Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingaling | Hacker News Reader

This e-mail illustrates the complete imbalance of the "contract" of carriage between passenger and airline, which is compounded by the Federal Aviation Regulations that give the crew ultimate power even when there's no safety risk[0].

The CEO states that the flight was 'fully boarded' and then later that it was decided to 'deny boarding' to four passengers.

So was it fully boarded or not? It doesn't really matter, the airline can change its language as it sees fit, to achieve its desired business objective and the customer has no recourse.

I'm an aviation enthusiast but I don't fly commercial airlines any more for this reason amongst others.

[0] Because when there's no safety risk they can just escalate until the customer becomes aggravated, and then there's a safety risk.

View on HN

I take issue with the idea it was over booked when it was the airline wanting to transport its own people in place of booked customers.

If anything we shall get to witness if the power of social media can overcome such abuse, It has helped turn the tables a bit with policing but usually only when it occurs in a public setting. People do need to take note that this actually is another case of police abuse just at the behest of a private company.

So United should not have tried to board their flight personnel so that another plane full of passengers could sit on the tarmac for hours in Louisville with no crew?

United should have kept raising the offered compensation.

They should make sure they have the seats for their personnel and not sell them to customers. In every other business if you sell the same thing to two people I would call it fraud.

It's really not that simple at all. A multitude of things could have happened in SDF (Louisville) causing the crew there to be unable to fly. Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements. In the interest of making sure that flight in SDF still went out the airline scrambled to get a reserve (flight crew members that are on-call) crew down to SDF. These things often happen at the last minute with no warning.

Not at all am I defending what happened on this flight. Just want to point out that last second adds of flight crew members is a VERY common occurrence and without it the number of cancels would skyrocket astronomically.

> Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements.

Gee, I wonder if they could, I don't know, hire more people so that these situations don't happen as often? Heaven forbid they lose a little bit of profit a year...

You simply delay the other flight. You don't force someone off of a flight they've already boarded.

It's really hard to describe how all of this works without going into extremely detailed scenarios and edge cases. Simply put though hiring more people doesn't do anything.

Those extra people still would have to be sitting on call somewhere. Once they receive the call they're sent to where they're needed which still results in this situation. It's simply unreasonable to think they would have spare flight crews in every single possible destination. Unless you want about 1,000% increase in ticket prices of course.

I'm sure the other flight was delayed. Not getting a crew there on this last flight out for the night though would have likely meant cancelling the flight in Louisville or delaying it at least 24 hours. Stranding a plane in a city like Louisville would cause major ripple effects down the line resulting in probably another 10-15 flights being delayed. If they cancelled rather than delay now you have a plane full of passengers that need to be re-routed on multiple other planes that are likely already full.

Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.

See, for some reason people will go to lengths to somehow absolve corporations of their responsibility in this country. It's really sad.

Sure, there may be issues that can't be planned for, and you can't hire for every case and solve every issue. But that is still not this customer's fault, and he was punished for it, arbitrarily. Frankly I don't care how difficult it is for United to prevent this from happening again-it is their responsibility, it should not be the responsibility of their customers.

> Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.

Then reserve 4 seats on every flight for possible situations that arise. It's not my problem that United loses money this way. It's theirs.

I'm not absolving them of anything. What happened was wrong, no doubt about it. I'm making a best effort to explain why it's unreasonable to think that flights will never end up in this "oversold" situation.

By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.

> By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.

I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.

What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.

The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.

I guarantee you United wishes they did.

United should've planned ahead for their staff to get to where they need without forcing somebody off the plane. They already knew how many tickets were sold, how many checked in and how many boarded (they were already on the plane).

People get sick. Stuff happens. Every airline does this. It sucks, but if you think your distributed system in the cloud is complicated, running an airline every day would blow your mind.

Nope. They needed to have their house in order before boarding. They have the contractual right to deny boarding for overbooking, but this was not strictly an overbooking. They wanted to replace paying customers with non-paying non-customer crew, i.e. not overbooked. But even if you word smith this into overbooking, once the plane is boarded, the contract has a list of reasons for removing a passenger and not a single one of those reasons applies to this case.

The airline needed to raise the compensation price until someone volunteered, and if still no one volunteered, then tough noogies. They still do not get to shift from a civilized situation to a violent one by dragging state police power into what is strictly a monetary dispute.

Also their right to deny boarding ends once a passenger is boarded

Not true. Boarding basically means haven't left the gate. If you get to your seat, sit, then they realize that your seat belt is broken, they can deny you "boarding" instead of dispatching a tech to fix the belt. You were seated on the plane, now you're not. Boarding is an overly broad term, but that's how it is written.

This isn't convincing. The farthest I will stretch out boarding is, the moment your baggage is stowed and you are seated with a seat belt fastened (as required by FARs), then you are boarded.

In your example the basis for refusing transport is that due to an equipment problem it's not possible for that passenger to comply with FAR safety regulations and therefore is in breach of the contract of carriage for the airline. The terminology of the word boarding isn't even relevant in your example.

United didn't drag anyone off the plane. ORD PD did.

Also, boarding is any time up until gate departure.

What? No, they should have kept upping the offer.

It wasn't worth a penny more than $800 + hotel and rebooking x 4 to United so they called the police to enforce their profit margin rather than pay the market cost of doing business.

Couldn't agree more. A law requiring the airline to keep doubling the offer for volunteers every x minutes until y number take it will solve this problem 100% of the time.

They have inter-airline relationships that they can put people on Southwest/Delta/American flights for a discounted rate. Easily avoiding this type of situation.

Or a Netjet. Plenty of options.

The crew members needed to be in the destination the next day, surely there was other flights or connecting flights the crew could have taken? Maybe setup some seats in the baggage storage area in the belly for crew if it is such an emergency?

Some larger aircraft actually have that for routes that require crew changes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-airplane-bedrooms-2015...

This is not the fault of any passenger.

The airline ceased to be civil when they shifted from an auction, to inviting police power on board. It was morally wrong for them to do this, and it was even worse for the police to agree to it.

There's no ethical, legal, or contractual argument for what the airline did; or the power they claim to have in this letter. They do not have the power to deplane people for the reason stated, their contract lists out numerous reasons for passenger removal but this is not one of them.

They should've done a number of things before resorting to forcing people off. They should've increased the value far more before this occurred.

And on top of all that, there is no transparency at all on how they kick people off. And they have the audacity to talk nonchalantly about this man who had obligations refused to get off so he needed to be bloodied when they could've done so much more.

Sorry, it's not this man's fault someone got sick and a flight crew needs to be in Louisville. Hire more people or save 4 seats on every plane in the future. We shouldn't be responsible for a company's mistakes.

is your logic that a plane full of passengers sitting on the tarmac is worse than a man being assaulted and dragged off a plane? Because if not, the answer to your question is a very obvious yes - they should be made to wait. I would happily wait on a plane if i knew it was to prevent someone being assaulted....

(though if the crew wasnt there, they wouldnt board the plane anyways, the other flight would've been cancelled or delayed, which happens all the time)

So by your logic if I don't want to upend my side of the deal I can just call muscle and smash a man face?

One has to be very careful challenging the final authority of the crew. In the times where this was not the case, you could just tell your pilots to be on time no matter what and end up with crashes due to flying into weather, running out of fuel, etc. At the end of the day, the PIC needs final authority since it's their ass on the line as well. As an aside, the flight deck crew don't really pay much attention to whats happening in the back and have to rely on the FAs to manage the passengers. If the FA complains about someone to the flight deck, the PIC will generally follow their recommendation without pause.

What is the alternative to commercial airlines for someone who isn't crazy rich?

High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason.

When I was in the UK, I took the Virgin Rail from London to Manchester. The additional room and ability to walk around made it so much better than a flight. I would have paid more. The time difference was negligible once you count all the extra screening time for airports.

It doesn't work because it's crazy expensive to build tracks, and not cost effective unless you have massive density.

Airlines are better, not just because planes are faster, but because of flexibility. You can find a space somewhere and build a new airport, or add a new runway to an existing airport and use less than one thousandth the land the rail line will require. The planes you fly to one destination can suddenly be switched to fly to almost any another destination, in a day.

Yea, the comfort of trains is better, but thats about it.

It's not just about the comfort of seating in a train. It's about not having to queue for 1h at security, being abused by TLA officers, queue again, getting checked, queue again, getting checked, etc. Flying today feels like going to jail.

If you have as much commercial pressure in trains as you do in flights, then I'm sure you will be asked to do the same sort of checks, and standing in queues. This happens because flights are an easy target (due to high costs, visibility and more favored view in the public eye). If we had someone attacking train lines because they carried a lot of people, you would have correspondingly sever safety regulations too.

I feel like a lot of the security for flights is basically theater now. 9/11 worked because the passengers believed they were being hijacked, and had a reasonable chance of surviving. Most of the procedure is chasing terrorist strategy that isn't going to be used. They've already switched tactics (laptop bombs, for example), and our current approach isn't helping much.

I think you already forgot one of the most deadly terrorist attack on the European continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Nevertheless, we don't have the same security circus when boarding train.

High speed passenger rail doesn't work in the US because freight is prioritized over moving people. That's the short version at least. I found this video to be a pretty good walkthrough - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

> High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason.

Looking at what is happening in California, cost is the largest issue[1]. The other reason is the US optimized its rail for cargo which it does well.

Frankly, I do believe that automated cars with solve the less than 50 mile commute problems better than light rail. I actually am a little optimistic that one of the hyperloop companies will get it together to create a short elevated line that can actually start a new building phase for rail (well, tube) transport. The danger is that they realize they will probably make more money on cargo and go that way.

1) the compromises on speed are going to make for a lot of controversy if it ever does get done

Good to know! I just booked round trip Manchester <-> London on that rail in June.

It was great. Not posh or anything, but better all around. You can use a laptop, eat actual food at an actual bar/table, see some pretty countryside views. And even if the train is packed, you aren't crammed into the passenger next to you. Not to mention the relaxed boarding experience.

UK rail isn't high speed and probably the worse in Europe outside of the old com block countries.

London to Manchester is somewhat still OK but London to Newcastle takes longer and costs more than London to Brussels via the Eurostar.

The Virgin train was definitely faster than a normal train . I'm not 100% clear on the semantics of what counts as high speed rail. I believe they are 100-120mph or so.

The thing that mattered to me is that it was 2 hours, because a 1 hour flight isn't really a 1 hour flight after you deal with the airport.

Virgin is doing 125mph, Eurostar is doing 186mph :)

IIRC the barrier of entry for "High-Speed Rail" in Europe (or in general) is 150-155mph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe

The UK has only 1 line with a speed permit of upto 300km/h (186mph) which is used for the Eurostar.

It has 4-5 other "fast" lines with a speed limit of 200 km/h (125mph) which doesn't technically count as highspeed.

Unfortunately, it seems to be bus or car, and I don't think that Greyhound is what it was 40 years ago.

Bus and car are not suitable replacements. I can't add 6 days of driving to my work trips to the East coast, or to my family visits to New York.

Greyhound is super sketchy. Service is terrible. About 10 yrs ago, I made the near-mistake of taking a Greyhound to a different city to catch a cheap international flight. I was going from a remote city to a big one. Luckily I had given myself a buffer of 8-12 hours. The bus was initially a couple of hours late for a 5 hour trip. Then, at a transit point we had to change buses and we were told that ticket doesn't guarantee seat and it's first come first serve! And there's only one bus per day from the less remote connecting city! I was lucky to get into the bus that day and not missing what turned out to be a memorable vacation. I only rode Greyhound one other time. Other observations: Greyhound stations are super sketchy in many cities. Buses are sometimes poorly maintained. Tickets are pricey. Etc.

PPL ASEL will cost you about $8k (doable if you really want it) and a 172@$105/hr wet to travel around in at 110kts. Take two fearless friends and you have yourself a private airline.

Whats the time commitment like? is it full time for 3 months or a couple hours every weekend for 6 months ?

It took me 13 months all told but I had a lot going on at the time. If your expenses are low you can do it in 8 months or so but that's unusual. Note that I say expenses and not income, it's usually best to pay as you go and not go into the red month to month.

That said, if you live somewhere with a convenient airport and a decent rental fleet (more places than you'd expect) it's highly liberating. I live near Denver and have gotten bored and flown to Canon city and surrounding areas for the day. Also, Pilots n Paws is awesome

The best advice I've received while earning my PPL is: "fly for fun, not for transportation". When you add the stress of "I/we need to get to our destination on time", mistakes get made.

Yes and no. You can definitely travel with it, just make sure you continue your training (IR), plan carefully, and don't put yourself in a position where anything worse than some PTO usage will occur if you don't make it back on time. Also, start small and get used to FBO operations. Nothing like being stuck somewhere after hours

What do these acronyms mean? Google is not helping me.

Private Pilot's License? ASEL is a commercial pilot's license, apparently.

Nope: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/priva... taloft explains it well. You can have a PPL or CPL (or ATP) in the ASEL, AMEL, ASES, AMES, etc.

Airplane, single-engine land. It's a rating added on to a pilot certificate, and says what kind af aircraft you may fly. The "land" part means an airplane that lands on the ground, which is different from "sea", for airplanes that can land on water.

Also, note that minimally you would need a commercial certificate to fly for hire. Even then, there are some restrictions on how you can do that. A private allows you to fly with friends, but you may not charge them. You can share expenses for the flight with friends, but need to be careful that it's legitimate sharing.

My comment was tongue in cheek but you can share expenses if you are traveling for a "common purpose" and not "holding out". In other words, fly with friends to somewhere you all want to go together. You basically just can't create an airplane Uber (naturally, people have tried).

Yeah, that isn't going to work very well for getting me from California to my family in New York.

Assuming you have no fear of death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Long-EZ

Surprisingly economical too, 2000mi on ~$200 in fuel. Probably around $60k to build right now (depending on avionics)

Edit: 100LL (aviation gasoline) is around $4/gal right now, hence the $200 for 52gal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com