5 ms·

Yea, I'm not going to share which airline or which branch (other than to say it wasn't United or Chicago), but I have a relative who works at a pretty high posi

by TheGRS 10y ago

Yea, I'm not going to share which airline or which branch (other than to say it wasn't United or Chicago), but I have a relative who works at a pretty high position in one of them and they were, to my great surprise, in defense of United and the police in that episode earlier this week. Statements like "airlines bump people all the time", "they can't offer anymore than what they did, its a set rule", and "if they just complied none of this would have happened, its a crime to disagree with flight crew" kept coming up. This is the mentality that permeates the airline industry and is what lead to that episode. They don't put satisfying the customer above following the rules. Its also why no one who has flown much was particularly surprised it happened in the first place.

positivejam 10y ago
Re: the notion that "airlines bump people all the time", there are those arguing that while it is indeed lawful and routine for airlines to bump passengers due to overbooking, this was not a case of overbooking, and once a passenger has taken their seat they have very different rights than when they are still waiting to board the plane. I am by no means an expert, but I found this article (posted on HN yesterday) to be illuminating: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo... Basically, this wasn't just poor customer service, it was a violation of rules.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  As I understand it they followed the procedures and rules just as they are defined and in the law. Had the guy willfully gotten out of his seat he would have been compensated the "involuntary bumping" rate that is set by the Dept of Transportation. But the fact that United got to that point is the problem. They had the option to offer more money for volunteers, they even had the option to find a different flight for their employees, or maybe send them on a cab ride instead (one passenger in the video even pointed this out while it was happening). Of course, the excessive use of force is on the police and they should be the ones outside of the law on this one, I don't believe being loud in that situation warrants you get a concussion, that's just wrong.
  - lutorm 10y ago
    As I understand it, it's unclear whether they followed procedures and the law. The law and procedures governing oversales allow "involuntarily denied boarding" if there aren't enough seats. However, a completely different section of the contract governs the circumstances under which a passenger may be removed from a plane, and that basically comes down to safety. Some people argue that "boarding" continues until the plane is in the air and that the airline can execute their right to involuntarily "denying boarding" to any passenger up to that point. Others argue that the plain meaning of the word means that once you are "aboard" the aircraft, you can no longer (legally) deny someone boarding. They argue that since the contract of carriage does not define "boarding", it must be construed to have the plain language meaning (as in the United CEO in his statement saying that "the flight was fully boarded".) Airlines may do it all the time but, as far as I can tell, a court has never ruled on when "denying boarding" ends and "removal from aircraft" starts. Maybe now we will find out.
AdamN 10y ago
I'm sympathetic to the airline execs who feel this way - they're right (technically). However, they're missing the forest for the trees. Their processes are so bad that this type of thing actually ends up happening–which is the symptom of a marge larger loss of trust. I fly less than I otherwise would if it was a dignified experience. Right now smart VCs are thinking about how to reinvent airlines and let's hope they get in soon.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  There's a quote that goes something like "never let a good catastrophe go to waste" or something like that. This would be a pretty good time for a start-up airline to step in and shake things up. Problem with the airline industry is that its about as far from free market as you can get. The routes are set by the DOT and auctioned and traded among airlines like football players on an NFL team. And just like the NFL its almost impossible to bring a new team in because of the rules and the massive capital it would take. AFAIK there are a few options for companies that want to operate outside of the normal airport and commercial airline structure, but they are very limited.
  - nradov 10y ago
    The DOT doesn't set routes. The limitation is on landing slots and gates at the busiest airports; existing airlines have those locked up and so new entrants are forced to smaller outlying airports. The FAA does impose some air corridors which might prevent you from flying a direct path, but that's for safety and traffic management.
matz1 10y ago
Because they are that powerful, they know it won't hurt them much, for example I will still fly united if the ticket is $10 less.
- dpark 10y ago
  > for example I will still fly united if the ticket is $10 less. I won't. I had to save me at least $100 before I'll choose United. Which has nothing to do with this case. I just really don't like United due to previous experiences.
GVIrish 10y ago
I think there are two problems here. One is that since 9/11 the airline industry has gotten far more comfortable with calling the police to remove passengers. In some cases it's totally justified. But in others airlines are jumping to the threat of police force in order to "solve" issues with customers. Basically using the stick instead of the carrot because the stick is easier and costs less money. The second problem is a far more pervasive problem in society where people excuse the use of force on someone simply because that person didn't comply with a minor request. This is how someone who didn't want to accept a ticket for selling bootleg cigarettes ended up dead. Or the guy just this week who got pummeled by a police officer for jaywalking. "Just comply" they say. Sure, but it doesn't mean you should be beaten, bloodied, or even killed for not complying.
lutorm 10y ago
"they can't offer anymore than what they did, its a set rule" That's complete BS. It may be a United rule, but the law only defines how much they are required to compensate people who are denied boarding. When asking passengers to voluntarily not get on the flight, they are free to negotiate any deal that is acceptable to the two parties. That the airline doesn't have to offer more before they execute the involuntary denial of boarding somehow has gotten twisted into the fact that they can't. That's simply not true, they just chose the cheapest way out.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  Yea totally agreed and I pointed this out. The rules from the Dept. of Transportation are for consumer protection and not for airline protection. But you are correct that employees have now twisted this to mean that they are "legally" bound to pay a certain amount and no more, which is horse hockey.
elevensies 10y ago
I think they handled it poorly, but there is no way that a passenger's wishes will override the pilot or the airline. They probably thought he would come to his senses when the cops showed up, I think that is where they screwed up, IMO they should have disembarked the rest of the plane and then arrested him in-place. Whether or not bumping him is fair, there is no question about who owns the aircraft and has responsibility/authority. No one would want to fly on an airline where a stubborn passenger could override the flight crew.
- lutorm 10y ago
  There may not be a question of who owns the aircraft, but there are definitely questions of whether they have a legal right to force someone from whom they have accepted money in exchange for allowing them onto their property merely minutes earlier and who has not in any way violated the contract. People seem to think that flight crew somehow have been ordained with god-given authority to suspend the rule of law aboard an aircraft. That is simply not true. People are legally required to obey safety-related crew instructions and placards. The idea that if the flight crew instructs you to strip naked you are somehow required to obey and if you do not they have a right to eject you from the airplane is frankly ridiculous. But it doesn't even matter, because the airplane was not in flight, 14 CFR Part 121 does not apply, and the people acting in question were gate personnel, not flight crew.
  - elevensies 10y ago
    I think that refusing to leave someone else's private property makes the use of force inevitable. I would expect him to be treated essentially the same if he refused after being asked to leave a bar, a movie theater, someone's home, etc. I'm not aware of any situation where you can legally be involuntarily strip-searched without being arrested. Maybe by customs but I'm not sure. Personally, if the flight crew instructed me to strip naked or leave the plane, I would just leave. I can't foresee any situation where I would physically fight the staff for my seat, or recommend anyone else to do so.
    - lutorm 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
teyc 10y ago
This. I pity Munoz because culture can be hard to shift that people no longer recognize that their business revolves around service, and employees with poor people skills get promoted because they achieve their KPIs by acting against common sense.

by TheGRS 10y ago

positivejam 10y ago

Re: the notion that "airlines bump people all the time", there are those arguing that while it is indeed lawful and routine for airlines to bump passengers due to overbooking, this was not a case of overbooking, and once a passenger has taken their seat they have very different rights than when they are still waiting to board the plane. I am by no means an expert, but I found this article (posted on HN yesterday) to be illuminating: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo... Basically, this wasn't just poor customer service, it was a violation of rules.

TheGRS 10y ago
As I understand it they followed the procedures and rules just as they are defined and in the law. Had the guy willfully gotten out of his seat he would have been compensated the "involuntary bumping" rate that is set by the Dept of Transportation. But the fact that United got to that point is the problem. They had the option to offer more money for volunteers, they even had the option to find a different flight for their employees, or maybe send them on a cab ride instead (one passenger in the video even pointed this out while it was happening). Of course, the excessive use of force is on the police and they should be the ones outside of the law on this one, I don't believe being loud in that situation warrants you get a concussion, that's just wrong.
- lutorm 10y ago
  As I understand it, it's unclear whether they followed procedures and the law. The law and procedures governing oversales allow "involuntarily denied boarding" if there aren't enough seats. However, a completely different section of the contract governs the circumstances under which a passenger may be removed from a plane, and that basically comes down to safety. Some people argue that "boarding" continues until the plane is in the air and that the airline can execute their right to involuntarily "denying boarding" to any passenger up to that point. Others argue that the plain meaning of the word means that once you are "aboard" the aircraft, you can no longer (legally) deny someone boarding. They argue that since the contract of carriage does not define "boarding", it must be construed to have the plain language meaning (as in the United CEO in his statement saying that "the flight was fully boarded".) Airlines may do it all the time but, as far as I can tell, a court has never ruled on when "denying boarding" ends and "removal from aircraft" starts. Maybe now we will find out.

AdamN 10y ago

I'm sympathetic to the airline execs who feel this way - they're right (technically). However, they're missing the forest for the trees. Their processes are so bad that this type of thing actually ends up happening–which is the symptom of a marge larger loss of trust. I fly less than I otherwise would if it was a dignified experience. Right now smart VCs are thinking about how to reinvent airlines and let's hope they get in soon.

TheGRS 10y ago
There's a quote that goes something like "never let a good catastrophe go to waste" or something like that. This would be a pretty good time for a start-up airline to step in and shake things up. Problem with the airline industry is that its about as far from free market as you can get. The routes are set by the DOT and auctioned and traded among airlines like football players on an NFL team. And just like the NFL its almost impossible to bring a new team in because of the rules and the massive capital it would take. AFAIK there are a few options for companies that want to operate outside of the normal airport and commercial airline structure, but they are very limited.
- nradov 10y ago
  The DOT doesn't set routes. The limitation is on landing slots and gates at the busiest airports; existing airlines have those locked up and so new entrants are forced to smaller outlying airports. The FAA does impose some air corridors which might prevent you from flying a direct path, but that's for safety and traffic management.

matz1 10y ago

Because they are that powerful, they know it won't hurt them much, for example I will still fly united if the ticket is $10 less.

dpark 10y ago
> for example I will still fly united if the ticket is $10 less. I won't. I had to save me at least $100 before I'll choose United. Which has nothing to do with this case. I just really don't like United due to previous experiences.

GVIrish 10y ago

I think there are two problems here. One is that since 9/11 the airline industry has gotten far more comfortable with calling the police to remove passengers. In some cases it's totally justified. But in others airlines are jumping to the threat of police force in order to "solve" issues with customers. Basically using the stick instead of the carrot because the stick is easier and costs less money. The second problem is a far more pervasive problem in society where people excuse the use of force on someone simply because that person didn't comply with a minor request. This is how someone who didn't want to accept a ticket for selling bootleg cigarettes ended up dead. Or the guy just this week who got pummeled by a police officer for jaywalking. "Just comply" they say. Sure, but it doesn't mean you should be beaten, bloodied, or even killed for not complying.

lutorm 10y ago

"they can't offer anymore than what they did, its a set rule" That's complete BS. It may be a United rule, but the law only defines how much they are required to compensate people who are denied boarding. When asking passengers to voluntarily not get on the flight, they are free to negotiate any deal that is acceptable to the two parties. That the airline doesn't have to offer more before they execute the involuntary denial of boarding somehow has gotten twisted into the fact that they can't. That's simply not true, they just chose the cheapest way out.

TheGRS 10y ago
Yea totally agreed and I pointed this out. The rules from the Dept. of Transportation are for consumer protection and not for airline protection. But you are correct that employees have now twisted this to mean that they are "legally" bound to pay a certain amount and no more, which is horse hockey.

elevensies 10y ago

I think they handled it poorly, but there is no way that a passenger's wishes will override the pilot or the airline. They probably thought he would come to his senses when the cops showed up, I think that is where they screwed up, IMO they should have disembarked the rest of the plane and then arrested him in-place. Whether or not bumping him is fair, there is no question about who owns the aircraft and has responsibility/authority. No one would want to fly on an airline where a stubborn passenger could override the flight crew.

lutorm 10y ago
There may not be a question of who owns the aircraft, but there are definitely questions of whether they have a legal right to force someone from whom they have accepted money in exchange for allowing them onto their property merely minutes earlier and who has not in any way violated the contract. People seem to think that flight crew somehow have been ordained with god-given authority to suspend the rule of law aboard an aircraft. That is simply not true. People are legally required to obey safety-related crew instructions and placards. The idea that if the flight crew instructs you to strip naked you are somehow required to obey and if you do not they have a right to eject you from the airplane is frankly ridiculous. But it doesn't even matter, because the airplane was not in flight, 14 CFR Part 121 does not apply, and the people acting in question were gate personnel, not flight crew.
- elevensies 10y ago
  I think that refusing to leave someone else's private property makes the use of force inevitable. I would expect him to be treated essentially the same if he refused after being asked to leave a bar, a movie theater, someone's home, etc. I'm not aware of any situation where you can legally be involuntarily strip-searched without being arrested. Maybe by customs but I'm not sure. Personally, if the flight crew instructed me to strip naked or leave the plane, I would just leave. I can't foresee any situation where I would physically fight the staff for my seat, or recommend anyone else to do so.
  - lutorm 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

teyc 10y ago

This. I pity Munoz because culture can be hard to shift that people no longer recognize that their business revolves around service, and employees with poor people skills get promoted because they achieve their KPIs by acting against common sense.