Hacker News Reader

Comment by relaxitup | Hacker News Reader

"We are providing compensation as a goodwill gesture."

As a "goodwill" gesture?? This makes it sound like she is lucky they might be providing any sort of compensation at all to her. Seems to me that she is due a full refund, since her son was not able to use the seat that she paid for. I don't think the article reveals the age of the child, as I think that would provide some bearing as to the airline's responsibility to provide full refund or not? Once again, airlines (or is it just United) making boneheaded decisions.

View on HN

"Once again, airlines (or is it just United) making boneheaded decisions."

This is a United problem. I've refused to fly them for several years now (and even paid more because of it). I'm not surprised this happened again. Their employees simply do not care about passengers, period.

I suspect this is a cultural issue mixed with some self-preservation because of the merger.

Needless to say: I will continue to not fly with them.

Article does mention the child is 2 years old; not sure if that changes the scope of their refund policy/responsibility. However, I would imagine that if this mother wanted to hold the child in her lap for the duration of the do flight, she presumably would not have purchased an extra $1000 ticket. I imagine they'll for sure give her a full refund and then some after the media flack, whilst still making it seem like their actions were acceptable.

Parent of 3 kids that fly a lot here. Airlines force you to buy a full seat as soon as your child turns 2. This woman was most likely forced to buy a full ticket for her child.

This is properly inacceptable. I don't understand why this woman complied.

I would not have in her situation and would have made a terrible scene had I been asked to relinquish a seat I paid for.

Except, that mother almost certainly knew of the recent excesses of violence played out on behalf of, if not explicitly the direction of, United Airlines, and made a judgment call about reducing risk that her child would be beaten up by a cop or air-steward (or that her child would be taken from her in a strange city if she were arrested).

As much as United shed crocodile tears over the David Dao beat-up incident, the more power-hungry / Milgram-normalized flight crews probably secretly appreciate the implicit threat of violence that now accompanies their seating suggestions.

United better hope that the child in question was under the age of 2. If the child is 2 (or older), that's a clear violation of 14 CFR 121.311. It's unlikely that the air crew will face a suspension, but United is likely to be fined if the kid was over 2. (From the picture, it sure looks like they were.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.311

I wonder if the downturn in customer focus is correlated to the end of ESOP, or whether it's irrelevant.

It seems as if at least some of the employees just don't excercise common sense in sensitive situations.

FWIW, other sites are reporting they are indeed refunding the child's ticket and more.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/05/united-airlines-shirley-yamauc... http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35811846/hawaii-teacher-f... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/united-airlines-forces-m... http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/07/05/united-airlines-giv...

Even so, their self-congratulatory attitude that refunding a customer because they were unable to deliver the service purchase is somehow them offering "goodwill" shows an astounding level of cynical arrogance.

Oh, by no means am I endorsing it as being sufficient. I just wanted to update the info since I know some people read only the comments on submissions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com