Hacker News Reader

Comment by md224 | Hacker News Reader

> Technically the airlines must comply "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section." So February 14th, 2014, BUT you don't need to mention that part when arguing with the gate attendant. It is the law and they should comply with it.

This feels like a breach of information ethics. You're presenting information to another party without a key detail that could potentially undermine your case, simply because you feel you have the moral high ground and the detail shouldn't be there in the first place.

The author believes "it is the law and they should comply with it," except for a certain element of the fine print which the author thinks is too lenient. It makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever someone openly justifies using omission as a tactic.

View on HN

Shouldn't airlines be familiar with air travel related laws? In this particular case I feel no sympathy for companies that don't stay on top of changes in their own industry.

but it's not the law yet...

It is the law. You're confused. It's a law that has a leniency in it.

>This feels like a breach of information ethics.

Oh, please...

"Oh, please..." it's just ethics. Might as well print out other laws they don't have to comply with, to convince them to let you carry on your X.

Why limit yourself to printing out real laws?

That's it, I'm printing out a Neighbourly Code of Conduct Law... I'm so gatecrashing my neighbours house, her cooking always smells delicious.

I apologize for my high-minded tone, sometimes I find myself falling into that style of prose. I still stand by my objection to the ethics of such an act.

> It makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever someone openly justifies using omission as a tactic.

You raise a good point.

I think what you're seeing in the replies is that people will use the law however they see fit to get whatever advantage they want, while allying their own morals/ethics to the case.

In this case, we're talking about ever so slightly manipulating an airline, which is likely worth billions. Most people seem OK with that. (I am too, FWIW)

If we were talking about taking advantage of an individual, I think most people would agree that's not so cool.

> which is likely worth billions.

That doesn't affect the ethics of something. Remember, you are also screwing the other passengers on the plane that can no longer fit their bag in overhead (on full flights). Their bag is now at risk because it will need to be gate-checked.

If you fly regularly, you will realize that a substantial portion of all luggage brought on a plane technically does not pass the size dimension requirements. However, overhead compartments can still handle these "oversized" bags, and the flight attendants do not care as long as your bag is not blatantly breaking the rules. So storing a guitar on a plane? No problem. A lot of the other luggage shouldn't even be there.

> Remember, you are also screwing the other passengers on the plane that can no longer fit their bag in overhead (on full flights). Their bag is now at risk because it will need to be gate-checked.

That isn't my problem, that is the airline and security's problem. After seeing "rules" applied unequally to passengers (I had to check an identical computer bag to someone else forcing me to purchase another computer bag in the duty free shops or to actually check my laptop) I no longer care about other passengers. When the airlines and airport security apply the rules equally, then I'll care about morals and ethics on airplanes.

Right now, if I have to check my bag because some dude carried on his guitar, I failed myself to get on early enough and I'll let the airlines know I don't like it. But I won't blame the guy who carried on his guitar.

>That doesn't affect the ethics of something

According to you and what you think is right and wrong.

As you can see from the comments, not everyone agrees with you.

It's interesting to see how people intersect wealth and ethics. I've met people on the extreme end of the spectrum that believe shoplifting from certain chain stores is justifiable because of oppressive corporate practices.

I guess the logic here is that airlines have a lot of money, and they also have some sort of power dynamic with customers that borders on oppressive, so one would be justified in loosening their moral standards when dealing with such an entity. Not sure how I feel about that, but I guess that's one way of interacting with the world.

Information asymmetry. I personally won't shed a tear for the airlines about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com