
How United Airlines Went from “Friendly Skies” to Throwing People Off Flights - mpweiher
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/uniteds-greed-turned-friendly-skies-flying-hellscape/
======
hackbinary
In this situation, shouldn't there have been some form of mandatory auction,
where the Airline would have to bid to buy the seat back. Or do what Delta
does, and form a contract with the passenger to buy back the ticket for a pre-
agreed price?

I do find it shocking that the airport police got involved with what really
seems to be a civil, rather than criminal matter, but then again, such are the
times.

Airlines should not be allowed to use violence to enforce arbitrary, or even
random rules.

~~~
tdb7893
The issue is that the guy refused to leave a private space, getting security
or police to remove him seems like the solution to that problem in most other
contexts. It's a different situation but if someone refused to leave my office
they would definitely call the police

~~~
EliRivers
As you say, this is indeed a different situation. Here are their own rules on
when they may remove a passenger from the plane.

[https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-
carriag...](https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-
carriage.aspx#sec21)

None of them address this situation. They broke the contract of carriage (as
well as, it appears, his nose; three bully boy police officers beat up a 69
year old man, who has committed no crime, at the request of an airline).

Also, I suspect it could be argued that it was not a private space. Privately
owned, yes, but not a private space. This wasn't trespass.

~~~
tdb7893
I'm not sure of the legal terms but it's private in the same way that
Disneyland or a store in the mall is private. There's a lot of people there
but they obviously have the right to arbitrarily evict you. I've been kicked
out of a store for just being too loud before

~~~
EliRivers
It's private _property_. Which does not automatically make it private _space_.
As I recall, part of the definition in at least one set of law involves
whether or not it's reasonable to expect members of the public to be there
without explicit invitation.

 _There 's a lot of people there but they obviously have the right to
arbitrarily evict you._

That's just plain not true. There are reasons why people can be asked to
leave; those reasons are curtailed. There are unacceptable reasons to kick
someone out. You may not arbitrarily evict people. If you evict someone for
the wrong reason, you may have committed a crime. Obviously I'm talking about
US law; in other places, other rules apply.

While I'm here, just because it's one of my favourite legal misunderstandings,
putting something in a contract doesn't necessarily make it legally binding.
But that one's just for fun.

~~~
tdb7893
If your reason is discriminatory you can't evict someone but kicking someone
off to make room for an employee isn't illegal at all

~~~
EliRivers
I understand that's not true. I understand it is an FAA violation (i.e.
breaking the law) to drop someone with a confirmed reservation in favour of an
employee.

Additionally, what happened was also a violation of the conditions of carriage
that the airline had set up. They were breaking their own rules.

What makes you say it's not illegal? Perhaps I'm reading the rules
incorrectly.

~~~
tdb7893
I'm aware of the fact that they can't outright refuse service to most people
but I was under the impression that they had some latitude in rescheduling
people.

EDIT: that article makes sense. I'm obviously not sure on the legalities so I
will defer to your understanding of it. I guess this case goes close to home
for me because if I had to make the decision between canceling a few whole
flights and kicking 4 people off a plane I probably would've done the same
thing and I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm all for sticking it to the
man but people seem more outraged at the company making a pretty
understandible decision when it seems to me the security officer who really
made the bad decision and bloodied the guy.

~~~
EliRivers
Here is a lawyer who took the tobacco companies for billions talking about it:
[http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/david-dao-united-
airlines/](http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/david-dao-united-airlines/)

It's disturbing to see here and elsewhere (not so much you, but certainly
others) the degree to which people doff their caps to big business.

------
calbear81
If we as consumers are voting with our wallets, in most cases we're the ones
who have accepted the new norm as acceptable in the spirit of chasing ever
lower fares. Consider the success of airlines like Ryanair which charges for
every possible amenity and slight convenience.

United Airlines has largely been the laggard in the industry in the past 5
years even though their stock price has risen 200%, that is 50% less than
their peers like Delta and Alaska Air group who have risen closer to 400% in
the same time period. If flying the friendly skies took them into bankruptcy,
what could they have done that would've kept them afloat while maintaining a
"regulated" carrier status?

~~~
kelnos
This is the thing that always bothers me. By _far_, when (at least US
domestic) travelers book flights, their main and often only consideration is
ticket price.

People claim to be annoyed by baggage fees, not being able to select their
seat ahead of time, no or limited food, paid in-flight entertainment,
overselling, etc., but they refuse to vote with their wallets and pay more for
better service.

We've made this bed, and now we're apparently pissed that we have to lie in
it.

~~~
fefzero
The bar for basic service has dropped so far that you are no longer treated
like a person if you don't pay for the extras. My wife and I saved up for a
resort trip for our ten year anniversary only to find that our 4-hour flight
included a seat without enough leg room for me to sit while the person in
front of me reclined into my lap (I'm 6'2"). The passenger in front of me
wanted to stay reclined and the flight attendant could only offer me a seat
upgrade to sit by myself in a section with more leg room. Not my only bad
experience with them but United was far worse than any other recent trip I've
had.

We're pissed because they set the bar so low we have to trip on it. Those of
us who don't fly often have no idea how bad it's gotten compared to how things
used to be.

~~~
Hydraulix989
That's an experience that isn't really unique to United though, the major
carriers all have nearly the same legroom (+/\- 1").

As a 6'1" passenger, I can tell you that your claim that you "couldn't sit"
while the passenger in front of you was fully reclined is a gross
exaggeration. Sure, I empathize with you that it was uncomfortable, and rest
assured, you were paying an extremely bargained price for your airfare.

Basic economics also comes into play here: There are Economy Plus seats if you
want a more luxurious amount of legroom.

~~~
WkndTriathlete
As a 6'1" passenger myself, I can only assume you have short femurs. I've had
that exact scenario happen to me on a flight - when the person in front of me
reclines, my legs from my rear end to my kneecaps _do not fit in the space
provided in an economy seat._

I book seats that are Economy Comfort (I fly Delta) or exit-row seating, but
when flying with my wife and children I sometimes need to choose comfort or
sitting near them. (For the record, I choose to sit near them when I am forced
to choose.)

I'm a little unhappy about being charged an extra $100 to fly Economy Comfort
just because I happen to be in the 90th percentile for height, but I
understand the engineering and social issues of providing seating in a fixed
space for 200+ passengers.

~~~
Hydraulix989
I believe we're both slightly over one standard deviation above the mean for
adult male height.

Regardless, I am a competitive distance runner (and have the right body type
for the sport). My femurs are likely even larger than yours, and yes, my knees
stick a little bit outside of my space into the adjacent seat, but I am still
perfectly capable of sitting in my seat. I've had overweight seatmates that
encroach more on others' personal space than my knees do.

~~~
seanp2k2
Re: overweight passengers, if I ran an airline, there would be a seat with
side panels to test your fit. The seat would have side pressure sensors. If
you can sit in the boxed seat without touching either side, fine. If you can't
do so without touching one side or the other, you'd have to pay more. We'd
also charge for weight, something per-pound. It costs more in fuel to move
each additional pound.

There would be a required training course for boarding and unboarding which
all potential passengers would be required to pass. We'd also teach people how
to put their carry-on in the bin in the correct orientation (with the widest
side inserted depth-wise and the second widest dimension vertically such that
4 bags can fit into a normal bin instead of 3 or 2 + that one person's purse
which should be under the seat). It'd be like a marching band, with timed
choreography. We'd board using the front and rear doors. I bet I could reduce
average boarding time to 20% of what it is today.

There would be no in-flight screens for entertainment, no drink or snack
service, etc. There would be a double-walled [possibly plexiglass if no
lighter alternatives exist] section for people traveling with children under
about 12, with a bit of space reserved for anyone acting like they're under
12. This would contain the noise and smells. If this could not be made to
work, simply restrict booking to passengers older than 12, then everyone else
can appreciate baby-free flights.

The benefits of all of this would be reflected in ticket pricing and clearly-
stated business practices + expectations. It would have limited appeal, but
excellent customer service and I would expect a cult following of loyal
frequent travelers who appreciate efficient travel.

~~~
tyingq
Of course you would get the obvious comparison to the sizing box they use to
determine if a carry on bag is allowed onboard.

I would guess you would need a fairly big legal defense fund for this
endeavor.

------
FussyZeus
> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen
> Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking
> strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a
> 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show
> up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund
> those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for an extra $1,000.) “The
> major airlines in the United States fly thousands of flights every day,”
> Karaesmen Aydin says—even a few empty seats on every flight means losing
> millions in potential revenue every 24 hours."

This is infuriating to read. Having empty seats is not an "opportunity cost",
you sold the damn seats, you made your money, that should be the end of it. It
does not cost the airline a single thing to fly with empty seats, other than a
blow to unchecked greed. If people don't make the plane they shouldn't get a
refund, and I'd imagine that the vast majority do not, so literally the only
thing being "lost" is the extra money they had no business making in the first
place.

This is a sick symptom of our gone-mad capitalism. I love capitalism, it's
done great things for us but the relentless pursuit of growth, profit, year
after year straight in the face of reality, morals and common fucking sense is
getting comically ridiculous.

~~~
manarth
To add to that, flying _without_ the passengers who didn't show is cheaper.
Every extra kg is a cost in fuel, so passengers not showing up is already a
net saving.

That said, I do see the appeal of allowing flexibility in tickets, allowing
someone who's missed their flight to catch the next, with no/minimal
additional cost. And I recognise that might need practices such as overbooking
to accommodate.

Overbooking's been happening for years, on almost all of the airlines.
Individuals do inevitably get caught up in, get annoyed/compensated for
getting booted from their flight, but for the most part it works.

It breaks down in this extreme situation, where someone literally got beat up
in order to ease logistics for an airline.

~~~
FussyZeus
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the logistics actually be much simpler
if they did away with overbooking altogether? Then they'd have drastically
fewer people needing to emergency board flights (since they weren't kicked
off) and wouldn't need to compensate them.

It's more accurate to say a man got beat up because United sold his seat twice
and couldn't figure out what to do about it when they got caught.

~~~
manarth
You're right to say that doing away with overbooking would simplify the
system, simplify the logistics.

As a _consumer_ though, it would makes things more complicated and/or more
expensive. I would argue that in most cases, the airlines are in a better
position to handle the complexity and costs than the individual consumers, who
may be delayed, break down on the way to the airport, whatever.

This particular scenario is bizarre and unwarranted for two main reasons:

1\. The event happened _after_ the individual had boarded the aircraft. If the
dispute had happened at the gate, the individual would have had to use
violence to board the aircraft. As it happened after he had boarded, it was
the aviation authorities (at the request of United) who resorted to violence,
to remove the individual. It's also worth considering that violence at the
gate is more easily contained (minimising harm to anyone, including the
perpetrator) than violence on a confined aircraft. It's also worth noting that
in all of the video footage available, the individual shows no signs of
violent behaviour.

2\. The flight wasn't even overbooked. It appears to be a last-minute decision
for United to ship crew to a new location, whilst also deciding to give the
crew precedence over paying passengers, who had already boarded. There's been
some suggestion that there is no legal precedence allowing them to do this.

I think the practice of "over-booking" is unduly taking the fall in this
example, because the flight wasn't over-booked, and even an over-booked flight
shouldn't create the circumstances for this type of harm.

------
ta7000
Another dumb article focusing in overbooking. Unfortunately, United was given
a free pass as most media erroneously attribute this error to overbooking. It
was not. They fly was at full capacity, but they didn't overbook clients. They
removed a fully seated paying customer, breaking their contract, to
accommodate employees. This is not about overbooking, is an illegal removal of
a protected paying customer.

------
devy
I noticed the author's name is Tim Wu. Is he the same person as the net
neutrality guy[1]?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu)

~~~
devy
Ok, Yes he is!
[https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/852493310270853122](https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/852493310270853122)

------
woodpanel
IMHO: The article is too much rage-laden. The much more interesting article
comes beneath the one linked ([https://www.wired.com/2017/04/united-airlines-
overbook-fligh...](https://www.wired.com/2017/04/united-airlines-overbook-
flights-usually-pays-off/)).

At the core doesn't seem to be evilness of capitalist corporations, but rather

a) the economic usefulness of overbooking

b) an uncooperative (ex-)customer (his refusal to leave being unlawful)

c) an unqualified and brutal airport police

d) the disastrous United management resulting in employees unfit to deal with
situations like these (diplomacy, authority to up the bump-fee) and a company
that didn't understood what kind of PR fallout this situation would bring.

See [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/united-airlines-video-
pas...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/united-airlines-video-passenger-
private-property/) for why United had every right to remove the customer.

~~~
jasode
_> a) the economic usefulness of overbooking_

I realize that "overbook" can mean different things but United flight #3411
wasn't oversold to statistically offset no-shows. Instead, the plane had a
capacity of 70 seats[1] and United sold _all 70 seats_ to paying customers
with zero cancellations. That's a _perfect_ economic situation for United.

What went wrong was 4 extra United employees needed a last-minute ride on that
plane to Kentucky. Since this is an HN audience, I guess we could frame it as
a massive failure in the "information flow" through their computer
reservations system.

The _very second_ that United knew they had 4 employees they had to
acccomodate, their computer system should have _immediately confirmed those 4
employees_ on flight #3411 first such that the plane only shows 66 available
seats instead of 70. (Computers doing math for the win!) That way, either 4 of
the customers get denied a boarding pass at the check-in kiosk, or they get
denied at the gate that scans the barcode _before_ they enter the jetway.
Instead, United let all 70 passengers board and settle in their seats.

If United insists that their employees take precedence over paying passengers,
_their damn computer systems need to reflect that reality in the seating
database!_

All of those opportunities to have the computer system "help" were missed that
would have prevented the situation from escalating to a bloody face plastered
all over the news.

[1]
[https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Air...](https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Embraer_EMB-170.php)

~~~
michaelmrose
They could also have just paid for those employees to take a competitors
airline if it was vital for them to be there immediately despite their poor
planning.

~~~
woodpanel
Does that mean, the employees took the liberty to kick the customer out? If
so, I would think that they either didn't thought anyone to disobey and
especially not to end up this violently. Still, this would speak volumes upon
United's management.

~~~
michaelmrose
Yes they didn't even oversell they wanted 4 employees to fly at the last
minute and wanted to remove paying customers to make room for them.

Can you imagine going to home depot and someone pulling drills out of your
hands and giving them to employees?

