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

361–370 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#361

Post by compsciphd »

rhino369 wrote: post #227
compsciphd wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a bit more complicated. I believe what I read was United knows the cheapest tickets on the flight are $200. They know DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping is 4x cost of ticket. Hence, its not worth it to them to offer more than $800 in compensation as they can just bump people involuntarily for the same value. Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re o…

>Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking. Without the law, United wouldn't even have to pay 4x. The remedies for regular breach of contract aren't very good.

the law can be that overbooking is allowed but airlines also cant involuntary boot anyone. They have to incentivize someone to get off. I'm sure if they went up to $2k in cash someone would have taken them up on the offer and just ubered to ($400ish if I remember what my check showed me) to their destination. For me, $800 (even cash) wouldn't have been sufficient for me to convince me to uber to my destination, even if I wouldn't have lost money on the transaction.

i.e. airlines are only allowed to purposefully overbook due to DOT rules, the same rules provide what I perceive as a perverse incentive when it comes to encouraging involuntary bumping.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#362

Post by Asooka »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #62
IIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they aren't as well trained as united employees I'm really getting (maybe needlessly) a bit irate over the endless stream of "they didn't have the training" comments each and every time some employee attacks someone. For this incident too but also for many previous ones, in a lot of forums from reddit to local newspaper websites I found this line of reasoning or explanation. I may get flak for this, but as a Ge…

Presumably, the "the lack of training" is related to how to resolve situations without resorting to force. When people say that they lack training, it's not about being trained not to attack somebody, it's about being trained (and more importantly empowered) to resolve situations before they get to that point. Because when there are no options left, you only have force.

> Presumably, the "the lack of training" is related to how to resolve situations without resorting to force.

> how to resolve situations without resorting to force

That's exactly what OP refers to. This is supposed to be a basic skill, part of the stuff you learn in your first 7 years from your parents and society, not on-the-job training.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#363

Post by Asooka »

cookiecaper wrote: post #260
edsheeran wrote: post #49

They could have used common sense. Be polite. Raise the ante. Negotiate. There was a manager/person in charge who didn't use common sense and then it escalated to more parties without common sense. Low EQ who only know threat of force and escalation of force. Our loss of wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...

There are some counter-intuitive effects of the "common sense" approach. If people know that resisting longer will get them more, they will work to delay the process in an effort to maximize the airline's bid. This will impact schedules and ultimately lead to more hostile deplaning situations as people attempt to hold out for more. Managers/overseers could intentionally place belligerent people on the plane who refus…

You should optimize and design the system so it works the service of the 90% good-natured, cooperative people, then work to minimize the effect of the bad apples when they occur.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#364

Post by mikeash »

masondixon wrote: post #356
mikeash wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Last paragraph, second sentence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14159003

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#365

Post by mikeash »

danderino wrote: post #354
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…

>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…

That's probably what they thought, but that reason is BS. All they had to do to avoid canceling or delaying the flight was to increase their offered compensation until someone accepted it voluntarily.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#366

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #341
masondixon wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary. This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well? Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily. Why do you…

Its comes down to inconveniencing all the passengers because one person doesn't comply. As a passenger I would appreciate someone being removed like they were. Otherwise what if I am the next person chosen to get off the plane. If I were chosen I would get off the plane.

So from my perspective, they did the right thing, if I evaluate the outcome selfishly.

I think its all about personal feelings anyway. I feel angry that someone thinks they are to be held to a different set of rules than anyone else (as other passengers got off), and that they think its okay to inconvenience all the other passengers.

Other people look at the outcome, and feel sorry for the guy because of his injuries, and are angry at law enforcement because they are anti-authoritarian - maybe something to do with their upbringing or their status in society I don't know.

And I understand that on a human level that people feel differently. But one is more rationale than the other. And this is what I believe separates the political spectrum in the US too - but that is a debate for another day.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#367

Post by masondixon »

mikeash wrote: post #364
masondixon wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a direct copy/paste from your comment. Sorry, I cannot find me ever saying that.

Last paragraph, second sentence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14159003

My apologies.

But it is a reference to my earlier sentence where I add: "If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property."

The point I am making is that I think its better to leave someone's private property, than to stay, when there is a dispute and there is the threat of physical confrontation. They have more claim to kick you off than you have to stay when force is involved.

I am talking about before we know who is in the right. If I trespass on someone's property that I believe I can rightfully be on, and they threaten to physically remove me, I will leave, and get the police to remove them. If someone trespasses on my property that they claim they have a right to be on, I will make them leave with force if necessary, and then they can get the police to remove me.

I think its sensible to default to the owner in these situations.

But I agree its a weak point and if we examine tenancy laws then it definitely doesn't universally hold well. But a good rule of thumb.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#368

Post by mikeash »

masondixon wrote: post #366
mikeash wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary. This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well? Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily. Why do you…

Its comes down to inconveniencing all the passengers because one person doesn't comply. As a passenger I would appreciate someone being removed like they were. Otherwise what if I am the next person chosen to get off the plane. If I were chosen I would get off the plane. So from my perspective, they did the right thing, if I evaluate the outcome selfishly. I think its all about personal feelings anyway. I feel angry…

You once again ignore the possibility of not removing anybody involuntarily, and instead increasing the compensation until someone chooses to take it and leave.

I don't understand why you're so obstinate on that point, to the extent of not even acknowledging the possibility. It certainly doesn't fit with your supposed "violence as a last resort" stance.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#369

Post by logfromblammo »

opo wrote: post #350
logfromblammo wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate. Planes aren't trains, either. They can fly on any heading, with speed and distance dependent only on fuel supply. "We're very sorry, but due to…

>The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate. The correct solution in this case is that if an airline decides that they want to reclaim 4 seats that were sold to customers, that they figur…

"Disruptive passenger" is a thought-terminating cliche that recruits the other passengers into believing that it is the other passenger's fault for being kicked off the plane. It is exactly the sort of thing an airline would announce to shift blame from itself.

The passenger is not actually disruptive in the traditional sense, but is disruptive to the way the airline wants to run itself. The passenger has no access to the announcement system to rebut the assertion, so the airline can paint them in as bad a light as they like.

Or did you think that airline employees did not routinely lie to passengers for their own convenience?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#370

Post by logfromblammo »

mimmmi wrote: post #347
logfromblammo wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate. Planes aren't trains, either. They can fly on any heading, with speed and distance dependent only on fuel supply. "We're very sorry, but due to…

A plane must followed it pre-defined Flight plans. A plane that does not take off as scheduled get pay a fine... that is the reason why, the rent-a-cop were used, to speed up the process so the airliner can take off as soon as possible.

Most passengers don't know that. Lying to someone sometimes works better than punching them in the face.

And flight plans can not only be changed and refiled on the ground, they can be altered in the air by talking to a control tower over the radio.

Post reply on HN