Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[coloradoatheist]

Correct, but each businesses needs to make a decision on some point on what they will do to appease a customer. A company doesn't have to give someone a million dollars just so they will come back. You cut it off somewhere otherwise even though you might save a customer, you might not be able to pay your bills.

This is a bad analogy, too. In the real example, each customer is in competition with each other in order to both get a high value from their own ticket but also to under-value it in relation to the other potential customers all vying for the voluntary bump. Out of some hundred (or whatever) customers someone will take the bump well prior to a million dollars. But none of that is supposed to happen after they are boarded anyway.

But the issue here is that United had to make a decision. Do they inconvenience 4 people or 100 or even more. They have to make a decision on which group to do that for and they do it based on their policies at the time. A waitress might have the discretion on what they can offer a person with a bad meal but if they tried to give a $200 extra card that might be investigated by the management.

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, you feel this is even remotely appropriate to the actual situation on the airplane. It is not. All UA had to do was make open offers to anyone to leave the plane. It is ridiculous to think that it would have taken a plane load of money to get 4 people to voluntarily leave the plane. In addition, the payout would also serve as a reminder to UA of the cost of screwing up, and maybe prompt them to think of a better method of avoiding these situations. As it is, I guess this outcome will end up costing them a lot more than if they had just offered sufficient inducement to the passengers to get 4 people to leave the plane.

I know that works pretty well when there is over-booking and the airline makes the offers before boarding. I see no reason why would it not have successful after boarding.

For all the bumping out there most airlines voluntarily bump at about an 8 to 1 ratio to involuntary bumps. So even though they can bump voluntarily, they still bump involuntarily. The only difference is the artificial distinction between the door when they are loading.

For some reason, you feel that addresses the points in my post. It does not.

 

[coloradoatheist]

For all the bumping out there most airlines voluntarily bump at about an 8 to 1 ratio to involuntary bumps. So even though they can bump voluntarily, they still bump involuntarily. The only difference is the artificial distinction between the door when they are loading.

For some reason, you feel that addresses the points in my post. It does not.

Why do airlines involuntarily bump 10% of the time they bump passengers instead of involuntarily bumping 0% of the time?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is a bad analogy, too. In the real example, each customer is in competition with each other in order to both get a high value from their own ticket but also to under-value it in relation to the other potential customers all vying for the voluntary bump. Out of some hundred (or whatever) customers someone will take the bump well prior to a million dollars. But none of that is supposed to happen after they are boarded anyway.

But the issue here is that United had to make a decision. Do they inconvenience 4 people or 100 or even more. They have to make a decision on which group to do that for and they do it based on their policies at the time. A waitress might have the discretion on what they can offer a person with a bad meal but if they tried to give a $200 extra card that might be investigated by the management.

I am not going to comment on everything you just wrote and the implicit assumptions, just this: "Do they inconvenience 4 people or 100 or even more." All, getting bumped isn't necessarily so much an inconvenience if it becomes a voluntary decision to do so with appropriate incentive so as to make it worthwhile. So someone would certainly have voluntarily bumped themselves for $10,000 and probably much less*. Therefore, this really isn't so much about your false dichotomy as it is the short-sightedness of the company employees trying to set arbitrary and coercive limits on participants in a free market exchange.

*True story: I know someone personally who most time he flies to go on vacation goes directly to staff to ask if they are bumping anyone so he can voluntarily get bumped. He says he gets great deals to take later flights, including free hotel suites--like the best class of rooms, free extravagant meals, free accommodations, etc. None of that is a million dollars or $10,000 and giving similar deals makes bumping voluntary. And airlines already do it. Prior to boarding.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the issue here is that United had to make a decision. Do they inconvenience 4 people or 100 or even more. They have to make a decision on which group to do that for and they do it based on their policies at the time. A waitress might have the discretion on what they can offer a person with a bad meal but if they tried to give a $200 extra card that might be investigated by the management.

I am not going to comment on everything you just wrote and the implicit assumptions, just this: "Do they inconvenience 4 people or 100 or even more." All, getting bumped isn't necessarily so much an inconvenience if it becomes a voluntary decision to do so with appropriate incentive so as to make it worthwhile. So someone would certainly have voluntarily bumped themselves for $10,000 and probably much less*. Therefore, this really isn't so much about your false dichotomy as it is the short-sightedness of the company employees trying to set arbitrary and coercive limits on participants in a free market exchange.

*True story: I know someone personally who most time he flies to go on vacation goes directly to staff to ask if they are bumping anyone so he can voluntarily get bumped. He says he gets great deals to take later flights, including free hotel suites--like the best class of rooms, free extravagant meals, free accommodations, etc. None of that is a million dollars or $10,000 and giving similar deals makes bumping voluntary. And airlines already do it. Prior to boarding.

And that is why somewhere around 80% or so of the time, depends on airlines, they voluntarily accept bumps. The other 20% of the time they don't. So why do airlines involuntarily bump people a significant portion of the time and not 0%?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So why do airlines involuntarily bump people a significant portion of the time and not 0%?

I'm going with Hanlon's Razor here that people are more often stupid, than malicious. Therefore my answer is: bad communication, poor incentives, lack of preparedness, lack of fair warning and other lack of organization. Should really be like 99%.

While we're on that subject, why should overbooking be a thing? I know it is alleged that people may be no-shows, but those seats are paid for. No-show ticket price is non-refundable, isn't it?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So why do airlines involuntarily bump people a significant portion of the time and not 0%?

I'm going with Hanlon's Razor here that people are more often stupid, than malicious. Therefore my answer is: bad communication, poor incentives, lack of preparedness, lack of fair warning and other lack of organization. Should really be like 99%.

While we're on that subject, why should overbooking be a thing? I know it is alleged that people may be no-shows, but those seats are paid for. No-show ticket price is non-refundable, isn't it?

Several airlines will give you up to 2 hours after and will put you on a later flight standby. But what percentage of flights are connecting flights? Would you like it if you were on your way to Hawaii and your flight to LA was too late and then your vacation was stuck in LA instead of Hawaii?

And to answer the question. There are times when the airline makes the decision of when to bump involuntarily based on time, numbers, etc. They have to make a decision sometime that voluntary doesn't work and they go with involuntary.

The airline industry is one of the most complex systems out there.

 

[bilby]

Bulshit.

And furthermore they did not say anything about wether they could have continues to stay on the plane.

They only reviewed wether this was an act of discrimination and wether they got repaid the correct sum.

Not bullshit. The DoT's job is to evaluate the rights being violated by the airlines on certain cases. Rightfully, they saw the incident just as a normal involuntary boarding. They could have said United violated his rights by trying to remove his ticket after boarding and that United wrongfully used Involuntary Boarding. But they didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

The concept of basic customer relations/good will would suggest the best course to take is offer a large enough incentive so that someone is likely to take the offer and vacate their seat feeling satisfied with the deal, resulting in a happy customer and a vacant seat for the airline to use. Both parties benefit without violence or ill will.

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

if you think that this is about customer service, or trying to keep customers happy, then it's no wonder you are confused. This is not about a bad meal, it's about a good meal you are told not to eat.

This is about taking away the thing the customer bought and paid for. If you want to do that, you need to buy it back, at the market rate.

If your waiter brings your meal, sets it down in front of you, and just as you are about to start eating, the manager comes over and says 'The owner's wife just ordered the fillet steak, and that's the last one - so we want it back'.

It's your steak. You are hungry, so when they offer you double your money back, you say 'No, thanks; I will just eat my steak". So the manager calls a security guard who drags you out of the restaurant, so that the owner's wife gets to eat your steak.

Is that reasonable?

It's bad customer service; but that's the least of the problem - it's also theft and assault.

The point is that once the customer has his meal, he need not give it up under any circumstances; no matter how badly the restaurant wants it back, they do not have the right to seize it forcibly - their only option is to offer as much compensation as the customer decides is fair, or to accept that he gets to eat his steak.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not bullshit. The DoT's job is to evaluate the rights being violated by the airlines on certain cases. Rightfully, they saw the incident just as a normal involuntary boarding. They could have said United violated his rights by trying to remove his ticket after boarding and that United wrongfully used Involuntary Boarding. But they didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

The concept of basic customer relations/good will would suggest the best course to take is offer a large enough incentive so that someone is likely to take the offer and vacate their seat feeling satisfied with the deal, resulting in a happy customer and a vacant seat for the airline to use. Both parties benefit without violence or ill will.

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

if you think that this is about customer service, or trying to keep customers happy, then it's no wonder you are confused. This is not about a bad meal, it's about a good meal you are told not to eat.

This is about taking away the thing the customer bought and paid for. If you want to do that, you need to buy it back, at the market rate.

If your waiter brings your meal, sets it down in front of you, and just as you are about to start eating, the manager comes over and says 'The owner's wife just ordered the fillet steak, and that's the last one - so we want it back'.

It's your steak. You are hungry, so when they offer you double your money back, you say 'No, thanks; I will just eat my steak". So the manager calls a security guard who drags you out of the restaurant, so that the owner's wife gets to eat your steak.

Is that reasonable?

It's bad customer service; but that's the least of the problem - it's also theft and assault.

The point is that once the customer has his meal, he need not give it up under any circumstances; no matter how badly the restaurant wants it back, they do not have the right to seize it forcibly - their only option is to offer as much compensation as the customer decides is fair, or to accept that he gets to eat his steak.

But the consumer is trespassing in the restaurant!

Yes, we get it... people on the right-wing think we are the business's bitch. Sure, he might have paid for that seat and was told to board, but airline needed seats for staff and it is their airline so fuck the consumer. The guy should consider himself lucky he was tossed out of the plane while still on the ground!

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, you feel that addresses the points in my post. It does not.

Why do airlines involuntarily bump 10% of the time they bump passengers instead of involuntarily bumping 0% of the time?

Your koans are not working.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

if you think that this is about customer service, or trying to keep customers happy, then it's no wonder you are confused. This is not about a bad meal, it's about a good meal you are told not to eat.

This is about taking away the thing the customer bought and paid for. If you want to do that, you need to buy it back, at the market rate.

If your waiter brings your meal, sets it down in front of you, and just as you are about to start eating, the manager comes over and says 'The owner's wife just ordered the fillet steak, and that's the last one - so we want it back'.

It's your steak. You are hungry, so when they offer you double your money back, you say 'No, thanks; I will just eat my steak". So the manager calls a security guard who drags you out of the restaurant, so that the owner's wife gets to eat your steak.

Is that reasonable?

It's bad customer service; but that's the least of the problem - it's also theft and assault.

The point is that once the customer has his meal, he need not give it up under any circumstances; no matter how badly the restaurant wants it back, they do not have the right to seize it forcibly - their only option is to offer as much compensation as the customer decides is fair, or to accept that he gets to eat his steak.

It's more complex than that though. There aren't too many products that are bought like airplane tickets. But you are also confusing products here. There are three types, a physical product, such as a steak, and one that that you rent out or borrow where you don't have control over the underlying property. And they are different legally.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why do airlines involuntarily bump 10% of the time they bump passengers instead of involuntarily bumping 0% of the time?

Your koans are not working.

You haven't answered my question. Why don't airlines get volunteers every single time they have to bump someone?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, we get it... people on the right-wing think we are the business's bitch. Sure, he might have paid for that seat and was told to board, but airline needed seats for staff and it is their airline so fuck the consumer. The guy should consider himself lucky he was tossed out of the plane while still on the ground!

They can't through people out of the airplane and the restaurant can't throw someone out by themselves. They have to call law enforcement just like United did.

 

[bilby]

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

if you think that this is about customer service, or trying to keep customers happy, then it's no wonder you are confused. This is not about a bad meal, it's about a good meal you are told not to eat.

This is about taking away the thing the customer bought and paid for. If you want to do that, you need to buy it back, at the market rate.

If your waiter brings your meal, sets it down in front of you, and just as you are about to start eating, the manager comes over and says 'The owner's wife just ordered the fillet steak, and that's the last one - so we want it back'.

It's your steak. You are hungry, so when they offer you double your money back, you say 'No, thanks; I will just eat my steak". So the manager calls a security guard who drags you out of the restaurant, so that the owner's wife gets to eat your steak.

Is that reasonable?

It's bad customer service; but that's the least of the problem - it's also theft and assault.

The point is that once the customer has his meal, he need not give it up under any circumstances; no matter how badly the restaurant wants it back, they do not have the right to seize it forcibly - their only option is to offer as much compensation as the customer decides is fair, or to accept that he gets to eat his steak.

It's more complex than that though. There aren't too many products that are bought like airplane tickets. But you are also confusing products here. There are three types, a physical product, such as a steak, and one that that you rent out or borrow where you don't have control over the underlying property. And they are different legally.

It's not more complex than that. The additional complexities of aviation over the restaurant business are all of no relevance to this case.

UA would like us to think that they are; but they are not. They all boil down to 'if we are not allowed to be immoral, it might cost us more money, and that would mean more expensive tickets'.

To which my response is 'so fucking what?'

If UA cannot work out that selling more tickets than they have seats is stupid; and that 'fixing' that stupidity by making their passengers suffer is morally wrong, then I am not surprised that they also can't work out that they don't own something once they have sold it.

But it really isn't that complicated.

But then, you appear to think that one plus one is three; perhaps to you this really is impenetrably complicated and impossible to resolve.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's more complex than that though. There aren't too many products that are bought like airplane tickets. But you are also confusing products here. There are three types, a physical product, such as a steak, and one that that you rent out or borrow where you don't have control over the underlying property. And they are different legally.

It's not more complex than that. The additional complexities of aviation over the restaurant business are all of no relevance to this case.

UA would like us to think that they are; but they are not. They all boil down to 'if we are not allowed to be immoral, it might cost us more money, and that would mean more expensive tickets'.

To which my response is 'so fucking what?'

If UA cannot work out that selling more tickets than they have seats is stupid; and that 'fixing' that stupidity by making their passengers suffer is morally wrong, then I am not surprised that they also can't work out that they don't own something once they have sold it.

But it really isn't that complicated.

But then, you appear to think that one plus one is three; perhaps to you this really is impenetrably complicated and impossible to resolve.

Except is more complex because of having to move both people and things (both of which can break down). United didn't want their previous flight to have mechanical issues. Other businesses can queue where airlines queue by bumping people.

And the thing you are forgetting, is that if he had showed up at the gate and they said, "Flight is full, here is your refund plus 3 times for that inconvenience" there is no issue, but that artificial 25 feet is the issue when it shouldn't be.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's also interesting that you said the cost, who cares. But if you wanted to fly and make sure you weren't bumped on a seat you could buy your own jet and then you would have the luxury. Why not tell the doctor he should charter his own private flight?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not more complex than that. The additional complexities of aviation over the restaurant business are all of no relevance to this case.

UA would like us to think that they are; but they are not. They all boil down to 'if we are not allowed to be immoral, it might cost us more money, and that would mean more expensive tickets'.

To which my response is 'so fucking what?'

If UA cannot work out that selling more tickets than they have seats is stupid; and that 'fixing' that stupidity by making their passengers suffer is morally wrong, then I am not surprised that they also can't work out that they don't own something once they have sold it.

But it really isn't that complicated.

But then, you appear to think that one plus one is three; perhaps to you this really is impenetrably complicated and impossible to resolve.

Except is more complex because of having to move both people and things (both of which can break down). United didn't want their previous flight to have mechanical issues. Other businesses can queue where airlines queue by bumping people.

And the thing you are forgetting, is that if he had showed up at the gate and they said, "Flight is full, here is your refund plus 3 times for that inconvenience" there is no issue, but that artificial 25 feet is the issue when it shouldn't be.

Oh boy, starting to wander into a consent thread, with an odd twist.

coloradoatheist: Sure, the airline said yes to sex and once the passenger was inside them they changed their mind. They are allowed to say no at anytime!

I find it odd that coloradoatheist can't see why 25 ft doesn't matter. How the context of everything is so much different than being boarded on the plane.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's your steak. You are hungry, so when they offer you double your money back, you say 'No, thanks; I will just eat my steak". So the manager calls a security guard who drags you out of the restaurant, so that the owner's wife gets to eat your steak.

It's like 3:40pm here and I did not eat lunch. My stomach is growling thinking about that steak. I swear if right now there was a steak in front of me I paid for and someone else took it, I am not sure I could control my hangry instincts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except is more complex because of having to move both people and things (both of which can break down). United didn't want their previous flight to have mechanical issues. Other businesses can queue where airlines queue by bumping people.

And the thing you are forgetting, is that if he had showed up at the gate and they said, "Flight is full, here is your refund plus 3 times for that inconvenience" there is no issue, but that artificial 25 feet is the issue when it shouldn't be.

Oh boy, starting to wander into a consent thread, with an odd twist.

coloradoatheist: Sure, the airline said yes to sex and once the passenger was inside them they changed their mind. They are allowed to say no at anytime!

I find it odd that coloradoatheist can't see why 25 ft doesn't matter. How the context of everything is so much different than being boarded on the plane.

Correct. It would be the personal edition of a license can be revoked at any time. How many people would disagree with a woman being able to say no at any time?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh boy, starting to wander into a consent thread, with an odd twist.

coloradoatheist: Sure, the airline said yes to sex and once the passenger was inside them they changed their mind. They are allowed to say no at anytime!

I find it odd that coloradoatheist can't see why 25 ft doesn't matter. How the context of everything is so much different than being boarded on the plane.

Correct. It would be the personal edition of a license can be revoked at any time. How many people would disagree with a woman being able to say no at any time?

A person's body is far more than just their property. Refusing to leave an airplane where you paid for a seat is not rape. Ultimately this is why you are a propertarian--you think of property as extension of people and those with extra property like aristocrats.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Correct. It would be the personal edition of a license can be revoked at any time. How many people would disagree with a woman being able to say no at any time?

A person's body is far more than just their property. Refusing to leave an airplane where you paid for a seat is not rape. Ultimately this is why you are a propertarian--you think of property as extension of people and those with extra property like aristocrats.

I do believe in property rights. You can dictate things on your own property. The doctor could buy a plane and not have to worry about sharing one.