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

Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

hasbrouck.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#181

Post by Neliquat »

briandear wrote: post #72
kem wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not. In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on…

Why do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...

Many plumbers make amazing money. Idk how people think someone who can charge you 100+/hr for a specilized and critical skill is somehow lower class. Most people use "wage slave" for that discriptor now, usually service or retail.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#182

Post by masondixon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #175
masondixon wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be…

Did you miss the part where the law says they were not only under the legally mandated entitlement, but also not fulfilling the part where the law demands they pay out cash?

Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#183

Post by SyneRyder »

blizkreeg wrote: post #29

Does anyone else worry from a safety perspective that the pilots flying these "subcontracted" flights are probably paid very low? I read somewhere that even Captain pay at some of these guys can be 60-70K. I know FAA license requirements are stringent but I would have a hard time believing that working for shitty, bankrupt or nearly bankrupt low-cost airlines that don't pay well has to affect your performance to some…

Is that all? That's ridiculously low.

Here's a news article [0] pointing out that Qantas pilots earn up to $536K a year, with second officer roles beginning at $110K. (At the time of the article, 1 Australian Dollar was worth more than 1 US Dollar [1].)

[0] http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-t...

[1] http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=20...

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#184

Post by fatbird »

smm2000 wrote: post #18
sandworm101 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anger at united is surpassed by my anger against Air Canada. Whenever someone books me on a Vancouver-SFO trip using Air Canada one leg ends up on a "United" aircraft. The free market means my ticket on my national airline is sold to United, and then to whatever subcontractor is renting the United logo on the day. They are just the middleman in the chain of misery.

You can see in advance what company operates each leg. It's not a secret.

As the linked article demonstrates, you actually can't reliably or easily. For practical purposes it is often a secret.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#185

Post by [deleted] »

dba7dba wrote: post #58
tuna-piano wrote: post #24

I see this whole event kind of like the Rosa Parks situation. I'm not comparing the magnitude of injustice, just that (a)There was an unjust system and (b)It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules. Also, the author is wrong in this passage: From the article: "The gate agents offered offered $800 in airline scrip to anyone willing to deplane, which from past observati…

> Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation." How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?

[deleted]

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#186

Post by masondixon »

drakonandor wrote: post #178
masondixon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (a) There was an unjust system and There was a legislated racist system. The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach. (b) It took an in…

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so.

They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#187

Post by ceejayoz »

masondixon wrote: post #173
fatbird wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy. I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that…

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be…

> But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does.

The contract with United says you can be denied boarding, but not much about boarding and then being kicked off after.

> If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat.

That's no guarantee. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/328495-uni...

> Geoff Fearns, who purchased a full-priced first-class ticket to travel from Hawaii to California, was asked to get off the plane by an airline employee because the flight had been overbooked, according to The Los Angeles Times. “That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns told the newspaper. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#188

Post by wyldfire »

logicallee wrote: post #128
sangnoir wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discreetly accepting blame GP isn't suggesting there isn't any blame, but that United is low-key accepting the blame/'taking one for the team'. United has decided not to throw any of the involved parties under the bus, even though it is likely that most of them - possibly all of them - do not work directly for United.

This makes no sense to me. The subcontracted brands are worthless, like actually bankrupt, and nobody knows them. Why take the brand hit on "United"? I wouldn't call it "throwing them under the bus" to at least mention this. The amount of backlash against United and its brand is hideous.

It makes the brand look even worse if they refuse to accept responsibility for something that was ultimately their decision. It's their supplier [contractor].

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#189

Post by masondixon »

ceejayoz wrote: post #187
masondixon wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be…

> But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. The contract with United says you can be denied boarding, but not much about boarding and then being kicked off after. > If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. That's no guarantee. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/328495-uni... > Geoff Fearns…

> The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

Seems this is part of the contract.

Who would he be angry with if the weather caused the plane to be grounded?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#190

Post by [deleted] »

masondixon wrote: post #186
drakonandor wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN