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

371–379 of 379 posts

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#371

Post by rhino369 »

compsciphd wrote: post #361
rhino369 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The part you are missing is that airlines don't need a law that lets them overbook. They absolutely can involuntary boot anyone for any reason (other than discriminatory reasons that are otherwise illegal). Booting a person would be a breach of contract, but breaches of contracts aren't illegal.

Hell, they could update their contact and then it wouldn't even be a breach of a contract.

The law was written to reign in their behavior. Without it, they have a lot more freedom.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#372

Post by logfromblammo »

masondixon wrote: post #319
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…

Nice story. But I don't want to be on that plane or live in that society, and I am happy that the US police still have the guts to enforce the law and follow orders.

Though in this particular case, they were breaking criminal law in the course of intervening in a civil dispute. They were attempting to simultaneously act as police and as private security personnel for the airline.

One cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve the public interest as police and a private interest as a security thug at the same time.

Following orders takes no guts. It takes guts to refuse to obey an unlawful order. The Nuremberg Principle still exists.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#373

Post by opo »

logfromblammo wrote: post #369
opo wrote: post #350

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. 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 t…

I agree with everything you wrote here. In your original post it sounded like maybe what you were saying was that the airline should have used peer pressure as a means to violate their contract with a passenger. There are much better choices available than "beat him up"and "idling a whole plane on the tarmac for a few hours." - both of these are very bad choices. In the case of United, simply coming on board and saying a screwup happened and saying you are authorized to give 4 free round trip first class tickets on any destination where United flys would have quickly gotten more than enough volunteers.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#374

Post by hueving »

metafunctor wrote: post #113
hueving wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you fly with any frequency, you witness this very often. Any time you hear them asking for volunteers at the gate and offering money. It's an auction system used hundreds of times a day by airlines all over the US.

This incident occurred when the paying customer was already seated on the plane. Normal overbooking negotiations happen at the gate. There are no goons dragging you out of the airport in a normal overbooking situation.

I've been on delta flights where flight attendants came onto the plane and started the bidding process in this same exact scenario (last minute crew). I picked up a $600 voucher to arrive at my destination at the same time (different layover).

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#375

Post by Noseshine »

tajen wrote: post #89
rurban wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nowadays drinking and drugs are a bigger problem than hours. Remember the movie "Flight"? Thanksfully those planes fly fully automatic, but still some weather decisions have to be made from time to time.

I actually wonder why we still have pilots on board in 2017.

A lack of subject knowledge when commenting about something does that to you. /s

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#376

Post by Noseshine »

masondixon wrote: post #243
parenthephobia wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they supposed to do? Refuse booking at the gate. Not give seats that paying customers are already occupying to their staff. Not remove paying customers using so much reckless force that they break their nose and teeth in the process. Accept that they've made a mistake and send their staff in another vehicle.

I mean once they decide someone should not be on the flight. Most people would just do as they are told and seek compensation or pursue in courts. Mistakes happen, but most people don't seek physical confrontation. Society doesn't function if people seek physical confrontation with law enforcement. This man was different for some reason. I hope he is a rare case.

> but most people don't seek physical confrontation.

Like that passenger, who did NOTHING. We even have a video (not the first one that was published, a later one) that shows wat he did: NOTHING.

No, the real problem are people like you. You should be removed - from everything. Do you wat to see an asshole? Do you have a mirror?

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#377

Post by rurban »

vmarsy wrote: post #76
rurban wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you brought that up. VW has even less to do with the dieselgate scandal than UA has with this O'Hare incident. VW uses engines and engine software parametrization from Audi. Audi uses engine software and esp. the cheating device from Bosch. Everyone else also uses it. But VW being the biggest of them all is getting the blame and has to pay the fine.

The VW group owns Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, SEAT, ... If I remember correctly the Bosch cheating software was there for testing purposes but VW asked Bosch to leave it. > Everyone else also uses it No. Some companies optimize their engine to have optimal emissions in the exact conditions of the emissions test, but no other company has been found to have an actual digital switch modifying the engine's behavior only d…

Get yourself educated and watch the relevant CCC talk please.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#378

Post by rurban »

vmarsy wrote: post #76
rurban wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you brought that up. VW has even less to do with the dieselgate scandal than UA has with this O'Hare incident. VW uses engines and engine software parametrization from Audi. Audi uses engine software and esp. the cheating device from Bosch. Everyone else also uses it. But VW being the biggest of them all is getting the blame and has to pay the fine.

The VW group owns Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, SEAT, ... If I remember correctly the Bosch cheating software was there for testing purposes but VW asked Bosch to leave it. > Everyone else also uses it No. Some companies optimize their engine to have optimal emissions in the exact conditions of the emissions test, but no other company has been found to have an actual digital switch modifying the engine's behavior only d…

Oh my. Audi is the engineering part of VW, VW the low quality, mass market part of the brand. Engines are developed at Audi, they are the engineers after all, VW is a logistics and support company.

Porsche is the owner of the VW group. They bought most of the controlling stock.

Since everybody uses Bosch ECU's and most of the companies knew about this cheating low temp. switch in the ECU parametrization, it is no surprise that most of them have been caught using it. It is not illegal in Europe though, because laws are different here.

The only surprise is that media is ignoring it, and blaming VW who would be the last to blame.

Re: Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

#379

Post by rurban »

vmarsy wrote: post #76
rurban wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you brought that up. VW has even less to do with the dieselgate scandal than UA has with this O'Hare incident. VW uses engines and engine software parametrization from Audi. Audi uses engine software and esp. the cheating device from Bosch. Everyone else also uses it. But VW being the biggest of them all is getting the blame and has to pay the fine.

The VW group owns Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, SEAT, ... If I remember correctly the Bosch cheating software was there for testing purposes but VW asked Bosch to leave it. > Everyone else also uses it No. Some companies optimize their engine to have optimal emissions in the exact conditions of the emissions test, but no other company has been found to have an actual digital switch modifying the engine's behavior only d…

Oh my. Audi is the engineering part of VW, VW the low quality, mass market part of the brand. Engines are developed at Audi, they are the engineers after all, VW is a logistics and support company.

Porsche is the owner of the VW group. They bought most of the controlling stock.

Since everybody uses Bosch ECU's and most of the companies knew about this cheating low temp. switch in the ECU parametrization, it is no surprise that most of them have been caught using it. It is not illegal in Europe though, because laws are different here.

The only surprise is that media is ignoring it, and blaming VW who would be the last to blame.

Post reply on HN