Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident • Hacker News Board

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#321

Post by _-__--____-- » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

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.

>I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so.

I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#322

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

tarlinian wrote: post #286

FireBeyond wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't really get the complaints about the vouchers. Every airline offers are good for any ticket directly sold by them...(there are specific ticket classes that cannot be booked directly with the airline that will not be allowed, but a normal person cannot get those except through vacation packages). This only comes up as a problem if you buy a vacation package through the airline and want to use the voucher to pay…

Because an $800 voucher is not the same as $800? I'm sure you understand the difference.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#323

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #228

mikeash wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the perso…

I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing. Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation. I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me. I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and…

The difference is the physical logistics of denying a person passage to board vs physically removing them.

The second scenario is an exponential escalation of the situation.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#324

Post by _-__--____-- » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #237

mikeash wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reser…

> If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent…

> In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility

Exactly, this is why the airline should not apply force towards him. You're setting double standards here - airline applied force = good, passenger kicking = bad.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#325

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #300

mikeash wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane.

Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have.

By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#326

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #300

mikeash wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Its their private property and they can do as they wish.

This statement right here so totally exposes your pro corporate bias. No, a person cannot "do as they wish" even on their own private property. We still have rights as citizens. We still have rights as CONSUMERS even.

Do you disagree? If not then you need to reevaluate your whole stance because the foundation is incorrect.

We do not lose our rights as consumers when we board a plane. They are rules and regulations to protect both the carrier and the passenger that cannot be ignored.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#327

Post by ehasbrouck » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

FYI, I've added an update in the comments to my original article at:

https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html

I finally spoke with United Airlines spokesperson Charlie Hobart today, after this article was published.

Mr. Hobart told me that the gate agents handling United Express flights at O'Hare, including those who called in what Mr. Hobart described as "Chicago Department of Aviation security officers", were employees of United and not of Republic or a third-party contractor.

Mr. Hobart claimed not to know whether or not "CDA security officers" are sworn law enforcement officers. That claim to ignorance strains credulity, unless United has deliberately kept its own spokespeople in the dark. And if United still hasn't been able to figure out, 10 days later, whether these thugs (I use that term deliberately, in its original sense of organized gangs that prey specifically on vulnerable travellers) were really police, how were passengers supposed to figure that out in the moment?

"I don't have access to that level of detailed information," he said in response to this and most of my other questions. When I asked if he could find out, he declined. "I'm not going to get into that level of detail."

Mr. Hobart said he didn't know whether the passenger was asked to leave by United or Republic employees, whether the "officers" were asked to remove the passenger by United or Republic employees, whether the officers talked to the pilots before removing the passenger, or how the officers identified themselves to the passenger.

"They were unable to obtain the cooperation of the passenger," Mr. Hobart said. He referred all my other questions to the City of Chicago Department of Aviation.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#328

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #306

logfromblammo wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was arguing that at minimum , he would have to be refunded on the spot. That is the absolute, ground-zero starting point for even beginning to reneg on a ticket sale. Some contracts include explicit rescission terms. No doubt United's adhesion contract contains some that are overwhelmingly tilted in their favor. But no matter what sleazy terms United puts in for itself, it absolutely cannot get away with keeping th…

On the matter of a car (or, anything else), delivery and titles are irrelevant - if you've accepted payment ("consideration"), the deal is done (and enforceable in court), and the delivery, titles, etc are things that must be done to avoid defaulting on the deal. Your assertion that the purchase price is the "minimum necessary" is completely baseless in law. I guess it's the minimum necessary for the offer to not be…

If you can't deliver the car with its title, you will have to give all the money back, just to keep yourself in civil court for breach of contract, and not also be charged criminally for fraud. You're correct that it won't do you any good in the civil court. But you won't necessarily be able to recover damages from a car scammer in civil court, either. Yes, you win, but how do you convert a judgment in your hand into a car you can drive?

Perhaps it would be best not to reason this one out with a car analogy. It's distracting from the main issue.

Some people are claiming that Dr. No-I-won't-go was trespassing after being told to leave. That is not the case. That would be equivalent to a landlord evicting a tenant with a valid, paid lease. While the landlord also could not force someone out just by refunding their prepaid rents, there is no circumstance that would allow the landlord to evict a lease-holding tenant (if any even exist) without also refunding that prepaid rent. So as long as that hasn't been paid, there can be no trespass.

Furthermore, the tenant would be ethically justified to refuse to vacate the property until the refund had been paid, because holding possession of the property is the only leverage he really has over the landlord. He could go to civil court and petition for it, but if the landlord is judgment-proof or employs a good lawyer, that money may be out of reach for years.

Even if there were a law or rescission clause that allowed United to refuse service, without a cash refund, there is no possibility for criminal trespass. Without a crime, there is only a civil dispute. And there is no reason for the cops to be involved in any way in a civil dispute, especially not to be choosing sides in it and beating someone up.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#329

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

muh_gradle wrote: post #222

masondixon wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And I am arguing that there is a lot of analysis over something that should not have been a media firestorm, but a simple dispute with an airline that probably happens 1000s of times per day. Take away the kicking and screaming and you have a standard airline dispute of which you can find thousands.

The kicking and screaming. That's certainly a nice way of putting it.

GP is so sympathetic to the airline, it is a caricature of a discussion. Yes, kicking and screaming and let's ignore the material damage and bloody assault to the customer who legally paid for the seat and was forcibly removed.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#330

Post by _-__--____-- » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #205

awongh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...

I do not think Dr Dao was aware of his rights or asserting them. Yes, in court he can make this argument. But is it really acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane? I don't want to live in a society like this, and I don't think the correct solution is to "never drag people off planes". We have a court system to resolve disputes and I think it is far better that whatever injustice people feel, it is reso…

> But is it really acceptable for a grown adult

This is not really a matter of being grown up or not. This is about standing for something that one believes is their right.

I agree with you in that we have a court system to resolve disputes. What I don't agree with is that there should be "the chosen ones" in the society - in this case a big company - who can apply force instead of resolving dispute in the court.