I 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."
I'm not American, so I guess it's a bit out of place for me to comment . That said, my reading of this incident is naked corporatism.
Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner.
(A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.
(B) Police enforcement is a required for these business practices to actually be practiced.
The only reason they can practically have this involuntary removal by lottery policy is police are willing to enforce it. If police of any city/airport refused to execute these corporate polices, the policies would have to change.
That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.
I'm not as concerned about United or anyone else having nasty policies. Many companies do. I care more about police enforcing those policies. There is no consumer protection against police action.
From what I've understood, the problem is the United policy to never go above $800. Not ever, even if it means calling the cops. To me, such a policy appears to be in direct violation of the DoT rules.
I didn't explain the Rosa Parks analogy fully, so here's my thought process:
1. Sometimes there are unjust laws or company policies
2. People have busy lives, and in general just go with the flow.
3. Putting a face and a concrete story to a policy is what really makes the general population realize the unjustness of a policy. Public uproar leads to market and political policy changes. Rosa Parks' story led to uproar and changes in a similar way that Dr. Dao's story has. United has already changed their law enforcement policy and crew booking policy. Delta upped their max amount for compensation. The situation was talked about in a presidential press conference, and by countless politicians. This wouldn't have happened without the public uproar, which wouldn't have happened if Dr Dao went peacefully. Future airline consumers now have more rights because of Dr Dao, and they should be thankful for his actions (I know I am).
I will clarify again, all analogies break down, and I am not comparing the magnitude of the injustices or the societal importance of the policy changes... just the general process. They do seem similar to me.
The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach.
(b) It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules.
What is the just result? The law is still the law. Next time this happens, the passenger won't act like a child, and it won't be a headline.
The 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.
Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy.
I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that people's generally co-operative nature has led to routine infringement of consumer's rights. Dr. Dao was not clearly obligated to exit the plane, and the justification for the "police"'s removal of him depends upon the now-questionable claim that they were okay to do so.
Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. Your story should start with whether Dr. Dao was, in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.
They 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.
Does 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?
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.
> , 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.
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
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.
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
It 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
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?
Statements 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."
The 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:
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.
The 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.
It'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.
This 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.
Since Republic is contracting for United, United is probably liable under vicarious liability principles anyway, so conspiracy theories about why they don't try to deflect blame aren't really needed.
Have you seen the news and social media lately? United has been the butt of the blame "discreetly" the way James Bond making his way from point A to point B in a city while blowing up, crashing, and destroying everything in his path is "discreet".
Can you honestly name or a remember a PR disaster as bad as this one about any company in the past two years?
I would phrase it as "loudly and publicly accepting blame and a tremendous backlash".
Jesus! So far I naively thought that the rotting of commercial flying in America is created only by corrupted politicians who instead of forcing Government to investigate price fixing by major airlines, look somewhere else (over the last 5 years my summer ticket to europe went up about 10% Y/Y; meanwhile oil price went down some 40%, clearly there is a fix as oppose to gas stations where price of gallon follows cruide oil ups and downs). But this crazy trick of working with bankrupt company to avoid union that's pure devil's genius!
I can only pray someone from the Committee they meeting on soon read this or the article and can actually inquiry about this when they have a chance!
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 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.
This 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.
> 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?
The 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.
To 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.
[+] [-] tuna-piano|9 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] dalbasal|9 years ago|reply
Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner.
(A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.
(B) Police enforcement is a required for these business practices to actually be practiced.
The only reason they can practically have this involuntary removal by lottery policy is police are willing to enforce it. If police of any city/airport refused to execute these corporate polices, the policies would have to change.
That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.
I'm not as concerned about United or anyone else having nasty policies. Many companies do. I care more about police enforcing those policies. There is no consumer protection against police action.
[+] [-] metafunctor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|9 years ago|reply
How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?
[+] [-] tuna-piano|9 years ago|reply
I didn't explain the Rosa Parks analogy fully, so here's my thought process:
1. Sometimes there are unjust laws or company policies
2. People have busy lives, and in general just go with the flow.
3. Putting a face and a concrete story to a policy is what really makes the general population realize the unjustness of a policy. Public uproar leads to market and political policy changes. Rosa Parks' story led to uproar and changes in a similar way that Dr. Dao's story has. United has already changed their law enforcement policy and crew booking policy. Delta upped their max amount for compensation. The situation was talked about in a presidential press conference, and by countless politicians. This wouldn't have happened without the public uproar, which wouldn't have happened if Dr Dao went peacefully. Future airline consumers now have more rights because of Dr Dao, and they should be thankful for his actions (I know I am).
I will clarify again, all analogies break down, and I am not comparing the magnitude of the injustices or the societal importance of the policy changes... just the general process. They do seem similar to me.
[+] [-] masondixon|9 years ago|reply
There was a legislated racist system.
The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach.
(b) It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules.
What is the just result? The law is still the law. Next time this happens, the passenger won't act like a child, and it won't be a headline.
[+] [-] AdamN|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sandworm101|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fatbird|9 years ago|reply
I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that people's generally co-operative nature has led to routine infringement of consumer's rights. Dr. Dao was not clearly obligated to exit the plane, and the justification for the "police"'s removal of him depends upon the now-questionable claim that they were okay to do so.
Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. Your story should start with whether Dr. Dao was, in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.
[+] [-] flukus|9 years ago|reply
This person had a backbone but wasn't threatening enough for the staff to try someone else.
[+] [-] michaelmrose|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edsheeran|9 years ago|reply
Our loss of wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...
[+] [-] blizkreeg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehasbrouck|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] smcl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terribledactyl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonzini|9 years ago|reply
It doesn't shift the blame from United to Republic or vice versa of course.
[+] [-] rurounijones|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmd83|9 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] joshcrawford|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehasbrouck|9 years ago|reply
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
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.
[+] [-] Diederich|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokenmachine|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dsacco|9 years ago|reply
* 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|9 years ago|reply
* 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?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokenmachine|9 years ago|reply
The whole thing really exposes the cracks and deliberate obfuscation in an industry I thought would be regulated like crazy.
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicallee|9 years ago|reply
Have you seen the news and social media lately? United has been the butt of the blame "discreetly" the way James Bond making his way from point A to point B in a city while blowing up, crashing, and destroying everything in his path is "discreet".
Can you honestly name or a remember a PR disaster as bad as this one about any company in the past two years?
I would phrase it as "loudly and publicly accepting blame and a tremendous backlash".
[+] [-] joering2|9 years ago|reply
I can only pray someone from the Committee they meeting on soon read this or the article and can actually inquiry about this when they have a chance!
[+] [-] ubernostrum|9 years ago|reply
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 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.
[+] [-] NotSammyHagar|9 years ago|reply
To me, that says there's all these people that probably have substandard pay and training.
[+] [-] IIIIIIIIIIII|9 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparkpeasy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losteverything|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chrischen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masondixon|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.