United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure • Hacker News Board

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#51

Post by qubex » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #23

jpollock wrote: post #2

Even if it wasn't a passenger overbooking, it was overbooking in that they failed to properly account for the likelihood of having to ship crews around their network. If their occupancy ratio was lower, then there wouldn't have been a problem, they could have fit the crew in. If they reserved 4 seats for crew on every flight, again there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had even reserved 2 seats and run sufficie…

If they had recognized that they needed 4 seats for crew before the passengers scanned their tickets and walked down the jetway as is usually done they wouldn't have had a problem. They could have started the process before the flight booked, asking for volunteers before they got seated and attached to the idea of being on that flight. If they had no volunteers, they could probably have randomly selected passengers t…

...so united against United. ;)

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#52

Post by refurb » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #24

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

Those weren't even police officers. I wonder why this can't be considered "assault", accordinly.

My understanding is that they were police officers. Not Chicago city police officers, but rather the airport authority police officers.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#53

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #24

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

Those weren't even police officers. I wonder why this can't be considered "assault", accordinly.

They seem to hire people with law enforcement qualifications:

https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?jo...

And I imagine they must have some sort of law enforcement authority.

Doesn't mean it wasn't illegal to do what they did though.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#54

Post by strictnein » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #25

No, the real failure (and the source of this and many other issues in the airline industry) is the lack of competition in the US domestic market. Pure and simple. The huge, 350-million US domestic market is served by 4-5 major airlines, while the EU with 500 million people is served by tens of airlines. I recently flew from Barcelona to Nice for 30 euros, round-trip (with seat assignment). Where are the (potentially…

> "Where are the (potentially Mexican or Canadian-based) low cost airlines? That's right, none to be seen."

I'm in the upper midwest and we have two or three low cost airlines. Sun Country is the biggest (and based in MN). Spirit Airlines also has a decent presence. Sun Country flies to lots of places. First class ticket to Anchorage cost me ~$700 last time I flew with them, less than an economy seat on Delta.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#55

Post by strictnein » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #40

drfuchs wrote: post #26

Why didn't they just keep doubling the offer for volunteers? Surely by $1600 or $3200 someone would bite. Then everyone is happy, it all gets finished quickly, and there's no chance of this sort of PR disaster (even docile removees can end up in the news if they then, say, miss the death of a hospitalized family member due to the delay).

Because handbook says a certain amount is the maximum they can offer, and likely the crew offering more would risk their job. Following this fiasco, Munoz said they will expand the handbook. We'll see.

Also, I think there's actually a government regulation which caps it at $1300 or so.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#56

Post by hsod » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #29

dionidium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force My understanding is that there was a lengthy conversation that took place before the outrage-inducing video starts. They did attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. At some point there is an impasse. Police are making a request and he's ignoring it. There are two ways that can go: 1) Police shr…

I expect the police to police, as in, maintain law and order. As I understand it, neither were broken at said impasse. Again, I have come to expect very little of American police. The crew should have known better than calling the police. I blame more the crew and probably their textbook for unleashing the dogs, rather than the dogs biting.

Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below

I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understanding of the sequence of events, the passenger violated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

If a flight attendant asked him to get off the plane and he belligerently refused, that would seem to be a violation of this law.

Note that I'm not arguing that the original request was justified OR that the police response was justified.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#57

Post by jazzyk » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

slantedview wrote: post #46

jazzyk wrote: post #25

No, the real failure (and the source of this and many other issues in the airline industry) is the lack of competition in the US domestic market. Pure and simple. The huge, 350-million US domestic market is served by 4-5 major airlines, while the EU with 500 million people is served by tens of airlines. I recently flew from Barcelona to Nice for 30 euros, round-trip (with seat assignment). Where are the (potentially…

Who are you saying no to? From the article: > the lousy economics of airlines combined with their oligopoly status in the US says they will be extremely reluctant to make anything beyond bare minimum changes It sounds like you agree with the author.

I was really commenting on the part of the title "...a reporting and management problem", and on the comments in this thread splitting hairs over whether it was overbooking or over-selling - and completely missing the bigger point.

Which is understanding the cause, not looking at the symptoms.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#58

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #31

jpollock wrote: post #2

Even if it wasn't a passenger overbooking, it was overbooking in that they failed to properly account for the likelihood of having to ship crews around their network. If their occupancy ratio was lower, then there wouldn't have been a problem, they could have fit the crew in. If they reserved 4 seats for crew on every flight, again there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had even reserved 2 seats and run sufficie…

>The airline played the game, ran too lean and paid the price. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, they just didn't follow through with the correct way to free up seats, which is increasing the bid. Some family cleared something like $13,000 in amex gift cards during the delta debacle last week by volunteering their seats multiple times. If you keep increasing the bid, you will find a price at which someone w…

Compared to the 1.6 billion that came off the stock price, anything looks cheap.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#59

Post by cmurf » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

I definitely agree with the criticism that the media has focused on the video, as "shockertainment" rather than educating their viewers. The awareness of the law and skepticism in media is lacking, they pretty much disseminated incorrect relevant details. Many would decry a 46 page contract of carriage, but then also not aid the viewer in navigating that complex document.

At the very least, a journalist should ask the airline and the police: -has a crime been committed? -has a civil contract been committed? -what breach of law or contract has been committed and can you cite this exactly? -do you often threaten passengers with removal? -how often are you asked to do non-criminal passenger extractions on behalf of the airline? which airlines?

Either the passenger committed a crime to cause forced removal, and it seems clear he didn't commit a crime (nor was in breach of the contract of carriage); or the police committed the crime of assault, an unlawful use of force. There's a crime here either way, and that outcome I think is interesting.

But no less interesting is that United appears to have a track record of using threats of violence to get passengers to do things that are not at all required by law, regulations, or their own contract of carriage. http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united...

That passenger decided to acquiesce to the threats, and ended up having no real meaningful recourse, i.e. even for this reasonably affluent person, it wasn't worth it to sue.

Basically the contract is next to meaningless. This is might makes right. And if you won't stand your ground, aren't willing to get wrongfully arrested, and then sue at your own expense, the airline's threats will work and they'll get what they want.

Re: United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Failure

#60

Post by Analemma_ » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #37

zeteo wrote: post #19

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure that it's virtually certain for a corporate lawyer to find some justification somewhere for almost anything. The corporate employees and the police both operate on this assumption. As a customer, your only recourse is to meekly accept whatever treatment is comi…

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. Well, no -- they just don't have much bargaining power . Which is different.

No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never.