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

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#331

Post by _-__--____-- » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #209

DanBC wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't. $800 is not "what they have to pay by law"; it's the maximum someone would be able to claim if they had to force the claim. There's nothing stopping the airline offering more.

> Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't. Honestly, I see no difference regarding the intention of the law. Essentially it is the same. You would only be able to argue that Dr Dao might have thought that once onboard he was not able to be bumped and made arrangements based on not having been bumped. But I don't think this h…

> Essentially it is the same.

This is a very subjective statement.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#332

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #325

masondixon wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 decis…

We can both say what we think both parties should have done, but this is entirely subjective and would come down to ideological differences and feelings.

> Where United went wrong

This is where we can find some truth to the matter. What does wrong mean here.

Each side could have averted this event. And each side lost something from this event.

Dr - Lost his dignity, became a celebrity with his face plastered around the world (good and bad - i.e. some people like myself think he is an idiot), physical injury, mental anguish, etc.

United - Share price, reputation, had to apologise, may lose customers, etc.

For both sides there are lots of negatives. United clearly had more to lose (tangible shareholder value and reputation) so they should have not created the situation.

I wish more people would look at this for what it is, which is childish behaviour from a professional adult, and just move on, but alas in today's world it seems that every event is being filmed and ready to go viral, so perhaps the next video we see will be me sitting on a plane that is being delayed hours while someone is being coddled and sweet talked to get off a plane they are being bumped from. This Dr may miss his appointments with his patients, but what about all the other hundred passengers who will be late or miss their connections.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#333

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #326

masondixon wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 consume…

I said: "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."

You said I said: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish."

I chose my words carefully, and you have removed some to create your scarecrow.

They have interpreted the contract in one way and acted upon it. Even if the man interpreted it differently, he still should have left.

But ultimately it comes down to who has what to gain and lose. United has more to lose, so United shouldn't have done it.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#334

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

_-__--____-- wrote: post #324

masondixon wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And obey authority.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#335

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

_-__--____-- wrote: post #320

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.

> there is a lot of analysis Yes, finally. Airlines should not be allowed to overbook. Period. I'm pretty sure most of the people would be more than happy to pay a little bit extra to have guaranteed seat.

What's a little bit extra? I don't even pay 30$ to choose my seat.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#336

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

_-__--____-- wrote: post #321

masondixon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same.

Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#337

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

_-__--____-- wrote: post #330

masondixon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't allow law enforcement to do their job, the world would grind to a halt. If the flight was cancelled because of this guy, I think the passengers would quickly turn on him.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#338

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:04 PM UTC

_-__--____-- wrote: post #331

masondixon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't. Honestly, I see no difference regarding the intention of the law. Essentially it is the same. You would only be able to argue that Dr Dao might have thought that once onboard he was not able to be bumped and made arrangements based on not having been bumped. But I don't think this h…

> Essentially it is the same. This is a very subjective statement.

What is the difference? One guy got to walk down a corridor and sat down in his seat. The other guy didn't. It is the same.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#339

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:06 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #329

muh_gradle wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Watch the video. He is literally screaming. Why would you refuse an order from the police. I think its an ideological difference, but I can't imagine refusing or resisting police. I think young people today get kicks from refusing authority, but it is simply not rationale.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#340

Post by masondixon » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #323

masondixon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if he runs on the plane? What is the difference?