69 year old violently dragged from overbooked United flight


WizardStan said:
Because this is a short term investment with almost immediate payoff.
Click to expand...
But thats the underlying problem here, the payoff is only virtual. Nothing will really change in the end, but people feelt that they have "done" their part. As long as not a lot of people are actually canceling their flights in the wake of this or documenting their decision for their next next flight to not choose this particular airline, this is just a case of mass delusion. I am sure there will be some people that will now avoid this airline, but most people will choose Unted Airlines again as soon as choosing another airline will cost more then a few bucks or creates more then a minor inconvenience for them
WizardStan said:
Just because it's a small issue compared to the real problems of the world doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Click to expand...
Never said nor implied that

sebt3 said:
The billion in stock value lost on this event is very cheaply paid if you ask me
Click to expand...
This is just another sign that a market relying on a mechanism that is based on peoples hunches and peoples hunches about other peoples hunches is deeply flawed.

Exophase said:
There's a very good chance United will change their policies as a result of this. And if they don't, people will know to avoid them.
Click to expand...
I question that.
I am also irritated that two seperate things are just interwoven with nobody really caring. Why aren't these actually two cases ? One about a airline that has rather strange booking policies and the other one about the use of unneccesary force by a police unit. Or is there some clue that the flight crew gave false information to the police about the aggresivenes of the passenger ?
 
thatgui said:
the payoff is only virtual. Nothing will really change in the end,
Click to expand...
Is it? Won't it? I've seen these before, companies frequently change policies against public backlash. Unlike the government they actually have to appease people. Every step towards making the world better, no matter how small, is a victory, and right now, with all the bullshit that's going on, we need every victory we can get.

thatgui said:
Never said nor implied that
Click to expand...
Yes you did. By simply asking why this topic was being brought up is implication that you don't think it should be talked about. And then mentioning "any other bit of unfairness that happens millions of times everyday" implies that you think there are more important things we should be talking about instead.

You asked why. You got an answer. It doesn't matter whether you like or agree with the answer it is still the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ___
thatgui said:
I am also irritated that two seperate things are just interwoven with nobody really caring. Why aren't these actually two cases ? One about a airline that has rather strange booking policies and the other one about the use of unneccesary force by a police unit. Or is there some clue that the flight crew gave false information to the police about the aggresivenes of the passenger ?
Click to expand...

Those booking policies aren't at all strange and even pretty common on these routes. And as far as I could see the popo weren't involved in this action - it was all private security guards who did the dragging.

There's an issue that United waited until the guy was seated before ejecting him, which smacks of incompetence to me, and an issue of the way he was ejected I guess. That's cause and effect in this case though, so I don't really have a problem with them belonging in this one thread.
 
thatgui said:
But thats the underlying problem here, the payoff is only virtual. Nothing will really change in the end, but people feelt that they have "done" their part. As long as not a lot of people are actually canceling their flights in the wake of this or documenting their decision for their next next flight to not choose this particular airline, this is just a case of mass delusion. I am sure there will be some people that will now avoid this airline, but most people will choose Unted Airlines again as soon as choosing another airline will cost more then a few bucks or creates more then a minor inconvenience for them




This is just another sign that a market relying on a mechanism that is based on peoples hunches and peoples hunches about other peoples hunches is deeply flawed.


I question that.
I am also irritated that two seperate things are just interwoven with nobody really caring. Why aren't these actually two cases ? One about a airline that has rather strange booking policies and the other one about the use of unneccesary force by a police unit. Or is there some clue that the flight crew gave false information to the police about the aggresivenes of the passenger ?
Click to expand...

Again, our economic system is upheld by the threat of violence, which we take for granted in many aspects of our lives. Seeing that violence naked before us in a case where property rights many of us don't find legitimate are being enforced makes this rather unsavory aspect of our economic system striking. It's also an opportunity to resist this particular extension of property rights, to insist that passengers may not own the plane but do have some moral rights attendant to their purchase.

As for most people choosing United next time: maybe, but before they do, in a market economy, isn't it helpful for them to have full information about the kind of people they're dealing with and the quality of service provided?

WizardStan said:
Is it? Won't it? I've seen these before, companies frequently change policies against public backlash. Unlike the government they actually have to appease people. Every step towards making the world better, no matter how small, is a victory, and right now, with all the bullshit that's going on, we need every victory we can get.
Click to expand...

I don't know about better, but at least not making the world worse.

levi said:
Those booking policies aren't at all strange and even pretty common on these routes. And as far as I could see the popo weren't involved in this action - it was all private security guards who did the dragging.

There's an issue that United waited until the guy was seated before ejecting him, which smacks of incompetence to me, and an issue of the way he was ejected I guess. That's cause and effect in this case though, so I don't really have a problem with them belonging in this one thread.
Click to expand...

As far as I know those were actual airport cops, who were real police.
 
I didn't really understand the idea of not leaving an aircraft because "the ticket is paid for". It isn't a ticket on a private plane.
It is a cheap coach-row ticket that probably says the airline may need to re-board you for shifting personnel around.
Whether that was needed in this case, I don't know, but it often is.
It is what makes traffic operate normally, and resisting is what makes planes run late, in turn making tickets more costly for everyone else. Because they only have that one slot to get out, meaning you can delay other flights.
Probably the airline is gauging you left and right, but it is after the operational costs. Didn't see anyone complaining about the practice of overbooking. Most reasonable thing I saw was suggesting overbooked people shouldn't be let into the flight. But it is the game you play. Causing a plane-delaying scene at the gate is equally frowned upon. Someone got angry, what changed? Airline now more cautious about getting sued?

And you only get offended if you don't laugh. Problem solved.
 
comradekingu said:
I didn't really understand the idea of not leaving an aircraft because "the ticket is paid for". It isn't a ticket on a private plane.
It is a cheap coach-row ticket that probably says the airline may need to re-board you for shifting personnel around.
Whether that was needed in this case, I don't know, but it often is.
It is what makes traffic operate normally, and resisting is what makes planes run late, in turn making tickets more costly for everyone else. Because they only have that one slot to get out, meaning you can delay other flights.
Probably the airline is gauging you left and right, but it is after the operational costs. Didn't see anyone complaining about the practice of overbooking. Most reasonable thing I saw was suggesting overbooked people shouldn't be let into the flight. But it is the game you play. Causing a plane-delaying scene at the gate is equally frowned upon. Someone got angry, what changed? Airline now more cautious about getting sued?

And you only get offended if you don't laugh. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Because the rights being enforced as per the "contract" of the ticket are a joke. There's a problem shared with web Terms of Service, where nobody truly accepts the contract because they don't have genuine informed consent with a viable alternative option - you either "consent" to their terms (in fine print, that they don't want you to read), or don't participate in a key element of modern society. That's why everyone clicks "I have read and agree", even though they haven't: because they know they won't, but they know they have no choice. That is not what contracts should be for - it should be very, very clear what exactly is being agreed to for both parties, which is after all the point of a contract.

Also, the airline handled the situation quite poorly. AFAIK, they stopped the auction well below their company limit, and made no effort to listen to his reason for not deplaning: the passenger in question claimed to be a doctor with patients who needed him the following morning. The financial damage, cost to his patients health, reputation damage, and possible malpractice litigation could very easily cost more than the airline was prepared to give. In that situation, after verifying the gentleman's claims, it might be smart to return to the "selection" stage - or maybe select more than four to begin with, and then find out who will be least inconvenienced among them. Is the airline required to do this? No, but it's better PR, more humane, and might even save time vs. air cops coming in, the plane getting rowdy and difficult, etc.,
 
I was wondering why airlines overbook flights. I thought just sell what's available and if people that paid for the seats don't turn up, so what, the airline has the money and the passenger loses out. Probably works out better because they then fly lighter and thus cheaper. But actually it turns out there is good reasons for it. And it all has to do with the airlines honoring tckets to people who run late and have to rebook and other things. This article explains it: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/
 
Last edited:
The airlines have good overbooking algorithms, to the point where fewer than 1 out of 1000 passengers have to leave the plane. It's only around 1 out of 10000 that have to leave the plane involuntarily, so the compensation offered is usually sufficient to get some takers. But that number should be virtually zero, because at those rates there's just no good reason not to offer whatever is necessary to get a taker. Certainly not $800 a flight. It's not like you're going to get a plane packed full of people on flights of life or death importance, or too wealthy to realistically placate.

$800 sounds like a lot, the airline probably thinks hey that's a lot of money, way more than most passengers make in a day, right? So surely they'd trade a day for it? But people are usually travelling for a good reason, and a day's delay means missing a work appointment or rebooking travel plans or losing time in a very fixed window of vacation, so it can be pretty costly. And circumstances can vary things, I hear that at the time of this incident there were a lot of cancellations and delays recently due to weather so a lot of the passengers may have already been delayed. And if you've already seated the people you've basically got to expect to need to pay more. So having this fixed cap of $800 is just not a good strategy at all.
 
Guessing this gentleman doesn't have to work again in his lifetime.

veloknight said:
Because the rights being enforced as per the "contract" of the ticket are a joke. There's a problem shared with web Terms of Service, where nobody truly accepts the contract because they don't have genuine informed consent with a viable alternative option - you either "consent" to their terms (in fine print, that they don't want you to read), or don't participate in a key element of modern society. That's why everyone clicks "I have read and agree", even though they haven't: because they know they won't, but they know they have no choice. That is not what contracts should be for - it should be very, very clear what exactly is being agreed to for both parties, which is after all the point of a contract.

Also, the airline handled the situation quite poorly. AFAIK, they stopped the auction well below their company limit, and made no effort to listen to his reason for not deplaning: the passenger in question claimed to be a doctor with patients who needed him the following morning. The financial damage, cost to his patients health, reputation damage, and possible malpractice litigation could very easily cost more than the airline was prepared to give. In that situation, after verifying the gentleman's claims, it might be smart to return to the "selection" stage - or maybe select more than four to begin with, and then find out who will be least inconvenienced among them. Is the airline required to do this? No, but it's better PR, more humane, and might even save time vs. air cops coming in, the plane getting rowdy and difficult, etc.,
Click to expand...

I have always known that, and I don't just click on shit I don't read. Guess everyone else knows now too.
Everyone I can think of with an important job flies first class. I imagine for this reason.
 
levi said:
One thing I've heard is that they weren't offered $800 in cash or whatever; they were offered $800 in United vouchers, which are worth at time of posting about $2.50.
Click to expand...

The airlines should do what KLM did back at Schipol couple decades back: they did a 'reverse auction' of sorts - offering passengers money and free hotel stay in order to give up their seat - then they increased it two times to buy-out 4 seats,
 
At least in some countries, contracts between two parties of unequal bargaining power (e.g. Joe Bloggs vs Microsoft) can be declared void by the courts. Perhaps such laws should be invoked more often?
 
I think companies should be financially liable for claiming anything that is essentially bunk.
The claim-everything-and-see-what-sticks -model is getting old.

"These terms may be changed at any time without notice." is not easy to understand.
 
WizardStan said:
Is it? Won't it? I've seen these before, companies frequently change policies against public backlash. Unlike the government they actually have to appease people. Every step towards making the world better, no matter how small, is a victory, and right now, with all the bullshit that's going on, we need every victory we can get.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but so far nothing has really changed. But I would like to know some of the cases where "internet rage" as actually something to do with a change. Do not know what to make of that "Unlike the government t" nonsense though (which is a rather strange "experience" reading something like that coming from you)

WizardStan said:
Yes you did. By simply asking why this topic was being brought up is implication that you don't think it should be talked about.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is a culutural thing (like there can be many fine grained steps between hate and resentment) ?
If you reread my post you may notice that I specified the (indirectly) location and stated that is already discussed elsewhere ("...every corner of the internet"). I never wrote that it should not be discussed at all.

WizardStan said:
And then mentioning "any other bit of unfairness that happens millions of times everyday" implies that you think there are more important things we should be talking about instead.
Click to expand...
Again a cultural thing ? the small word "any" leaves the option to go in both directions in terms of "importance" (or the perception of it) You may got the impressions because of benoitb following comment, but it is just not what I wrote.

levi said:
Those booking policies aren't at all strange and even pretty common on these routes. And as far as I could see the popo weren't involved in this action
Click to expand...
ok, just can't tell as I am rarely boarding a plane

levi said:
- it was all private security guards who did the dragging.There's an issue that United waited until the guy was seated before ejecting him, which smacks of incompetence to me, and an issue of the way he was ejected I guess. That's cause and effect in this case though, so I don't really have a problem with them belonging in this one thread.
Click to expand...
But at least according to the source linked in this thread, Police was involved

veloknight said:
Again, our economic system is upheld by the threat of violence, which we take for granted in many aspects of our lives.
Click to expand...
Don't get this the wrong way, but this sounds like a verse from the "communist handbook". But to get away from my - surely - nonsensical ascertainment, is there a "system" that is actually able to keep a large group of human beeings behaving inside the boundaries/rulesets this system employs without the threat of violence (beeing it physical, economical or moral) ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top