6 ms·

> , but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines mana

by rdtsc 10y 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 10y ago
It'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 10y ago
  My 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 10y ago
    I 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 10y ago
If 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
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Republic might be cheaper, but it's employees (Pilots, flight attendants, etc..) are union.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. The emphasis on the contracted airline seems like is helping United by diverting blame away from its brand. Legally United might be able to dodge a few issues based on it and technically they might be in the right over what they did. Morally and as far as public perception goes, they should bare full responsibility.
- briandear 10y ago
  Why does Lufthansa use Cityline and/or Germanwings or any number of similarly positioned companies to do their bidding on lower density routes? Nearly every major airline in the world that serves feeder routes does this. Remember that Republic also does the American Eagle flights. If these contracting arrangements weren't possible, then you'd see many major airlines dropping the routes. The typical plane for the route in question holds 76 passengers. With margins around 1% or less, that flight is making a tiny profit. Let's say, just for the sake of argument that the average ticket price was $200. That's $15200 in revenue for the plane (excluding cargo.) That airplane typically has two flight attendants, two pilots and an assortment of ground crew. Also remember that close to 50% of ticket revenues are actually taxes and fees that don't go to the airline but to government. So that $15k is now closer to $9k -- that's revenue, not profit. This if for a nearly 1 hour flight. Do you know the operating costs of your average Embraer 175? Landing fees? Gate slot fees? My point is that United/American definitely don't want to pay higher union wages for routes that are operating on razor thin margins as it is. If they raise ticket prices, planes will be less full, crushing the margins even more, if they pay more, that also crushes the margins. Either way, even a slight increase in costs somewhere in the system destroys the profitability of the route. Perhaps we should be complaining about government taking such a huge proportion of taxes and fees rather than United trying to minimize costs. For a business making literally 1% margins on most flights, we certainly have a lot of opinions about how bad they are when they try to keep costs down.
PeterisP 10y ago
It matters because it (a) sets the counterintuitive financial incentives that caused this situation and (b) explains why they couldn't pick seemingly reasonable alternative solutions which could have fixed this problem, but weren't possible because of this organization.
bonzini 10y ago
For example it may mean that they're not allowed to put you on the next United flight. It makes the situation even more complicated. It doesn't shift the blame from United to Republic or vice versa of course.

by rdtsc 10y ago

Terribledactyl 10y ago

It'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 10y ago
My 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 10y ago
  I 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 10y ago

If 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

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Republic might be cheaper, but it's employees (Pilots, flight attendants, etc..) are union.
rdtsc 10y ago
> quite shady and not a clean dodge for united. The emphasis on the contracted airline seems like is helping United by diverting blame away from its brand. Legally United might be able to dodge a few issues based on it and technically they might be in the right over what they did. Morally and as far as public perception goes, they should bare full responsibility.
briandear 10y ago
Why does Lufthansa use Cityline and/or Germanwings or any number of similarly positioned companies to do their bidding on lower density routes? Nearly every major airline in the world that serves feeder routes does this. Remember that Republic also does the American Eagle flights. If these contracting arrangements weren't possible, then you'd see many major airlines dropping the routes. The typical plane for the route in question holds 76 passengers. With margins around 1% or less, that flight is making a tiny profit. Let's say, just for the sake of argument that the average ticket price was $200. That's $15200 in revenue for the plane (excluding cargo.) That airplane typically has two flight attendants, two pilots and an assortment of ground crew. Also remember that close to 50% of ticket revenues are actually taxes and fees that don't go to the airline but to government. So that $15k is now closer to $9k -- that's revenue, not profit. This if for a nearly 1 hour flight. Do you know the operating costs of your average Embraer 175? Landing fees? Gate slot fees? My point is that United/American definitely don't want to pay higher union wages for routes that are operating on razor thin margins as it is. If they raise ticket prices, planes will be less full, crushing the margins even more, if they pay more, that also crushes the margins. Either way, even a slight increase in costs somewhere in the system destroys the profitability of the route. Perhaps we should be complaining about government taking such a huge proportion of taxes and fees rather than United trying to minimize costs. For a business making literally 1% margins on most flights, we certainly have a lot of opinions about how bad they are when they try to keep costs down.

PeterisP 10y ago

It matters because it (a) sets the counterintuitive financial incentives that caused this situation and (b) explains why they couldn't pick seemingly reasonable alternative solutions which could have fixed this problem, but weren't possible because of this organization.

bonzini 10y ago

For example it may mean that they're not allowed to put you on the next United flight. It makes the situation even more complicated. It doesn't shift the blame from United to Republic or vice versa of course.