13 ms·

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 ne

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 sufficient flights such that the crew got to the target airport in time there wouldn't have been a problem. If they had brought crew in from two different starting points - it would have been fine. It's still overbooking, just not oversold tickets. The airline played the game, ran too lean and paid the price. Much like an ISP having all their IP traffic going down one pipe, and not having enough room to send out the customer invoices because everyone is watching Netflix.

huebnerob 10y ago
In this case, semantics matter. Overbooking is a legally protected practice, but what you're trying to wedge into the definition of 'overbooking' is not.
- churn1 10y ago
  If terms and definitions matter, the legal term you are looking for is actually "oversales", not overbooking which is a colloquial term
  - eridius 10y ago
    Overbooking is generally used as a synonym of oversales. Trying to redefine overbooking right now to mean something else is just going to cause confusion.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      There's a rhetorical difference where "overbooking" puts the onus on the customer, and "oversales" puts it where it should be: on the airline who sold the extra tickets. And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity.
      - eridius 10y ago
        How can "overbooking" possibly put the onus on the customer? Overbooking is entirely within the control of the airline, and the customer doesn't have the capacity to overbook, or even the knowledge as to whether overbooking could possibly occur. > And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity. Well yes, that's the whole point of this discussion, that calling it "overbooking" or "oversales" is wrong.
        manigandham 10y ago
        Yes, overbooking/oversales are effectively synonyms, but that's not the issue at all here. Overbooking is purchased and reserved seating over capacity. The plane was fully booked and boarded at capacity, and then 4 more seats were cleared by physically removing passengers. Collapsing these events by saying it's an overbooking issue overlooks the very important timeline in between the plane being booked/boarded and then initiating a removal of said passengers, instead of denying them in the first place. The request for 4 seats should've arrived before the boarding process (or at least before it ended), that's the problem.
        eridius 10y ago
        I don't know why you're trying to make this argument with me, since it's unrelated to the actual discussion taking place in this subthread.
        rhizome 10y ago
        Overbooking: People bought too many tickets Oversales: The airline sold too many tickets It's a thin distinction to be sure, but it reads with rhetorical significance to me.
        eridius 10y ago
        No, there is literally no distinction at all. The customer cannot possibly buy too many tickets, they can only buy as many tickets as the airline sells. So the only way to overbook is by the airline selling too many tickets.
LeoNatan25 10y ago
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.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  I assume you meant "taze", as in incapacitated him with a Taser electroshock weapon. It's an unfortunate typo, because he seemed quite thorougly distressed, disheveled and without composure - fazed.
  - LeoNatan25 10y ago
    Yes, thank you for the correction!
- dionidium 10y ago
  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 shrug their shoulders, leave, and let the man have his way; 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. That is, as far as I can tell, the actual reality of the situation. And anybody advocating for outcome #1 probably has some thinking to do about what it actually means to have a police force at all.
  - daenney 10y ago
    > 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. Yet why does the forceful removal of that passenger justify knocking him down and dragging him off the plane? There's plenty of ways to forcefully remove someone from something without doing what they did. Police is allowed to apply force, but that doesn't immediately give them the right to go loco.
ahoy 10y ago
> The airline played the game, ran too lean and paid the price. I would argue that the unconscious paying customer with a bloody head paid the price.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Well, United stock went down, IIRC, $830 million dollars. That's paying a bit of a price. They may pay for it in lost sales and lawsuits, as well. The cop got suspended. That's paying a price, too. And it may not be the end of the price he pays.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    UAL is still up for the week. This is a normal fluctuation in the grand scheme of things, it isn't "payback" by any means.
    - jldugger 10y ago
      Well yea, man. If UAL is so popular they have to drag people off the plane, they must be selling crazy tickets, right? And they probably have more room to raise prices than anticipated.
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        No. I only mean UAL hasn't been hit yet in pocket book about this. I agree that they should be.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    The article says 1.6 billion. I suppose it matters when you take the measurement.
droithomme 10y ago
You make good points. Airplanes used to have jump seats, fold down seats, specifically for accommodating these sorts of crew transfers, so that they wouldn't interfere with normal passenger seating. I wonder if the jump seats were removed at some point in order to increase normal seating.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    If you look in the /r/aviation threads you'll see various people who are airline crew claiming they can fly jumpseat but it's beneath them and they want their regular-seat privileges enforced at basically any cost.
    - ashark 10y ago
      Don't the jumpseats have more legroom? I thought the ones I'd seen did, just by not being part of the ordinary aisles and being smaller (slimmer back especially). I'd take a milking stool over the regular seats if it meant not having my knees jammed most of an inch into the seat in front of me (and I'm not even that tall).
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        Where is the cabin crew supposed to sit during take off and landing if the jump seats are occupied by others? Also, this wasn't a 737, but a smaller plane.
    - ItsDeathball 10y ago
      This sounds plausible, and fits with the incident if basically no one trusts the airline to negotiate in good faith. Employees assume that if they don't make a fuss about getting a seat, then they'll have to fly jump-seat or standing-room-only from then on out. Likewise, passengers don't trust the airline offer of $800 and the next flight out for giving up their seat. I would have taken that offer if I could be assured it was legit, but I'd have a strong suspicion they'd deduct the cost of the flight and the hotel and give me what's left in the form of Chili's gift cards or something. With trust that low it was probably only a matter of time before a dispute escalated into unnecessary use of force.
mason55 10y ago
> run sufficient flights such that the crew got to the target airport in time Many (some? most? warning, weasel words) airports operate at capacity so just adding more flights might not have been possible even if they wanted to See, for example, the fights going on at Love Field over gate space
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
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 to deny boarding, and rejected them at the gate. While I am offended by them violently dragging the man out of his seat and off the plane, if the ticket scanner doesn't blink green the passenger likely won't force his way onto the plane, and if he was injured by security while doing so, public opinion would not be so united against the airline.
- differentView 10y ago
  Exactly! This wasn't the last chopper out of Saigon. Someone would have given up their seat in exchange for more money.
- qubex 10y ago
  ...so united against United. ;)
hueving 10y ago
>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 will give up their seat.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Compared to the 1.6 billion that came off the stock price, anything looks cheap.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    The current price is the same as it was 5 days ago. There's no meaningful impact to the stock price, it was a temporary retreat.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      We dont know that yet. Lets see how this quarter and next quarter and the lawsuit turn out.
xenadu02 10y ago
Federal law governs contract of carriage. United was legally prohibited from removing anyone from that flight to make room for crew. Period. They broke federal law by breaking their contract of carriage. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that.

huebnerob 10y ago

In this case, semantics matter. Overbooking is a legally protected practice, but what you're trying to wedge into the definition of 'overbooking' is not.

churn1 10y ago
If terms and definitions matter, the legal term you are looking for is actually "oversales", not overbooking which is a colloquial term
- eridius 10y ago
  Overbooking is generally used as a synonym of oversales. Trying to redefine overbooking right now to mean something else is just going to cause confusion.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    There's a rhetorical difference where "overbooking" puts the onus on the customer, and "oversales" puts it where it should be: on the airline who sold the extra tickets. And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity.
    - eridius 10y ago
      How can "overbooking" possibly put the onus on the customer? Overbooking is entirely within the control of the airline, and the customer doesn't have the capacity to overbook, or even the knowledge as to whether overbooking could possibly occur. > And at any rate, the flight was not oversold anyway. It was merely the 4 extra United employees who put the plane over capacity. Well yes, that's the whole point of this discussion, that calling it "overbooking" or "oversales" is wrong.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        Yes, overbooking/oversales are effectively synonyms, but that's not the issue at all here. Overbooking is purchased and reserved seating over capacity. The plane was fully booked and boarded at capacity, and then 4 more seats were cleared by physically removing passengers. Collapsing these events by saying it's an overbooking issue overlooks the very important timeline in between the plane being booked/boarded and then initiating a removal of said passengers, instead of denying them in the first place. The request for 4 seats should've arrived before the boarding process (or at least before it ended), that's the problem.
        eridius 10y ago
        I don't know why you're trying to make this argument with me, since it's unrelated to the actual discussion taking place in this subthread.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        Overbooking: People bought too many tickets Oversales: The airline sold too many tickets It's a thin distinction to be sure, but it reads with rhetorical significance to me.
        eridius 10y ago
        No, there is literally no distinction at all. The customer cannot possibly buy too many tickets, they can only buy as many tickets as the airline sells. So the only way to overbook is by the airline selling too many tickets.

LeoNatan25 10y ago

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.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
I assume you meant "taze", as in incapacitated him with a Taser electroshock weapon. It's an unfortunate typo, because he seemed quite thorougly distressed, disheveled and without composure - fazed.
- LeoNatan25 10y ago
  Yes, thank you for the correction!
dionidium 10y ago
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 shrug their shoulders, leave, and let the man have his way; 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. That is, as far as I can tell, the actual reality of the situation. And anybody advocating for outcome #1 probably has some thinking to do about what it actually means to have a police force at all.
- daenney 10y ago
  > 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. Yet why does the forceful removal of that passenger justify knocking him down and dragging him off the plane? There's plenty of ways to forcefully remove someone from something without doing what they did. Police is allowed to apply force, but that doesn't immediately give them the right to go loco.

ahoy 10y ago

> The airline played the game, ran too lean and paid the price. I would argue that the unconscious paying customer with a bloody head paid the price.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Well, United stock went down, IIRC, $830 million dollars. That's paying a bit of a price. They may pay for it in lost sales and lawsuits, as well. The cop got suspended. That's paying a price, too. And it may not be the end of the price he pays.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  UAL is still up for the week. This is a normal fluctuation in the grand scheme of things, it isn't "payback" by any means.
  - jldugger 10y ago
    Well yea, man. If UAL is so popular they have to drag people off the plane, they must be selling crazy tickets, right? And they probably have more room to raise prices than anticipated.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      No. I only mean UAL hasn't been hit yet in pocket book about this. I agree that they should be.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  The article says 1.6 billion. I suppose it matters when you take the measurement.

droithomme 10y ago

You make good points. Airplanes used to have jump seats, fold down seats, specifically for accommodating these sorts of crew transfers, so that they wouldn't interfere with normal passenger seating. I wonder if the jump seats were removed at some point in order to increase normal seating.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
They still have those, but jump seat travel isn't considered safe by FAA regulations.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  If you look in the /r/aviation threads you'll see various people who are airline crew claiming they can fly jumpseat but it's beneath them and they want their regular-seat privileges enforced at basically any cost.
  - ashark 10y ago
    Don't the jumpseats have more legroom? I thought the ones I'd seen did, just by not being part of the ordinary aisles and being smaller (slimmer back especially). I'd take a milking stool over the regular seats if it meant not having my knees jammed most of an inch into the seat in front of me (and I'm not even that tall).
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Where is the cabin crew supposed to sit during take off and landing if the jump seats are occupied by others? Also, this wasn't a 737, but a smaller plane.
  - ItsDeathball 10y ago
    This sounds plausible, and fits with the incident if basically no one trusts the airline to negotiate in good faith. Employees assume that if they don't make a fuss about getting a seat, then they'll have to fly jump-seat or standing-room-only from then on out. Likewise, passengers don't trust the airline offer of $800 and the next flight out for giving up their seat. I would have taken that offer if I could be assured it was legit, but I'd have a strong suspicion they'd deduct the cost of the flight and the hotel and give me what's left in the form of Chili's gift cards or something. With trust that low it was probably only a matter of time before a dispute escalated into unnecessary use of force.

mason55 10y ago

> run sufficient flights such that the crew got to the target airport in time Many (some? most? warning, weasel words) airports operate at capacity so just adding more flights might not have been possible even if they wanted to See, for example, the fights going on at Love Field over gate space

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

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 to deny boarding, and rejected them at the gate. While I am offended by them violently dragging the man out of his seat and off the plane, if the ticket scanner doesn't blink green the passenger likely won't force his way onto the plane, and if he was injured by security while doing so, public opinion would not be so united against the airline.

differentView 10y ago
Exactly! This wasn't the last chopper out of Saigon. Someone would have given up their seat in exchange for more money.
qubex 10y ago
...so united against United. ;)

hueving 10y ago

>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 will give up their seat.

lostlogin 10y ago
Compared to the 1.6 billion that came off the stock price, anything looks cheap.
- cmurf 10y ago
  The current price is the same as it was 5 days ago. There's no meaningful impact to the stock price, it was a temporary retreat.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    We dont know that yet. Lets see how this quarter and next quarter and the lawsuit turn out.

xenadu02 10y ago

Federal law governs contract of carriage. United was legally prohibited from removing anyone from that flight to make room for crew. Period. They broke federal law by breaking their contract of carriage. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that.