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

351–360 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#351

Post by brokenmachine »

true_religion wrote: post #28
brokenmachine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only America, but I suspect that it's because of the expectation of infinite growth, which is a fantasy, because nothing can grow indefinitely. So the market becomes more competitive, but the shareholders still want their return. So first you get the fat cut off, then you end up with corners cut right up to and over the point of illegality. Eventually stuff like this incident and much worse happens.

Aha. I think in the case of airlines its more due to deregulation. Airlines used to be tightly regulated on price, forcing them to compete instead on things like comfort and convenience. Deregulation allowed them to compete on price, and thus it became unknown what level of service that the population honestly expected out of an airline. It's as if we've had airplane tech for 70+ years, but only modern airlines since…

Great point, thanks for that explanation. I never knew that.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#352

Post by ubernostrum »

michaelmrose wrote: post #346
ubernostrum wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not a secret. Anybody who claims you can't reliably see if something is a codeshare or regional well in advance is lying, flat-out. I just went to Air Canada's site, punched in a one-way YVR-SFO and picked a date. And do you know what? I see three types of listings: * Air Canada flights, which show an Air Canada logo. * Codeshare flights, which show a Star Alliance logo and say "Operated by United Airlines"…

Do you know prior to paying for your discount fair?

You can check this for yourself:

1. Go to https://www.aircanada.com/us/en/aco/home.html

2. Select "One-way". Enter YVR (Vancouver) as "FROM" and SFO (San Francisco) as "TO". Depart on a date of your choice in the future. I'm going with 2017-05-01.

3. Look at results showing you whether each flight is mainline Air Canada, regional Air Canada Express affiliate (with regional affiliate identified) or Star Alliance partner flight operated by United.

4. Ask yourself whether you had to buy a ticket to see that.

You can do this with other airlines, too. For example, go to delta.com and ask for a one-way from SFO (San Francisco) to AMS (Amsterdam) on 2017-05-11. When I do that I see the first option listed is a direct flight, which says "DL 9389 is operated by KLM." Further down I see one with a connection in Paris which tells me "DL 8456 & AF 1440 are operated by Air France." There's one with a connection in Los Angeles which tells me that for the the SF-LA hop, "DL 4915 is operated by SkyWest DBA Delta Connection."

This is not secret hidden information. In fact, it's the opposite: airlines and third-party ticket agents are legally required to disclose the carrier who will operate the flight, and the US Department of Transportation will fine them if they try to keep it secret.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#353

Post by ubernostrum »

sandworm101 wrote: post #349
ubernostrum wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not a secret. Anybody who claims you can't reliably see if something is a codeshare or regional well in advance is lying, flat-out. I just went to Air Canada's site, punched in a one-way YVR-SFO and picked a date. And do you know what? I see three types of listings: * Air Canada flights, which show an Air Canada logo. * Codeshare flights, which show a Star Alliance logo and say "Operated by United Airlines"…

Not all of us book our own flights. Sometimes my only input is "Air Canada, direct if possible please". I've also been bumped from an actual Air Canada flight onto one of their "partners" totally against my will long after my purchase. After a long day, and then being bumped, I'm not in the mood to fight petty contract battles with a gate agent. The absolute worst version of this happened to me on a SFO-YVR flight wi…

If you don't book your own flight, and have no control over the choices made on your behalf by the person doing the booking, that's not really the airline's fault.

And codeshares have helped me out more than once. For example, a few years ago I was scheduled to fly Kansas City to Toronto on US Airways, connecting in DCA. On the way to the airport in KC, I got a call saying my flight to DCA was delayed and I'd miss my connection, but (since this was back when US Airways was a Star Alliance member) they'd rebooked me onto the direct Air Canada flight from Kansas City to Toronto, so I'd just need to go to the Air Canada counter and show my passport to pick up a boarding pass.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#354

Post by danderino »

mikeash wrote: post #218
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.

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…

>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.

No it isn't. The customer would have to be compensated for the damages.

But you should have the right to break contracts.

>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.

My guess is that the reason here was "If we dont kick you off, we have to cancel/delay another flight"

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#355

Post by narag »

maze-le wrote: post #136
narag wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a free market if there is information assymetry, it's there in the first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market It says that there is a less assuming version, but I'd always heard the information thing.

Well, if that is the case, the free market is a pureley theoretical concept, that is not realized anywhere in the world. And it cannot be realized, because there is always inevitable some form of information assymetry.

Something can be a theoretical concept and still useful. For politics you might want to favour transparency instead of obscurity.

As an employee in software I've been working through intermediaries for a good part of my career, so obviously interested.

I suspect that, at least in my country, it's more a matter of bad regulation than of information assymetry. But the mere fact that we're not sure which are the causes is in itself information assymetry.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#356

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #342
masondixon wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

Wat? That's a direct copy/paste from your comment. It's right there: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish." Did you forget that you wrote it, neglect to go back and check, and then attack this person for quoting your literal words? Unbelievable. It's not a "scarecrow," it's a literal, unadulterated quote.

> That's a direct copy/paste from your comment.

Sorry, I cannot find me ever saying that.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#357

Post by chinathrow »

diminoten wrote: post #285
chinathrow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One such incident was Buffallo. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 "Members of the board said that the crew of the twin-engine turboprop that crashed, killing all 49 people on board and one on the ground, was set up for fatigue and inattention before they even took off, partly because of the structure of the commuter airline business. "

While I understand the power of anecdotes, and I'm sure you could continue to push our availability heuristic into overdrive, the fact is that air travel in the US is incredibly safe, even with current practices related to pilot pay and treatment.

I haven't said anything that air travel is not incredibly safe - but I am sure it could be _even_ more safer with human working conditions for the whole crew.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#358

Post by DanBC »

masondixon wrote: post #338
_-__--____-- wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not how law works, is it?

One woman forgot to pay and walked out the store with an item; another women chose not to pay and walked out the store with an item. In England the second has committed theft, the first hasn't. What's the difference?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#359

Post by bkkssnn »

masondixon wrote: post #339
chillwaves wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the police wasn't really police. And it's argued in court if he even had the right to remove the passenger.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#360

Post by Asooka »

leni536 wrote: post #92
maze-le wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a nice example of why the free market is not neccessarily the guarantor of efficiency.

But why? It exactly looks like a problem that free market should be able to solve.

A free market doesn't guarantee a free society. Over time, people who have more political power can deny that to others, forming de-facto monarchies and serfdoms.

Don't forget that the state humanity started from was a totally free deregulated market, the consequences of which was the formation of tribes ruled by the strongest, most vicious guy and his spear-happy friends. When you don't have regulations, the person with the most power can impose their regulations.

Post reply on HN