24 ms·
Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident
- rurounijones 9y agoIt wasn't obvious to me from the title but this is a good i depth article from obviously an industry expert. Recommended reading if you are interested in this subkect
- NotSammyHagar 9y agoThis is a great article, worth a read. Plus the guy has an awesome cartoon avatar. The summary is: United on their smaller flights has lots of people pretending to be united employees but they aren't, and they aren't as well trained as united employees. The police in airports often aren't regular police forces, but are special airport police who might or might not be on a regular police force. To me, that says there's all these people that probably have substandard pay and training.
- Spooky23 9y agoThe assistant manager at the car wash I go to is a pilot for one of these airlines. He makes about $25k as a first officer. He considers getting hotel points as a bonus. He kept the car wash gig to make ends meet until he gets a better gig or promotion.
- sjburt 9y agoThe sad thing is that there is a huge workforce of regional pilots hoping to gain hours and switch to the majors, but the majors are converting routes to regionals faster than they are hiring new pilots.
- smcl 9y agoI've read about this before - US pilots getting shockingly low wages. The Explanation given previously was that the senior pilots get insanely well remunerated and you're expected to work for peanuts until you hit this point (or switch to a European or Emirati airline)
- tajen 9y agoI remember an Air Crash Investigation where the investigators were surprised to hear that the two pilots sounded completely drunk on the black box. It wasn't alcohol, it was the lack of sleep – the guys had just flown halfway across the USA on a jump seat to start their shift in NYC and slept in an 8-bunk-bed subrental in a suburb. So, yes, pilot's low wages in USA's regional airlines is an endemic problem that has killed hundreds of passengers.
- rurban 9y agoBut nowadays drinking and drugs are a bigger problem than hours. Remember the movie "Flight"? Thanksfully those planes fly fully automatic, but still some weather decisions have to be made from time to time.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- IIIIIIIIIIII 9y ago> and they aren't as well trained as united employees I'm really getting (maybe needlessly) a bit irate over the endless stream of "they didn't have the training" comments each and every time some employee attacks someone. For this incident too but also for many previous ones, in a lot of forums from reddit to local newspaper websites I found this line of reasoning or explanation. I may get flak for this, but as a German who once (very happily) lived in the US for a decade, the stories as well as the comments seem to come mostly from this country, and I did not notice them (in this number) until this millennium. What's happened in the US, I wonder? Let me make my position clear: It should be obvious that not attacking people does not require "more training"! That's just being a decent average human being. I don't know what I'm more worried about, the number of incidents (might just be because of ubiquitous smartphones and the Internet) - or that sooooo many people (US-Americans mostly?) seem to think that this is a "training" issue. To me this seems like a large culture of "it's their fault", meaning "management". Part of it really is, since so much of the work culture (service jobs especially?) is designed to be extremely hierarchical. "Sorry, I can't use common sense, I have to call in a manager, he is allowed to use 1% of his brain but I'm not." (The higher level management is allowed to use ever more brain/judgement.) So it seems the success of this "education" of creating an obedient workforce unquestionably following procedures and rules is too great, it changed the way people think and look at everything, not just those jobs?
- NotSammyHagar 9y agoI agree, training shouldn't be necessary to tell people not to beat up passengers. But training can help people to learn to deescalate situations, and help people learn to sometimes take a second to think about it.
- mike-cardwell 9y agoPresumably, the "the lack of training" is related to how to resolve situations without resorting to force. When people say that they lack training, it's not about being trained not to attack somebody, it's about being trained (and more importantly empowered) to resolve situations before they get to that point. Because when there are no options left, you only have force.
- sandworm101 9y agoThe how and why these people were asked to get of the plane isn't the story. There is a big mash of different companies behind the uniforms. We know they are all cut-throats. But people are asked/told to get off planes every day. It isn't right but happens without issue every hour of every day. So for me this story begins and ends with why violence was used against this particular person. That has much less to do with United than it does with the rent-a-cops who work in places like airports. Real cops don't, shouldn't, wear jeans. These guys showing up in t-shirts and jeans says to me they are thugs with no respect for their job. That they didn't first clear the other passengers from the area means they are untrained. That they didn't ask to see the man's ID, that they didn't put pen to note paper, before laying hands tells me they are inexperienced. United may be financially responsible for its underlings, but that's just legal doctrine. I reserve my anger for those three realworld people.
- michaelmrose 9y agoDon't you have enough anger for them AND united? I do.
- NotSammyHagar 9y agoI was surprised to learn that there are these apparent pseudo-police in airports, probably with pseudo-training and expertise. The best folks are often on the big city police force that can afford better training and background checks - as you go farther away from that, you are more likely (but not always) going to find people with some issues.
- sk5t 9y agoIME in the US the State Police have the best training and highest standards, although a big city Detective might individually be more skilled.
- sandworm101 9y agoMy anger at united is surpassed by my anger against Air Canada. Whenever someone books me on a Vancouver-SFO trip using Air Canada one leg ends up on a "United" aircraft. The free market means my ticket on my national airline is sold to United, and then to whatever subcontractor is renting the United logo on the day. They are just the middleman in the chain of misery.
- dsacco 9y agoThis was a fascinating read. The money quote, in summary form: * The flight was technically a Republic Airlines flight subcontracting for United Airlines. * Almost none of the staff involved worked directly for United Airlines; they are subcontractors required to wear United Airlines' branded uniforms. * Republic Airlines is bankrupt, and none of the parties involved in the lawsuit has attempted to shift blame to them. * United Airlines is capable of bypassing union wage requirements by subcontracting through partner airlines, so they have a vested interest in keeping Republic afloat through its bankruptcy (and therefore, discreetly accepting blame). * The plaintiffs have a vested interest in suing United Airlines, not Republic, because Republic would likely be shielded from paying much if anything due to its current financial standing.
- ryandrake 9y agoThe infuriating thing about all of this is how deliberately obfuscated and phony everything is: * Airline employees who aren't quite airline employees * Cops who aren't quite cops * Reserved seats that aren't quite reserved Doesn't anyone honestly sell a real product that you can take at face value anymore?
- flukus 9y agoThis rubbish is everywhere. Contract cleaning (offices etc) for instance, used to be a profitable small business. Not enough to be rich, but enough for a big house with some decent amenities and to raise a family on a single income. Then in the 90's these gigs went into a pyramid of contracting and sub contracting companies where the company buying the service is paying more but the grunt doing the work is lucky to be on minimum wage. At a time where small business software should have been making these middle men completely useless they were getting bigger than ever.
- dba7dba 9y agoI can vouch for this story. My parents went through this scenario exactly. They had gotten into office cleaning because it was relatively well paying in the 90's. But in the 90's middle men came into the mix. Someone with better sales ability would win the contract for cleaning office, and subcontract it to someone else. And even that 2nd person might subcontract it to someone else. Eventually, the person really doing the actual cleaning barely made above minimum wage. What does MBA school call this? Reducing cost? Increasing efficiency? Reducing risk?
- chrischen 9y agoSounds like United used a contractor to operate a flight like Lyft or Uber uses contractors to operate cars.
- cwyers 9y agoWell, as he pointed out, American uses the same regional carrier to operate flights on that route. That sounds like a contractor to me.
- colmvp 9y agoThat true, though I think that there is a difference. Most, if not all people realize that Lyft and Uber are mostly just middlemen. That's what make it 'easy' for people looking for a part-time gig to jump in and start temporary work. Regardless of the ethics of having a large group of contractors, I think it's pretty evident to most users of the app of what the situation is, especially since customers will sometimes talk to the driver about their experience with being an Uber/Lyft driver. On the flipside, I would be positively surprised if the majority of United passengers knew that Republic was a contractor working on behalf of United, what with the branding and all.
- caseysoftware 9y agoOne important distinction.. Uber and Lyft don't require certain hours, particular routes, or have specific uniform requirements. United appears to have this as part of their contracts which makes it more complicated to tell who the middle man are or even if there are any.
- rdiddly 9y agoThe American economy is running on fumes and wishful thinking. Various industries have had to cut costs, try to carry on, and try to conceal the inherent and inevitable crappiness. This is how United does it.
- brokenmachine 9y agoIt's not only America, but I suspect that it's because of the expectation of infinite growth, which is a fantasy, because nothing can grow indefinitely. So the market becomes more competitive, but the shareholders still want their return. So first you get the fat cut off, then you end up with corners cut right up to and over the point of illegality. Eventually stuff like this incident and much worse happens.
- true_religion 9y agoAha. I think in the case of airlines its more due to deregulation. Airlines used to be tightly regulated on price, forcing them to compete instead on things like comfort and convenience. Deregulation allowed them to compete on price, and thus it became unknown what level of service that the population honestly expected out of an airline. It's as if we've had airplane tech for 70+ years, but only modern airlines since the 1980s. We're unhappy because airlines now charge 1/3rd of their previous prices, and carry 3x as many passengers and operate a proportionately greater number of flights. Being asked to do more with less money is a recipe for disaster when public expectations of service remain the same.
- briandear 9y agoAnd airlines used to not make a profit. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-5 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/ec...
- brokenmachine 9y agoGreat point, thanks for that explanation. I never knew that.
- tuna-piano 9y agoI see this whole event kind of like the Rosa Parks situation. I'm not comparing the magnitude of injustice, just that (a)There was an unjust system and (b)It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules. Also, the author is wrong in this passage: From the article: "The gate agents offered offered $800 in airline scrip to anyone willing to deplane, which from past observation I think is the maximum that was allowed by United policy. That's an illegal cheapskate policy for which United fully deserves the condemnation it has received, and the fines it should be assessed for violating Department of Transportation regulations on denied boarding compensation. Obviously, the gate agents should have been allowed to offer more, and in cash, as Federal law requires. " The truth: The airline can try and get people to voluntary give up their seats with whatever method they would like. They can offer free kittens, cash, vouchers, etc. If no one accepts the airlines arbitrary amount, THEN DoT rules take effect, mandating the cash compensation amounts. So Dr Dao and the other 3 passengers that left the plane are entitled to a completely separate amount from what United offered. From the DoT website[1]: "DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers. DOT does, however, require airlines to advise any volunteer whether he or she might be involuntarily bumped and, if that were to occur, the amount of compensation that would be due. Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation." https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dba7dba 9y ago> Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation." How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?
- rurban 9y agoThey don't have this ability. It violates FAA regulations. And in this case also violated the cited trespassing rule.
- blizkreeg 9y agoDoes anyone else worry from a safety perspective that the pilots flying these "subcontracted" flights are probably paid very low? I read somewhere that even Captain pay at some of these guys can be 60-70K. I know FAA license requirements are stringent but I would have a hard time believing that working for shitty, bankrupt or nearly bankrupt low-cost airlines that don't pay well has to affect your performance to some degree?
- Naritai 9y agoAre you trying to say that 60k is low?
- tw04 9y agoFor the amount of time and effort it takes to become a pilot? Not to mention the constantly being away from your family, and having the lives of thousands of people in your hands month in and month out. 60k is absolutely low.
- rollingRelease 9y agoYeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree, excepting for indirect compensation that might not appear as part of taxable salary. Considering how much expensing for (airline) food and (corporate rate) hotels enters the picture, there's probably a substantial additional cost lurking behind that salary. Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone. But, the 10 or 300 souls on the plane are absolutely a good reason to pay pilots a little bit more. But then again, teachers should be paid more for working with children. And airplane mechanics are every bit as important as the pilots. So I guess it comes down to how much passengers care about whether their plane crashes, and how much they'll spend to gamble on getting somewhere faster than by boat or train or bus. Passengers don't have to fly, do they?
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 9y ago> , but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines management. What's the point of mentioning that? They are wearing United Uniforms even. However United wants to distribute its routes, how it hires its contractors, flight attendants etc is its business. It seems like a way to divert blame. (United is great, it's those pesky contractors again). Otherwise I don't see why this point is prominently put at the very top. Maybe in a thorough analysis it is interesting to mention it, but it would some place at the end.
- Terribledactyl 9y agoIt's highlighting the fact that this stuff is complicated, and can't just be reduced down to "united employee told united passenger to leave united flight" because each 'united' might not be the same, or even related to united
- rdtsc 9y agoMy point is that it doesn't matter how United distributes and picks its contractors. It should bare the brunt of the blame and responsibility.
- Terribledactyl 9y agoI mean to say, this article wasn't just a reaction to the particular incident, but also a meta-commentary on all of the articles that read "united did x, united said y, united shouldn't have z" Not so much to shift the blame from united, I agree with you, this situation was/is bad, but it creates sympathy for passengers who are easily overwhelmed and also attacks pieces that reduce it down to something simple.
- smcl 9y agoIf you keep reading it becomes apparent why this is actually quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. It's an attempt to use lower-wage non-union workers, made more interesting by the fact that Republic are going through bankruptcy (and therefore aren't themselves being sued by the passengers, since there's some sort of limit on the compensation they could get) and that United are semi-OK with taking the blame to permit Republic to recover a bit
- edsheeran 9y agoThey could have used common sense. Be polite. Raise the ante. Negotiate. There was a manager/person in charge who didn't use common sense and then it escalated to more parties without common sense. Low EQ who only know threat of force and escalation of force. Our loss of wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...
- masondixon 9y agoThey offered $800 to get off the flight. This is what they have to pay by law. Bumping is legal, and must pay if the bump involuntarily. I don't know how a grown adult can get into the kind of situation where they need to be carried off a plane. Absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks the behaviour of the passenger is acceptable in society. And he is a doctor. This is so unprofessional and I would fire the man if he worked for me.
- bkkssnn 9y agoNo offense but did you read the article and the referenced texts it's citing?
- masondixon 9y agoYep. And I am arguing that there is a lot of analysis over something that should not have been a media firestorm, but a simple dispute with an airline that probably happens 1000s of times per day. Take away the kicking and screaming and you have a standard airline dispute of which you can find thousands.
- muh_gradle 9y agoThe kicking and screaming. That's certainly a nice way of putting it.
- chillwaves 9y ago
- ubernostrum 9y agoThis is not a good article. For one thing, it goes out of its way to paint fairly ordinary things (the use of regional carriers, and the fact that there are many regional carriers, and many of them have contracts with multiple mainline carriers) as "deceptive" (and implying that code-sharing among partner airlines is also "deceptive"). Which says right off the bat that this is someone who doesn't know how airlines really work, or who is deliberately trying to misrepresent how airlines work in order to make it seem sinister. It gets worse from there. I finally gave up when it started getting into the trespass argument. You don't need to spin a sinister conspiracy or bring in irrelevant side topics to get to the heart of why the airline and police were morally (and, judging from several analyses coming from qualified people, probably legally) in the wrong. What's important to reiterate about the situation is: * The flight was not oversold or overbooked at the time of the incident. Dig into DannyBee's comments in the earlier threads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116944 for example) about the relevant regulations and contract clauses -- he makes a very convincing argument that the deadheading crew should have been denied boarding since the airline had a hard and fast obligation not to displace a confirmed passenger to make room for crew (particularly, his analysis of confirmed passenger reservations versus the "must-ride" privileges of crew, which suggests the crew lose that one per both regs and contract). * The combination of the VDB offer cap (at $800 in vouchers, it's significantly less than what the airline pays to forcibly bump someone, so "cap at $800 and then involuntarily bump people" is literally a policy of "lose money") and the last-minute decision to try to force the crew onto the flight deserve more examination than they're getting anywhere currently. These were the snowflakes that started the slide that became the avalanche. Sending a crew down to an already-boarded and full flight with instructions to find seats for them, without being able to offer sufficient compensation to passengers, is just an indefensible policy. * Far too many people have shown deference to the flight's crew (the ones operating the flight, not the ones trying to take seats on it). Flight crew like to read the announcement telling you that passenger compliance is required with "all" posted signs, placards and crew member instructions, but this is a bit like the overzealous copyright warnings placed on sports broadcasts (i.e., "the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be retransmitted without express written consent..."). It is absolutely not the case that you are required to comply with all crew member instructions. You can refuse to comply with unreasonable instructions (for example, if a crew member were to instruct you to dance in the aisles for their entertainment, you would be perfectly within your legal rights to refuse), and it is theoretically possible for a crew member to give you an instruction it would be unlawful to obey. Read frequent-flyer forums and you'll find that's not entirely a theoretical concern, either. * Finally, many air crew personnel commented, in various fora shortly after the incident, that for a variety of reasons their airlines have a policy of immediately escalating any onboard dispute to the police. Usually this is justified as being for the safety of crew and other passengers, and backed up by the force-of-federal-law nature of crew instructions onboard the aircraft. This is a policy which must be abandoned. United has already hinted that it may walk that back and only escalate when there's some type of actual threat or violence, but it needs to not be at the discretion of the airline; use of police to resolve non-violent disagreements between businesses and customers should simply be illegal. If any other business called police as a routine policy for resolving nonviolent customer-service disputes, the police would laugh at them. Airlines should not be an exception to that.
- sparkpeasy 9y agoCapitalism was a game in which the most clever Baby Boomers found a way to profit without recompense.
- masondixon 9y agoI don't get it. Airline bumping is legislated. You get bumped involuntarily, you get $800. He got bumped, he can get the money. If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they suppose to do? I don't know how a grown adult can get into a situation where they need to be physically carried off a plane. His behaviour was childish, unprofessional, and completely unacceptable.
- parenthephobia 9y ago> If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they supposed to do? Refuse booking at the gate. Not give seats that paying customers are already occupying to their staff. Not remove paying customers using so much reckless force that they break their nose and teeth in the process. Accept that they've made a mistake and send their staff in another vehicle.
- masondixon 9y agoI mean once they decide someone should not be on the flight. Most people would just do as they are told and seek compensation or pursue in courts. Mistakes happen, but most people don't seek physical confrontation. Society doesn't function if people seek physical confrontation with law enforcement. This man was different for some reason. I hope he is a rare case.
- Noseshine 9y ago> but most people don't seek physical confrontation. Like that passenger, who did NOTHING. We even have a video (not the first one that was published, a later one) that shows wat he did: NOTHING. No, the real problem are people like you. You should be removed - from everything. Do you wat to see an asshole? Do you have a mirror?
- losteverything 9y agoTo me, the overarching point is we would not be talking about this if phones with cameras (and feeling it's okay to film another human without their permission) We always seem to whip out our phones as novice reporters anytime we feel like it. It's not privacy that matters it anonymity.
- dpark 9y ago> It's not privacy that matters it anonymity. Anonymity is a form of privacy. And in this case, the recording eliminated both privacy and anonymity, neither of which are guaranteed or expected in a public setting.
- losteverything 9y agoBefore phones I expected to never be photographed. I could go anywhere and think nobody knows I'm here. It's a different world, that's all. We can't turn back. At any instant you could become an innocent photo-revealee. Just avoid being in sight of the vertically held phone..
- tmd83 9y agoFrom the DoT site If the airline must substitute a smaller plane for the one it originally planned to use, the carrier isn't required to pay people who are bumped as a result. In addition, on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 passenger seats, compensation is not required if you were bumped due to safety-related aircraft weight or balance constraints. I'm not sure I understand this exception. Yes it kind of make sense that when it becomes a safely issue the airlines don't have to pay in that they will not play around with safety but isn't it still mostly airlines fault .. lack of proper maintenance or planning. But even it's an accidental case with no fault for the airlines it's also no fault of the customer and you are making individuals pay for the incident and protecting the corporation how does that make sense?
- stult 9y agoThey don't want to incentivize the airlines even a little bit to fly with safety issues.
- joshcrawford 9y agoStatements like this need to be backed up with something of substance "victim of 'minor' but routine Chicago police torture who still feels the pain of my police-inflicted injury occasionally, more than 35 years later."
- Diederich 9y agoDid you check the rest of his blog?
- ehasbrouck 9y agoThe article wasn't about me or my experience. I disclosed this background fact in case some readers might think it relevant in assessing my reporting and analysis. I've spoken publicly before about my experiences with Chicago police (not the Aviation Department police), including "minor" torture. (I repeat the qualifier, although in quotation marks because no torture is truly minor.) It hasn't risen to the top of my priorities to write about it in detail, largely because there are so many more significant stories of Chicago police torture, told and untold. I wrote about my first arrest by Chicago police (not the one after which I was tortured) here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002168.html https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002168.html If you want to discuss my personal history, get in touch with me directly, or leave a comment on my personal blog, which is probably a better place for that personal discussion than this third-party forum.
- ehasbrouck 9y agoFYI, I've added an update in the comments to my original article at: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html I finally spoke with United Airlines spokesperson Charlie Hobart today, after this article was published. Mr. Hobart told me that the gate agents handling United Express flights at O'Hare, including those who called in what Mr. Hobart described as "Chicago Department of Aviation security officers", were employees of United and not of Republic or a third-party contractor. Mr. Hobart claimed not to know whether or not "CDA security officers" are sworn law enforcement officers. That claim to ignorance strains credulity, unless United has deliberately kept its own spokespeople in the dark. And if United still hasn't been able to figure out, 10 days later, whether these thugs (I use that term deliberately, in its original sense of organized gangs that prey specifically on vulnerable travellers) were really police, how were passengers supposed to figure that out in the moment? "I don't have access to that level of detailed information," he said in response to this and most of my other questions. When I asked if he could find out, he declined. "I'm not going to get into that level of detail." Mr. Hobart said he didn't know whether the passenger was asked to leave by United or Republic employees, whether the "officers" were asked to remove the passenger by United or Republic employees, whether the officers talked to the pilots before removing the passenger, or how the officers identified themselves to the passenger. "They were unable to obtain the cooperation of the passenger," Mr. Hobart said. He referred all my other questions to the City of Chicago Department of Aviation.