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

291–300 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#291

Post by mikeash »

tarlinian wrote: post #288
TorKlingberg wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it would involve whatever the contract between the passenger and the airline says. Which is very likely to favor the airline as they wrote it.

Exactly...I don't get the complaints about the existence of IDB legislation. If the airlines got to write the contracts themselves, they'd say you'd get no compensation at all outside of a refund of your ticket price if you can't be rebooked.

I'm OK with its existence. I'm not really OK with its content. min(4 x fare, $1,350) is way too low. Make the minimum compensation for involuntary bumping $10,000 (cash, not stupid vouchers) or something, and then maybe we'd see some sense.

I'm sure there needs to be some way to remove people against their will if something really crazy happens. But it should be the absolute last resort if all else fails, not a way to cap losses to a low amount.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#292

Post by etjossem »

dalbasal wrote: post #239
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…

I'm not American, so I guess it's a bit out of place for me to comment . That said, my reading of this incident is naked corporatism. Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner. (A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.…

A small correction: these weren't city police. They were Chicago Department of Aviation Security personnel, who are allowed to wear jackets that say "police" on them but are essentially airport mall cops. Their leadership answers to people who depend on the airlines, which makes it hard for them to change their policies if the airlines don't want them to. So if the impression you are getting is "naked corporatism", you're absolutely right.

I'm completely with you that they should not be involved in deplaning people who don't pose a safety risk.

Fortunately, the airlines hate PR / liability incidents like this. Delta is trying to take advantage of United's bad involuntary-bump policy by looking very good in comparison.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#293

Post by awongh »

masondixon wrote: post #234
awongh wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we agree on the basic principle of the case, but not the solution that follows it. I do agree that it is not acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane. I think it's a straw man to say that don't "never drag people off planes" is one of the possible solutions. if he turns out to be within his rights, even if he didn't have a full understanding of the legality of his decision at the time, then I th…

> then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight. See I don't agree with this. Its an argument for vigilantism. The courts are the appropriate place for this to be disputed. Private property and law enforcement should be respected, especially on airplanes. This is how we uphold a civil society. If a security guard is going to kick me out of somewhere because they think I am someone else, I am not g…

First, I don't think it's reasonable to simply say that in any situation the sensible and civilized thing to do is to walk away and "let the courts handle it". It seems extremely naive to say that we should never directly challenge the request of anyone in a position of authority because we can then address it in the courts later in a fair and civilized manner. I'm not saying that this is the right case or even that he was acting completely sensibly but as a blanket statement that it's always better to obey, no matter what the request seems absurd.

Second, I agree that encouraging physical confrontation is a bad way to go. But you seem to pin the blame on the passenger, and that there's some inherent violence or threat of violence in voicing an intent to remain on the plane. To my mind the actors who created a physical altercation were the police officers and not the passenger. Surely at the very least the video shows a certain lack of restraint in removing someone from an airplane, given the circumstances. (there was no direct threat or indication of violence or criminal activity )

> I don't see what other option United had

To me their options are clear, persuade one passenger on the plane to get out, or lose whatever amount of money they were going to lose by not having that crew on their plane. If in fact Dr. Dao was not in violation of any law, (and united should have known this to begin with, it is their responsibility) then that is what this situation comes down to. Allow the state authorities to escalate the situation into a physical altercation or lose x amount of money. Seems clear to me.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#294

Post by tzs »

dalbasal wrote: post #239
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…

I'm not American, so I guess it's a bit out of place for me to comment . That said, my reading of this incident is naked corporatism. Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner. (A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.…

> That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

If you frame it that way, then it does sound outrageous. This:

> They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

makes it sound like the police think it is their job to enforce corporate policy.

But is that accurate? The airline owns the plane. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed on the plane. They allowed that particular passenger onto the plane, and then later they revoked that permission. When he refuses to leave at that point, doesn't he become a trespasser?

From the police point of view how is this any different from any other situation where someone is on private property without permission and refuses to leave? In most countries, I believe, removing trespassers is one of the normal functions of the police. Generally, in civilized countries, we want the police to do that rather than having the owner try to force the trespasser out themselves.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#295

Post by gumby »

treehau5 wrote: post #265
gumby wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a facile truth about an overblown analogy, buy there's good insight in that analogy: this could be a tipping point for a rights of individuals and the mass public vs exploitative rules of large corporations. Like 'The Jungle' a century ago. Probably won't be, but could be. Hasbrouck shows how the evidence has been building over the past few years, each time picking up more steam. And in the regards, Rosa Parks…

If you think there is insight to be gained by this analogy, you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident. They are not comparable in any way shape or form. There is literally no insight to be had. It's a horrible analogy.

> you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident.

Indeed don't know you, treehau5 and how your life has been, any more than you know mine.

But yes, I do have some idea: when I first came to America in the 1960s with my parents we landed in D.C. My parents knew to drive north because had we tried to stay in Virginia we would not have been permitted to all stay in the same hotel. At the time of their marriage my parents' could not even get married in my native country, although the marriage itself (performed elsewhere) was legal, unlike in parts of the US.

I have seen firsthand the effect of racial laws on my direct family. I myself have been barred entrance to a hotel on racial grounds (though thankfully I think those times are behind us). I don't sit around complaining about it, or even thinking about it every day for which I am thankful: not everyone has that luxury. But yes, I think I have some understanding.

You are correct in that I was not here when Rosa Parks staged her protest so I do not understand firsthand what it was like in the South before the civil rights movement was accepted by whites. Perhaps you do. But I am very much aware of the benefit I have derived from her effort. As well as the social reasons why Colaudette Colvin's protest could not have had the same effect -- and how today's calculus has changed.

> There is literally no insight to be had.

You blandly make this claim but do not support it. I did in fact claim there was insight to be had. You can disagree, but simply stating your disagreement provides no explanatory value.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#296

Post by 24gttghh »

FireBeyond wrote: post #199
benmmurphy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is the big mistake that united/republic made. if you deny boarding before the gate the passenger has very little recourse. if they try and run the gate they are going to get very little sympathy. however, once the passenger is seated they suddenly have the option of not moving which is going to cause lots of problems. i don't travel much and i've been on a flight where they have deboarded people after people had…

Yes, because European airlines are a lot nicer in that regard. "200 EUR" (or whatever amount). In the US you hear "offered $800 compensation". It's not cash. It's a voucher for use only on that airline, only within 12 months, and only on select full-fare ticket classes. So an $800 ticket may only get you another round flight from Chicago to Louisville (around 500km/300mi).

$800 for Chicago to Louisville is a bad example. I can get a round-trip flight tonight between the two for $200...

$800 round trip is like Boston to Hawai'i next week.($822 from next monday to the 1st of May). That's 8,081km/5,021 miles. It honestly wouldn't be that bad.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#297

Post by chairmanwow »

bkor wrote: post #107
smcl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep reading it becomes apparent why this is actually quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. It's an attempt to use lower-wage non-union workers, made more interesting by the fact that Republic are going through bankruptcy (and therefore aren't themselves being sued by the passengers, since there's some sort of limit on the compensation they could get) and that United are semi-OK with taking the blame t…

If I buy a ticket from United Airlines, I don't care if they contract it out or code share things with some other company. Your ticket is with one company. It's their responsibility to hold another / the contracted company accountable, not yours.

I agree with you, but I think the author was attempting to describe the subtle incentive structures that motivated the contractors to act as they did.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#298

Post by chairmanwow »

bkor wrote: post #107
smcl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep reading it becomes apparent why this is actually quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. It's an attempt to use lower-wage non-union workers, made more interesting by the fact that Republic are going through bankruptcy (and therefore aren't themselves being sued by the passengers, since there's some sort of limit on the compensation they could get) and that United are semi-OK with taking the blame t…

If I buy a ticket from United Airlines, I don't care if they contract it out or code share things with some other company. Your ticket is with one company. It's their responsibility to hold another / the contracted company accountable, not yours.

I agree with you, but I think the author was attempting to describe the subtle incentive structures that motivated the contractors to act as they did.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#299

Post by masondixon »

ceejayoz wrote: post #275
masondixon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

All of that's in the "denied boarding" section. This guy, given that he was on the plane and sitting in his seat, wasn't denied boarding. He boarded.

I was responding to your "That's no guarantee." statement.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#300

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #278
masondixon wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence with…

You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it. I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of pres…

> I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards.

Cool :)

> and that United never should have tried to force him off.

But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent.

I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property.

> Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.

Post reply on HN