this "what I say goes" logic, and the gate agents were not able to tell the pilot to take the corn cob out, and take these passengers to their destination.

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

#173

Post by eridius »

rhizome wrote: post #171
eridius wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can "overbooking" possibly put the onus on the customer? Overbooking is entirely within the control of the airline, and the customer doesn't have the capacity to overbook, or even the knowledge as to whether overbooking could possibly occur. > And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity. Well yes, that's the whole point of this di…

Overbooking: People bought too many tickets Oversales: The airline sold too many tickets It's a thin distinction to be sure, but it reads with rhetorical significance to me.

No, there is literally no distinction at all. The customer cannot possibly buy too many tickets, they can only buy as many tickets as the airline sells. So the only way to overbook is by the airline selling too many tickets.

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

#174

Post by devoply »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #149
devoply wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight Passenger was not disrupting the flight in any way. Passenger was behaving properly and then was forced to leave for the convenience of the airlines at great inconvenience to himself, despite the fact that he was as entitled to remain on the flight as any other passenger -- as in this was unfair to him and him alone. It was also made clear to him that he was not res…

I think linked article and regulation adequately address that. If the pilot asks an individual to debark, s/he is not, in fact, entitled to remain on the flight, other regulations notwithstanding.

Regardless of your opinions, United is now getting sued by the doctor. So it doesn't seem like reality actually agrees with your sentiments.

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

#175

Post by notacoward »

ambulancechaser wrote: post #90
dionidium wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't ) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill .

I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breach…

> i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane.

Neither 49USC§46501 nor 14CFR§91 applied at the time in question, according to applicable definitions (e.g. "crewmember" and "flight time") which anyone who presumes to interpret law can and should look up near the rules themselves. Absent either of those, the passenger had all the rights he would have in any other time and place. He had a contract establishing his right to be where he was. United/Republic had already recognized that right by allowing him to board in the first place. He had done nothing since to waive or nullify his rights under that contract. Thus, at that moment and under those circumstances, he was under no obligation to comply with the order that was given.

If they'd closed the doors, 49USC§46501 would apply. If they had left the gate, 14CFR§91 would. Those would have been different cases, but we're not here to discuss different cases. Anybody who wants to treat rules as sacrosanct should do so based on a full and accurate understanding of those rules.

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

#176

Post by notacoward »

dionidium wrote: post #103
ambulancechaser wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breach…

I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the pr…

> Everybody is trying to play amateur ... attorney

Including you.

You're right that it's not the responsibility of police to determine all details of who's right and who's wrong, especially considering contracts that can take days for a trained contract lawyer to understand. They do have a responsibility to ensure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the property, and the person being removed is not a co-owner, but that's about as far as it goes.

However, that's not the only issue being discussed here. Just as we should get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion, we shouldn't get hung up on the "police role" portion either. The more important question is United/Republic's role. Were they in a position to require this passenger's removal, or was that breach of contract? What about the issues of crew logistics and voluntary-deboarding incentives? If you want to broaden the focus, let's broaden it all the way.

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

#177

Post by [deleted] »

tanderson92 wrote: post #152
t0mbstone wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting comment I ran across... not sure if it's valid or not, though: "Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. Here is how United illegally kicked him off the plane: 1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confir…

That comment is quoted in TFA, no?

[deleted]

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

#178

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

devoply wrote: post #174
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think linked article and regulation adequately address that. If the pilot asks an individual to debark, s/he is not, in fact, entitled to remain on the flight, other regulations notwithstanding.

Regardless of your opinions, United is now getting sued by the doctor. So it doesn't seem like reality actually agrees with your sentiments.

Doesn't mean a thing. One can initiate a lawsuit for the most frivolous of causes but it doesn't mean that they will win.
Post reply on HN