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

United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 464 posts

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#241

Post by driverdan »

meddlepal wrote: post #123
randallsquared wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must fly into and out of only the best airports. I've only ever had one thing thrown out; I've never had anything in my checked baggage damaged (and if I'm going for more than overnight, I always check my bag, even though I could carry it on, to avoid fighting for space with other passengers' carryons); the scanning doesn't perceptibly affect me; and I regularly show up at the airport less than an hour before board…

I've never had an issue at Logan (Boston), SFO, Seattle or Austin. Usually past security in 20 min and I do not use precheck.

When are you flying? BOS and SEA have some of the longest TSA lines in the country. I've waited over an hour in line at both. I've gotten through BOS in 20 min but that's the exception, not the rule. AUS has gotten a lot worse too.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#242

Post by natch »

natch wrote: post #238
tyingq wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's a federal crime to interfere with a flight crew. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1411-i... There's a lot of room in between a contractual dispute and interference.

Are the rules the same before boarding? See discussion above about United's screwey definition of boarding.

"while aboard an aircraft" the rules say. It sounds like United is claiming he wasn't aboard yet so they are caught in a catch-22.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#243

Post by pcmonk »

coldpie wrote: post #144
stuff4ben wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a big deal? You're warned not to bring bottles of liquids before you even get into the TSA line. Sure the TSA is bunch of security theatre in some cases, but if there's a rule there, why do you have to be a prick about it?

Because it's a huge waste of time and resources. No one benefits. There's no reason for these clowns to be wasting my time and making people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint. It's just one huge welfare program for unemployable morons, and I have to waste two hours every time I fly to put up with their dumb horseshit. I'm gonna throw a brick through your front window. No reason for it, just gonna do it. H…

Of course there's no reason to make people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint, but that's because it's generally ludicrous to have people buy water at all. In the USA, every airport I've been to has free water fountains both airside and landside. The rest of the world is way behind in this respect.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#244

Post by late2part »

coldpie wrote: post #109
Klathmon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with precheck (which i got as well), it didn't really change anything. I still need to show up just as early (as my local airport often has a longer line for precheck!), i still can't pack more than some stupid amount of liquid, or have my shit thrown out because I used a X-oz plastic bag which is too big!!! I still can't check bags as they just won't ever show up, or will show up damaged, have items stolen, or…

Some TSA clown once told me I had to throw away my water and we just stared at each other for a bit. "My water, seriously?" "Yep, your water." "Water." "Water." Fuck the TSA and fuck the terrified Americans who keep voting to keep them.

Next time try freezing it first.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#245

Post by MichaelGG »

mpweiher wrote: post #69
shimon_e wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, due to the economics of airline class[0], privileged passengers account for about 70% of airline revenue. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc

Yes. I know where it's coming from. The airlines can't actually differentiate on the basic transportation service: you're in the same noisy metal tube traveling at exactly the same speed, arriving at the same time. There is some differentiation on the service you offer, bigger seats, maybe being able to lie flat. But that's about it, and since that's all there is the airlines just start making shit up. "Global Servic…

The food order thing is ridiculous but only because United can't figure out how to take orders before loading the plane. I usually sit in the last row, makes me more comfortable. And around half the time they'll run out of the better entree.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#246

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

jghn wrote: post #67
Klathmon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything. From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry abou…

This was me for a long time, but then I got precheck. It is such a night and day difference that I'm back to flying

Precheck is a must if you travel often. On the flip side - pre-check lines are sometimes longer then "regular", esp on Monday/Friday mornings when the frequent-flying business crowd is there.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#247

Post by driverdan »

douche wrote: post #70
Klathmon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything. From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry abou…

Your door-to-door time with those two trips is probably not that far apart, when you factor in time getting to and from the airport, waiting for security, waiting for luggage, and delays. Plus driving is cheaper and less stressful...

A 3h flight is going to be much faster than a 12h drive. It may be cheaper if you fill the car with people but will cost more if you do it alone. That's assuming you consider your time to be worth nothing.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#248

Post by jhulla »

Comment might be buried... But, the problem is the baroque overlaid combinations of [seat class, fare class, FF status, standby, cash vs FF purchase, time of arrival at gate, etc.] intersecting with [connecting flts, equipment, weather, etc.] leads to a large range of predictable conditions with uncertain outcomes. E.g. only one seat remaining, who gets it: passenger needing to make intl connection on a FF ticket or cash paying high status passenger?

This is a global optimization problem that can be easily solved - but there are many cases where on the ground discretion is required [last minute aircraft change, weather delay]. Poorly paid, under trained and under motivated staff will always drop the ball in this situation.

The solution for United here is two fold 1) Increase training, comp, authority and motivation of gate agents to solve problems with minimal disruption. This used to be the case a bankruptcy ago. This setup is not likely to return due to a simple reason: cost. United in bankruptcy blew up the pension promises to some of their most experienced staff. They left.

2) The best outcome for United is to reduce the complexity of their product so that customer expectations of service align with the company's ability to deliver.

tl;dr: United's service is too complex for their gate agents to deliver. Service should be simplified.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#249

Post by njharman »

tici_88 wrote: post #17

Travelling in the US or with US airlines is not looking very good right now. Not just the United incident(s) but also TSA, Trump travel restrictions, flights constantly overbooked, massively late etc. I wonder if it will start impacting traveller and tourism numbers at some point. I think anyone who doesn't really need to be in the US and/or is planning travelling with kids is likely to have some second thoughts at t…

I really hope so. Cause in my country nothing improves unless doing so makes / saves money.

Re: United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

#250

Post by marcosdumay »

ricw wrote: post #140
yodsanklai wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers. Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and th…

Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory.. In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

> the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply

Demand == Supply

And that's even more true¹ for stuff like oil, that has a low volumetric price. Do you really think demand peaked because people could not find more uses for the stuff?

Oil is in a peak production crash. The prices volatility is a natural consequence of it, and will always stay as high as consumers' budgets allows.

1 - That means, it's true for almost any misleading definition of those terms you can come-up with.

Post reply on HN