Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#41

Post by Hydraulix989 »

fefzero wrote: post #26
kelnos wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing that always bothers me. By _far_, when (at least US domestic) travelers book flights, their main and often only consideration is ticket price. People claim to be annoyed by baggage fees, not being able to select their seat ahead of time, no or limited food, paid in-flight entertainment, overselling, etc., but they refuse to vote with their wallets and pay more for better service. We've made this bed…

The bar for basic service has dropped so far that you are no longer treated like a person if you don't pay for the extras. My wife and I saved up for a resort trip for our ten year anniversary only to find that our 4-hour flight included a seat without enough leg room for me to sit while the person in front of me reclined into my lap (I'm 6'2"). The passenger in front of me wanted to stay reclined and the flight atte…

That's an experience that isn't really unique to United though, the major carriers all have nearly the same legroom (+/- 1").

As a 6'1" passenger, I can tell you that your claim that you "couldn't sit" while the passenger in front of you was fully reclined is a gross exaggeration. Sure, I empathize with you that it was uncomfortable, and rest assured, you were paying an extremely bargained price for your airfare.

Basic economics also comes into play here: There are Economy Plus seats if you want a more luxurious amount of legroom.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#42

Post by manarth »

FussyZeus wrote: post #24

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for…

To add to that, flying without the passengers who didn't show is cheaper. Every extra kg is a cost in fuel, so passengers not showing up is already a net saving.

That said, I do see the appeal of allowing flexibility in tickets, allowing someone who's missed their flight to catch the next, with no/minimal additional cost. And I recognise that might need practices such as overbooking to accommodate.

Overbooking's been happening for years, on almost all of the airlines. Individuals do inevitably get caught up in, get annoyed/compensated for getting booted from their flight, but for the most part it works.

It breaks down in this extreme situation, where someone literally got beat up in order to ease logistics for an airline.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#43

Post by wsxcde »

FussyZeus wrote: post #24

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for…

I don't get the hate for overbooking. If you know 3% of passengers won't show up for whatever reason -- they're late, missed connections, cancelled plans -- it makes sense to sell 103% of capacity and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. This is a good idea. They only thing we need to do is regulate overbooking to make sure that when this probabilistic premise fails, customers are treated fairly and respectfully.

I'm sure if United had offered $2000 for someone to take a different flight, they'd have found takers. The mistake here is poor management of the situation from united and Chicago PD, not overbooking.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#44

Post by michaelmrose »

jasode wrote: post #27
woodpanel wrote: post #13

IMHO: The article is too much rage-laden. The much more interesting article comes beneath the one linked ( https://www.wired.com/2017/04/united-airlines-overbook-fligh... ). At the core doesn't seem to be evilness of capitalist corporations, but rather a) the economic usefulness of overbooking b) an uncooperative (ex-)customer (his refusal to leave being unlawful) c) an unqualified and brutal airport police d) the di…

>a) the economic usefulness of overbooking I realize that "overbook" can mean different things but United flight #3411 wasn't oversold to statistically offset no-shows. Instead, the plane had a capacity of 70 seats[1] and United sold all 70 seats to paying customers with zero cancellations. That's a perfect economic situation for United. What went wrong was 4 extra United employees needed a last-minute ride on that p…

They could also have just paid for those employees to take a competitors airline if it was vital for them to be there immediately despite their poor planning.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#45

Post by douche »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #41
fefzero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar for basic service has dropped so far that you are no longer treated like a person if you don't pay for the extras. My wife and I saved up for a resort trip for our ten year anniversary only to find that our 4-hour flight included a seat without enough leg room for me to sit while the person in front of me reclined into my lap (I'm 6'2"). The passenger in front of me wanted to stay reclined and the flight atte…

That's an experience that isn't really unique to United though, the major carriers all have nearly the same legroom (+/- 1"). As a 6'1" passenger, I can tell you that your claim that you "couldn't sit" while the passenger in front of you was fully reclined is a gross exaggeration. Sure, I empathize with you that it was uncomfortable, and rest assured, you were paying an extremely bargained price for your airfare. Bas…

The really fun times are when your shoulders are wider than the seat is, and you're in an aisle seat. Every time the drink cart goes by or someone heads for the bathroom, you get trucked.

I'm just waiting for the natural evolution of this system, where everyone takes their seat, and knock-out gas is piped in.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#46

Post by FussyZeus »

wsxcde wrote: post #43
FussyZeus wrote: post #24

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for…

I don't get the hate for overbooking. If you know 3% of passengers won't show up for whatever reason -- they're late, missed connections, cancelled plans -- it makes sense to sell 103% of capacity and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. This is a good idea. They only thing we need to do is regulate overbooking to make sure that when this probabilistic premise fails, customers are treated fairly and respectfully. I'm sur…

> and give everybody 3% cheaper fares.

If someone can prove this actually happened and United (or any airline really) didn't just pocket that money as profit, I will eat my hat and post the video for all to see.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#47

Post by slantyyz »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #41
fefzero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar for basic service has dropped so far that you are no longer treated like a person if you don't pay for the extras. My wife and I saved up for a resort trip for our ten year anniversary only to find that our 4-hour flight included a seat without enough leg room for me to sit while the person in front of me reclined into my lap (I'm 6'2"). The passenger in front of me wanted to stay reclined and the flight atte…

That's an experience that isn't really unique to United though, the major carriers all have nearly the same legroom (+/- 1"). As a 6'1" passenger, I can tell you that your claim that you "couldn't sit" while the passenger in front of you was fully reclined is a gross exaggeration. Sure, I empathize with you that it was uncomfortable, and rest assured, you were paying an extremely bargained price for your airfare. Bas…

>> There are Economy Plus seats if you want a more luxurious amount of legroom.

I always pay extra for the Economy Plus seats if the price difference is $100 or less. I find it pretty uncomfortable even when the person in front of me doesn't choose to recline, and I'm only 5'7" in height. I would hate to be 6' or taller in regular economy.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#48

Post by bogomipz »

calbear81 wrote: post #2

If we as consumers are voting with our wallets, in most cases we're the ones who have accepted the new norm as acceptable in the spirit of chasing ever lower fares. Consider the success of airlines like Ryanair which charges for every possible amenity and slight convenience. United Airlines has largely been the laggard in the industry in the past 5 years even though their stock price has risen 200%, that is 50% less…

>"If we as consumers are voting with our wallets, in most cases we're the ones who have accepted the new norm as acceptable in the spirit of chasing ever lower fares."

The consolidation of the airline industry and resulting lack of choices in the US has made voting with your wallets quite ineffective. Airline's have been practicing something called "capacity discipline" that ensures that reduces the number of flights and ensures that planes are always nearly full. Where are you seeing these "ever lower" fares? US airlines are flying fewer flights and certainly fewer direct flights these days in a practice called "capacity discipline" which is designed to make sure the planes are as full as possible. The fares on a fuller flight tend to be more expensive than fares on empty flight.

Also the reason why Ryan Air is so successful is not because they charge for every possible amenity but rather they have the cheapest labor costs in the industry Labor - 6€ per passenger [1]

see the section"Operating Model: Execution":

[1] https://rctom.hbs.org/submission/ryanair-the-lowest-cost-air...

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#49

Post by slantyyz »

douche wrote: post #45
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an experience that isn't really unique to United though, the major carriers all have nearly the same legroom (+/- 1"). As a 6'1" passenger, I can tell you that your claim that you "couldn't sit" while the passenger in front of you was fully reclined is a gross exaggeration. Sure, I empathize with you that it was uncomfortable, and rest assured, you were paying an extremely bargained price for your airfare. Bas…

The really fun times are when your shoulders are wider than the seat is, and you're in an aisle seat. Every time the drink cart goes by or someone heads for the bathroom, you get trucked. I'm just waiting for the natural evolution of this system, where everyone takes their seat, and knock-out gas is piped in.

>> I'm just waiting for the natural evolution of this system, where everyone takes their seat, and knock-out gas is piped in.

Unless they charge you for the gas, the the airline wouldn't be able to make money off booze, food, headphones, etc.

Re: How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights

#50

Post by FussyZeus »

manarth wrote: post #42
FussyZeus wrote: post #24

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for…

To add to that, flying without the passengers who didn't show is cheaper. Every extra kg is a cost in fuel, so passengers not showing up is already a net saving. That said, I do see the appeal of allowing flexibility in tickets, allowing someone who's missed their flight to catch the next, with no/minimal additional cost. And I recognise that might need practices such as overbooking to accommodate. Overbooking's been…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the logistics actually be much simpler if they did away with overbooking altogether? Then they'd have drastically fewer people needing to emergency board flights (since they weren't kicked off) and wouldn't need to compensate them.

It's more accurate to say a man got beat up because United sold his seat twice and couldn't figure out what to do about it when they got caught.

Post reply on HN