How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #36

oconnore wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we as consumers are voting with our wallets The article discusses how the Justice department approved a series of mergers between the major carriers that significantly reduced consumer choice. It's funny that this "vote with your wallet", "capitalism at work" rhetoric never finds fault with these near-monopolies. You can't have it both ways: either the justice department needs to do its job splitting up big busi…

Exactly the right point. Businesses either need competition or regulation. If they have neither, you end up in the situation we have now. Airlines are killing all but a few chosen cities in our country by cutting flights and jacking up the prices. On top of that, they're completely indifferent to customer service. It'd be bad for their business to care about the customers when they already have regional monopolies.

I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that the airline industry doesn't have competition.

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

#72

Post by charlieflowers » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

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…

But we are (I hope) voting with our wallets. We want low fares and decent treatment.

The corps found it easier to lower fares than to achieve decent treatment. They failed to understand our votes.

United is about to learn (when they shut their doors, I hope) that decent treatment was very important all along, and they screwed up badly by neglecting it. They got away with it for a while, but not anymore.

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

#73

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

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…

> The very second that United knew they had 4 employees they had to acccomodate, their computer system should have immediately confirmed those 4 employees on flight #3411 first such that the plane only shows 66 available seats instead of 70. (Computers doing math for the win!) That way, either 4 of the customers get denied a boarding pass at the check-in kiosk, or they get denied at the gate that scans the barcode before they enter the jetway. Instead, United let all 70 passengers board and settle in their seats.

What you're describing is a race condition, to use the term from real-time software. By updating faster, you reduce the timing window, but the problem can still happen - the passengers are all in the jetway, but the 4 crewmembers are in the employee lounge and just a 3 minute walk from the gate. They can still make the flight before all the passengers are out of the jetway...

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

#74

Post by tdb7893 » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #69

tdb7893 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your reason is discriminatory you can't evict someone but kicking someone off to make room for an employee isn't illegal at all

I understand that's not true. I understand it is an FAA violation (i.e. breaking the law) to drop someone with a confirmed reservation in favour of an employee. Additionally, what happened was also a violation of the conditions of carriage that the airline had set up. They were breaking their own rules. What makes you say it's not illegal? Perhaps I'm reading the rules incorrectly.

I'm aware of the fact that they can't outright refuse service to most people but I was under the impression that they had some latitude in rescheduling people.

EDIT: that article makes sense. I'm obviously not sure on the legalities so I will defer to your understanding of it. I guess this case goes close to home for me because if I had to make the decision between canceling a few whole flights and kicking 4 people off a plane I probably would've done the same thing and I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm all for sticking it to the man but people seem more outraged at the company making a pretty understandible decision when it seems to me the security officer who really made the bad decision and bloodied the guy.

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

#75

Post by weixiyen » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #53

hackbinary wrote: post #35

In this situation, shouldn't there have been some form of mandatory auction, where the Airline would have to bid to buy the seat back. Or do what Delta does, and form a contract with the passenger to buy back the ticket for a pre-agreed price? I do find it shocking that the airport police got involved with what really seems to be a civil, rather than criminal matter, but then again, such are the times. Airlines shoul…

The issue is that the guy refused to leave a private space, getting security or police to remove him seems like the solution to that problem in most other contexts. It's a different situation but if someone refused to leave my office they would definitely call the police

Technically the passenger is in a private space when the plane is in flight as well. Can I remove him without reasonable cause? Probably not. I wonder at what point it's okay to remove a passenger when they paid for boarding, sat in their seat, and there is no reasonable cause.

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

#76

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

FussyZeus wrote: post #46

wsxcde wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not proof, exactly, but... I read somewhere that total airline profits for domestic carriers from 1960 to 2010[1] were $0. The history of airlines is just bankruptcy, restructuring, reworking union contracts, belt-tightening, and rinse and repeat.

[1] This is from memory. Actual years may vary.

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

#77

Post by EliRivers » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:26 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #74

EliRivers wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that's not true. I understand it is an FAA violation (i.e. breaking the law) to drop someone with a confirmed reservation in favour of an employee. Additionally, what happened was also a violation of the conditions of carriage that the airline had set up. They were breaking their own rules. What makes you say it's not illegal? Perhaps I'm reading the rules incorrectly.

I'm aware of the fact that they can't outright refuse service to most people but I was under the impression that they had some latitude in rescheduling people. EDIT: that article makes sense. I'm obviously not sure on the legalities so I will defer to your understanding of it. I guess this case goes close to home for me because if I had to make the decision between canceling a few whole flights and kicking 4 people o…

Here is a lawyer who took the tobacco companies for billions talking about it: http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/david-dao-united-airlines/

It's disturbing to see here and elsewhere (not so much you, but certainly others) the degree to which people doff their caps to big business.

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

#78

Post by jasode » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #73

jasode wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The very second that United knew they had 4 employees they had to acccomodate, their computer system should have immediately confirmed those 4 employees on flight #3411 first such that the plane only shows 66 available seats instead of 70. (Computers doing math for the win!) That way, either 4 of the customers get denied a boarding pass at the check-in kiosk, or they get denied at the gate that scans the barcode be…

>, but the 4 crewmembers are in the employee lounge and just a 3 minute walk from the gate. They can still make the flight before all the passengers are out of the jetway...

In that case, I'm saying there would only be up to 66 (not 70) paying customers in the jetway. This still leaves 4 available seats for the deadheading United employees.

In other words, don't render those 4 extra United employees "invisible" to the reservation system only to later make them "visible" when they finally show up at the gate after all 70 passengers are already in their seats. United knew they needed those 4 employees in Kentucky hours before customers boarded #3411 in Chicago. The issue is that they had zero empty seats on that flight so they had to bribe/force 4 "volunteers" to give up their seats.

If United's computer system doesn't have enough sophistication to set aside plane seats for employees that have higher priority than paying customers, they deserved to have the situation escalate into a Mexican standoff between the gate agent, the seated customer, and the Chicago police.

If you're talking about a rare emergency circumstance where United's operations center doesn't know they need those 4 seats for employees until after all customers are boarded, yes that can still happen. However, that wasn't the case for flight #3411. The 4 employees were "running late" to appear at #3411's gate. This means they were not a "hot standby" crew at the airport's lounge. Instead, it meant that these employees were are either on an incoming flight or were stuck in traffic driving to the airport from home/hotel. Either way, United had plenty of time to reserve 4 seats on #3411 for their higher-priority employees but for whatever reason, they didn't do it.

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

#79

Post by tyingq » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #62

WkndTriathlete wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a 6'1" passenger myself, I can only assume you have short femurs. I've had that exact scenario happen to me on a flight - when the person in front of me reclines, my legs from my rear end to my kneecaps do not fit in the space provided in an economy seat. I book seats that are Economy Comfort (I fly Delta) or exit-row seating, but when flying with my wife and children I sometimes need to choose comfort or sitting…

I believe we're both slightly over one standard deviation above the mean for adult male height. Regardless, I am a competitive distance runner (and have the right body type for the sport). My femurs are likely even larger than yours, and yes, my knees stick a little bit outside of my space into the adjacent seat, but I am still perfectly capable of sitting in my seat. I've had overweight seatmates that encroach more…

It's a thing...some people can't fit.

Average seat pitch is 31 inches these days, but the room you would have from buttocks to your knee would be smaller than that. 22 inches isn't uncommon: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PJ-BY155A_MIDSE_16...

"Buttock to Knee length" seems to range from about 21 to 25 inches: http://ergotmc.gtri.gatech.edu/dgt/images/hbfg0713.gif

It's not hard to imagine someone with 24 inch+ b-to-k having trouble fitting them into a 22 inch space.

My son is 6'3", and has real issues with this.

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

#80

Post by tyingq » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #70

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we're both slightly over one standard deviation above the mean for adult male height. Regardless, I am a competitive distance runner (and have the right body type for the sport). My femurs are likely even larger than yours, and yes, my knees stick a little bit outside of my space into the adjacent seat, but I am still perfectly capable of sitting in my seat. I've had overweight seatmates that encroach more…

Re: overweight passengers, if I ran an airline, there would be a seat with side panels to test your fit. The seat would have side pressure sensors. If you can sit in the boxed seat without touching either side, fine. If you can't do so without touching one side or the other, you'd have to pay more. We'd also charge for weight, something per-pound. It costs more in fuel to move each additional pound. There would be a…

Of course you would get the obvious comparison to the sizing box they use to determine if a carry on bag is allowed onboard.

I would guess you would need a fairly big legal defense fund for this endeavor.