United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care • Hacker News Board

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#201

Post by mherdeg » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 8:54 PM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #160

mherdeg wrote: post #80

I don't think this blog post's headline is quite right. "Losing a child" is putting a child on BOS-EWR instead of BOS-CLE and not noticing the problem until the child's family in Cleveland calls the parents and the parents call Newark, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009... . It sounds like what happened here was "causing a child to miss a connection" (and also separately "delaying the delive…

Total bummer to see service delivery fail here. You are logically correct. From the parent's point of view the initial impression was 'lost'. They put the kid on the plane in one airport, she failed to show up at the destination. This was all the parents knew for several hours. This kind of first impression is going to stick with a person, and it's going to be retold that way.

Yes, it's great to be able to attract a lot of consumer attention by telling a good story -- the "United Breaks Guitars" guy certainly proved that! There is an even better option that I would be fascinated to hear whether this blogger used: the Aviation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Airline Service Complaint form, or the "DoT complaint", http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/problems.htm.

Domestic airlines treat statistics about these complaints as a core KPI. As a result, filing a DoT complaint has a few distinct advantages over just writing a blog post and hoping it catches on: (1) it guarantees you a response from a senior executive, (2) you can present the facts exactly the way you want (something this blog post complains was impossible when asking a customer service rep to file an internal complaint), (3) aggregate statistics about DoT complaints become public record and can help other people make informed decisions about where to spend their travel money.

In my experience, when you file one of these forms, you get a response within a week from a senior executive in Houston who has read your entire complaint, has investigated the problem, and is empowered to fix it.

It's good for other consumers to file one of these complaints, in addition to writing a blog post, because the aggregate information the DoT publishes can help consumers make better decisions. We actually have data to show that this person's horrible experience was not an isolated incident of a few misbehaving staff who did not represent the company; instead, the data suggest a pattern of increasingly scary service delivery failures. In the first half of 2012, United's DoT complaint numbers doubled year-over-year, according to the DoT's latest Air Travel Consumer Report. (See discussion at e.g. http://consumerist.com/2012/08/united-airlines-now-responsib...).

To loop things back around: the "United lost a ten-year-old" headline would be totally unnecessary in a DoT complaint, because it would rapidly reach an expert who understood the real problem and knew how to fix it.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#202

Post by gnaffle » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 8:58 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #83

gnaffle wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ryanair isn't subsidized. It's a bad airline that doesn't need to fail because it makes money. It's one of the airlines in Europe with the worst customer service track record. The same is true for lots of other compenies with terrible customer service. On the other hand, there are many state-owned or subsidized airlines that have very good customer service. So whether or not United needs to fail, I think the problem…

Ryanair isn't a bad airline. It's a fairly good airline in terms of moving passengers around. They are completely honest, even proud, to offer literally no customer service and comfort. Look at the comments here: http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/ryan.htm Not one is about Ryanair failing to deliver the service they've sold (as the article is very much about United failing to) - they're all about people being disapp…

Actually, there have been numerous cases where Ryanair has decided to not cover expenses for cancelled or delayed flights, something they are required by EU law to do. (You'll find posters stating those rights put up by the aviation authorities at most airports, and most other airlines abide by them.)

Many of the fees and extra charges can't be avoided (like an internet booking fee and credit card fee) yet they're usually not included in the advertised price.

And many of the extra charges (like if you forget to print your boarding pass but have it on an iPad) seems almost designed solely to get more money out of people.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#203

Post by bdunbar » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 10:07 PM UTC

mherdeg wrote: post #201

bdunbar wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total bummer to see service delivery fail here. You are logically correct. From the parent's point of view the initial impression was 'lost'. They put the kid on the plane in one airport, she failed to show up at the destination. This was all the parents knew for several hours. This kind of first impression is going to stick with a person, and it's going to be retold that way.

Yes, it's great to be able to attract a lot of consumer attention by telling a good story -- the "United Breaks Guitars" guy certainly proved that! There is an even better option that I would be fascinated to hear whether this blogger used: the Aviation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Airline Service Complaint form, or the "DoT complaint", http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/problems.htm . Domestic airlines treat stat…

There is an even better option that I would be fascinated to hear whether this blogger used: the Aviation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Airline Service Complaint form, or the "DoT complaint",

I had no idea there was such a thing. I'll file that data away, just in case.

Thanks!

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#204

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:33 PM UTC

drgath wrote: post #103

lunarscape wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortuately I'm pretty sure they're all real reported stories. In one case the man asked to move away from his own children was Boris Johnson, the mayor of London[1], when he was an MP in 2006. Edit: There's more on wikipedia [2]. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_pol...

So, a handful of instances out of millions over the last 5 years. Got it.

[deleted]

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#205

Post by lusr » Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 9:18 PM UTC

jhcoaps2 wrote: post #200

lusr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is endemic of something I see a lot of on the Internet. You hide behind an account you just made, aggressively, lengthily and rudely responding to somebody who actually desired to contribute to the discussion without contributing much of anything yourself, without seeing the irony in any of this.

The hypocrisy of your posts is almost overwhelming. That said, my original constructive criticism got me hellbanned (as happens to nearly all people who post sentiment that could be construed as anti-libertarian), whereas your idiotic and unaware hypocrisy got you nothing. Unshocking, given the faggotry of you and this site.

You know you actually did have a very good point and I even agree entirely with it. But the anger and aggression in your writing is such a huge turn-off that it was difficult to fairly consider what you said, and that was the gist of my facetious post.

Evidently some people agree with me. You can continue to be angry that your style of discourse isn't accepted, or you can do something about it and have people give your insight the time it deserves. I believe you're selling yourself short.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#206

Post by accountoftheday » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 1:55 AM UTC

gnaffle wrote: post #79

chimi wrote: post #33

This is a problem bigger than United -- which has a lot of problems. This is what you get when you subsidize bad companies that need to fail. United needs to fail so someone better can take over. The moral hazards are ruining the country. I saw it recently with farmers struggling from the drought. Compare this farmer: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7417774n who has acres full of hay that don't do well in the…

Ryanair isn't subsidized. It's a bad airline that doesn't need to fail because it makes money. It's one of the airlines in Europe with the worst customer service track record. The same is true for lots of other compenies with terrible customer service. On the other hand, there are many state-owned or subsidized airlines that have very good customer service. So whether or not United needs to fail, I think the problem…

Think of Ryanair as the libertarian airline. Them fucking over the passengers not clever enough to figure out the rules or causing exceptions makes it a particularly joy to fly with them as you do not subsidize others' inefficiency.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#207

Post by pasbesoin » Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 5:00 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #133

pasbesoin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can go further. Caring can be actively dis-incented. If your caring about a problem causes any disruption to your "normal" work, you will be penalized. That child you rescued and escorted to their destination or a safe location? That's 30 minutes you weren't "doing your job". And perhaps you're not authorized to escort children. The liability! Sorry, but we are going to have to terminate you. When it gets to this…

I don't know anything about this situation, but in some cases there can be other factors preventing people from doing the work, even if they want to. Liability, as you mention, is one such. I recall many years ago, working at a certain phone company (I was a college student on a summer job). I needed to get some information off a circuit board that was sitting in a box on a warehouse shelf -- I could see it from wher…

Fair enough. Unions, and their members, can act badly, too.

There is plenty of idiocy and self-serving turf warfare to go around.

I was in a union -- by default -- for a while, one time. It meant that in exchange for a small amount in dues, my wages were 25% - 30% higher than those of other jobs available to me. And, I worked my ass off. With other people who worked their asses off. And who still had the time and energy for some good humor, perhaps in part because there were limits to the amount that management could jerk them around. We were all "blue collar stiffs"; nonetheless, it was one of the happier places I've worked.

I have an uncle who ended up president of his union (in an unrelated field and business). One of the most decent people I know. And he's busted his balls for his folks; it's been necessary, in order to try to counteract some of the very typical, abusive management techniques that have become prevalent -- and increasingly written about -- in the last 20 years.

Unions do bad things. Short-sighted, self-destructive things. But no worse than Management. And often, it seems that the "badness" is symmetric; the worse one side gets, the worse the other becomes in response.

Some of the more compelling arguments of economics occur at the macro level. And there, the decline and destruction of the union workforce has a strong correlation -- if arguments continue over causation -- with the decline of the American workforce and productive industry.

Unions also, at their best, epitomize a characteristic oft lauded as an American ideal: When the chips are down, we "rouged individualist" Americans step up and take care of each other. We're in this together. (A sentiment having significant base in WW II.) It ain't pretty, but it works.

The decline of unions seems to correspond with, symbolize, and perhaps represent the decline of this ideal in the American population and psyche.

These days, to be caustic, we seem to be lauding "ever dog for himself".

P.S. Your story about having to wait 30 minutes to look in a box disgusts me. That definitely is not the way things should be -- I agree with you.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#208

Post by jhcoaps2 » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 9:25 PM UTC

lusr wrote: post #205

jhcoaps2 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy of your posts is almost overwhelming. That said, my original constructive criticism got me hellbanned (as happens to nearly all people who post sentiment that could be construed as anti-libertarian), whereas your idiotic and unaware hypocrisy got you nothing. Unshocking, given the faggotry of you and this site.

You know you actually did have a very good point and I even agree entirely with it. But the anger and aggression in your writing is such a huge turn-off that it was difficult to fairly consider what you said, and that was the gist of my facetious post. Evidently some people agree with me. You can continue to be angry that your style of discourse isn't accepted, or you can do something about it and have people give yo…

I was quite polite with my discourse until my original account was banned for politely expressing an opinion that didn't jive with some moderators (but that had been moderated up heavily by the community.)

The reality is this: if you express anti-libertarian sentiment on HN, there's a REALLY good chance you're getting banned, no matter how nice you do it.

So fuck off.

Re: United Airlines Lost My Friend's 10 Year Old Daughter And Didn't Care

#209

Post by jhcoaps3 » Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 9:35 PM UTC

lusr wrote: post #205

jhcoaps2 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy of your posts is almost overwhelming. That said, my original constructive criticism got me hellbanned (as happens to nearly all people who post sentiment that could be construed as anti-libertarian), whereas your idiotic and unaware hypocrisy got you nothing. Unshocking, given the faggotry of you and this site.

You know you actually did have a very good point and I even agree entirely with it. But the anger and aggression in your writing is such a huge turn-off that it was difficult to fairly consider what you said, and that was the gist of my facetious post. Evidently some people agree with me. You can continue to be angry that your style of discourse isn't accepted, or you can do something about it and have people give yo…

I've been banned for very politely writing anti-libertarian sentiments on this site.

I've learned that the Libertarians on this site will happily collude to destroy the account of anybody who condemns their religion... given that knowledge, why bother being polite?