patrick.net

Strategist says

Hey, Marcus actually making sense.

I always make sense. This one is just simple and obvious enough that you get it.

IdealTrack says

If you want to say that airlines can't oversell tickets then they will not have a refund class ticket. The seat is "gone" once it leaves the tarmac. So, if we want flexibility for a refundable ticket (usually higher priced as well to compensate for those who utilize the refund option),

Nobody is saying that an airline cannot oversell a flight. They just have to buy tickets back from someone at the market rate if the flight is oversold.

People who pay more for a refundable ticket are just buying insurance. If the airlines don't want to sell this insurance, then they can stop selling it and let a 3rd party handle that. In any case, it should go at the market rate. It should not be subsidized by randomly kicking paying customers off of flights.

Just a reminder:

Bailout, from 2001 in multiple acts:
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/big-airlines-benefit-from-bailout-bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/the-united-bailout-act-iii.html

ANOTHER Bailout, from 2008:
www.accountingweb.com/aa/standards/united-airlines-seeking-16-billion-federal-bailout

That's TWO bailouts in a decade.

United bailed on it's pension and left it to the taxpayer via the Pension Guaranty Corporation, while it fought tooth an nail to protect executives, who oversaw the failing airline and made all the decisions, from losing one dollar.

There are alternative goods to Airlines.

The solution to airlines is to create MORE competition by insisting on breakups when in bankruptcy, rather than allowing the reverse, consolidation. Additionally, it weakens their political power to beg for bailouts going forward, and creates fierce competition in price and customer service.

This is the same reason banks hate Glass-Steagal; with it in place they can't hold a gun to the governments head and demand a bailout for the investment side, "Or the commercial side gets it, assholes!"

One great step: Do away with hub airports and rent out gates by the quarter, charging a premium for prime time slots.

YesYNot says

People who pay more for a refundable ticket are just buying insurance. If the airlines don't want to sell this insurance, then they can stop selling it and let a 3rd party handle that. In any case, it should go at the market rate. It should not be subsidized by randomly kicking paying customers off of flights.

Exactly. I find that the biggest advocates of FREEDOMZ are usually first in line with hands out.

However, I'm also in favor of age limits for Stewardesses. One reason isn't appearance, but willingness to accommodate. Older People are grouchier, more jaded, more likely to want to say "GTFO" than find an amicable solution.

Strategist says

marcus says

Dan8267 says

Again, the solution is a federal law prohibiting overselling of tickets. No acceptations.

I don't agree. but I agree they should have upped the offer to volunteers as high as necessary.

That still leaves open the possibility that no one chooses to leave the flight. This may be unlikely, but it is possible. So the practice still violates the principle that people should not be forced into taking a gamble when they have someplace important to be. The passengers are unwilling participants in this game.

There is also a possibility that no one accepts an offer below $10,000. I doubt the airlines will be willing to accept that because then there is a good chance it becomes unprofitable to play the game at all.

Airlines don't lose money if seats are sold and left unfilled because the purchasers do not get their money back. Therefore, the practice of overbooking is purely a practice of gambling in which the airlines make a bit more money but they occasionally fuck over people trying to get to weddings, funerals, births, or other important events. Why should we as a society tolerate this?

Ironman says

Try reading the terms of the contract, you might just learn something.

Nobody should have to read a contract to buy a movie ticket, an amusement park ticket, a ski ticket, a bus ticket, ... yeah, most people get the idea. If the airline can randomly choose who gets a ride and who doesn't at their discretion, then it's not an airline ticket. It's a lottery ticket, albeit one with good odds of winning.Ironman says

With the number of flights that take place every day, how often does the situation in the OP actually happen?

Just because rape and murder don't happen a lot doesn't make them acceptable.

Dan8267 says

That still leaves open the possibility that no one chooses to leave the flight...

There is also a possibility that no one accepts an offer below $10,000.

Someone will always leave the flight. Why put a ceiling of $10K on it? Why not make it $100K? or $1M? Someone will leave. How often is the price going to go over $2K? So infrequently, that an airline will never notice this in the budget.

If you sell something short, you have to buy it back at whatever the market price. That's what the airline did. They sold a ticket that they didn't have. When it's time to provide the flight, they have to buy it back at the market price. This should be easy as pie for an airline to figure out.

Dr. Dao: "Got to go home, Got to go home, Got to go home, Got to go home, Got to go home."

In addition to being a pervert, is he also a Realtor?

Should paying customers who are anxious get the shit kicked out of them, so 4 "Must Ride" Employees - no doubt being moved to a new job location or to avoid overtime pay - get on board?

For an industry that wallows like a fattened prize pig in taxpayer subsidies, there definitely should be a customer's bill of Rights at the minimum.

Dan8267 says

That still leaves open the possibility that no one chooses to leave the flight. This may be unlikely, but it is possible. So the practice still violates the principle that people should not be forced into taking a gamble when they have someplace important to be. The passengers are unwilling participants in this game.

There is also a possibility that no one accepts an offer below $10,000. I doubt the airlines will be willing to accept that because then there is a good chance it becomes unprofitable to play the game at all.

United lost a billion dollars on their market cap today due to incident. They were too cheap to offer more than $800 to passengers willing to give up their seat. Serves them right.
Everyone has a price at which they would give up their seat.

PCGyver says

Dan8267 says

or other important events.

Like gay sex with patients who are hooked on oxycontin?

Yes, drug addiction would certainly qualify regardless of sexual orientation.

Ironman says

And you would be wrong again:

You are still wrong. Whether they overbooked or not, they still sold a ticket that they didn't have. Or you could say that they sold a ticket that they did have, and then stole it back when they realized that they needed it.

Strategist says

United lost a billion dollars on their market cap today due to incident.

That's not real money. That's speculators selling and short-selling to buy back later. United needs to lose real money, revenue. Guitar breaking, passenger breaking assholes.

Show me the fine print that says that the airline can take your ticket back if they need it, and that an incompetent 'officer' will knock you out of you refuse.

Strategist says

United lost a billion dollars on their market cap today due to incident. They were too cheap to offer more than $800 to passengers willing to give up their seat. Serves them right.

Everyone has a price at which they would give up their seat.

I hope this incident will motivate airlines to find that price more efficiently, e.g. with an app. I can't really believe that nobody on the plane would voluntary give up a flight to Louisville for $800. Some would probably pay that much for an excuse not to have to go to Louisville.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jiffy-express/n10315?snl=1

If the airline offered people a convenient solution, e.g. re-routing on the next flight, hotel if overnight, more passengers would have volunteered.

curious2 says

Strategist says

United lost a billion dollars on their market cap today due to incident. They were too cheap to offer more than $800 to passengers willing to give up their seat. Serves them right.


Everyone has a price at which they would give up their seat.

I hope this incident will motivate airlines to find that price more efficiently, e.g. with an app. I can't really believe that nobody on the plane would voluntary give up a flight to Louisville for $800. Some would probably pay that much for an excuse not to have to go to Louisville.

ha ha ha. Imagine getting paid to not see your mother in law.
The airlines use complex algorithms to figure out how many seats to overbook. This could be a million in one chance where no one accepted $800. They should just go higher.

If other industries were run this way, this would be a night out on the town:. Go out with your wife and kid, park in a garage, order dinner and just as it comes, the waiter kicks you out of your seat. When you refuse, the bouncer knocks you out and drags you to the curb. You go to get your car and find out it's been towed, because the garage needed the spot. You're pissed, but someone says it was all part of the contract you signed by using the facilities, and the contract is 20 pages of fine print on the web site. Yeah, that makes it all better. What a life.

YesYNot says

If other industries were run this way, this would be a night out on the town:. Go out with your wife and kid, park in a garage, order dinner and just as it comes, the waiter kicks you out of your seat. When you refuse, the bouncer knocks you out and drags you to the curb. You go to get your car and find out it's been towed, because the garage needed the spot. You're pissed, but someone says it was all part of the contract you signed by using the facilities, and the contract is 20 pages of fine print on the web site. Yeah, that makes it all better. What a life.

And then the restaurant and garage get PI's to check you out, and find out 10 years ago you had a DWI, so this is "Divine Punishment" or "Karma", and therefore they Dindu Nutin' wrong.

Strategist says

United lost a billion dollars on their market cap today due to incident. They were too cheap to offer more than $800 to passengers willing to give up their seat. Serves them right.

Pennywise, Pound Foolish. An accountant must have come up with the math.

Fastest way to destroy any company, but an accountant in charge. The understand the bottom line but not how you get there. They'd cut quality, customer service, etc. and then 3 years later wonder why all the customers are abandoning the business.

Society functions mostly on Trust and unwritten rules. If "Everybody read the dotted line" everytime they brought a ticket or a sandwich, it would cost trillions in lost productivity.

Ironman says

As most people do, but how can you cry "foul" if you didn't read it, and the terms of the contract come back to bite you??

Some people here just refuse to take any Personal Responsibility for their actions, and rather blame others...

There should be some legal limit to the amount and complexity of "fine print" because corporations have far greater resources to impose hidden but onerous restrictions than individuals have time to find them and make a rational decision.

www.youtube.com/embed/zSQNl4V_R88

Plane Not Overbooked; Passengers removed to accommodate Employees

United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day. The passengers were selected based on a combination of criteria spelled out in United’s contract of carriage, including frequent-flier status, fare type, check-in time and connecting flight implications, among others, according to United.

Toldja So! It was to save $$$ moving employees to a new location so no overtime or other expenses would have to be paid if they couldn't get there. Nor was it employees using some kind of travel privilege; no Airline would remove paying passengers to do that.

Dangerous "Logic":

"Oh, 10 years ago this guy was busted with some weed/soliciting Prostitutes/had $1,000 in upaid parking tickets in East Bumfuck, so Acme Airlines in West Guam has every right to beat the shit out of him for not involuntarily giving up his paid seat today."

I didn't read his court statement from 10 years ago that read "We find that Mr. X at some point, years in the future, can be kicked out of a paid seat and beaten, as part of his sentencing"

I see the Good Doctor is all lawyered up. Looks like he has two of them!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/

PCGyver says

Yeah that stuff is boring.

That doc said you could be forced to involuntarily give up your seat if the flight was overbooked. It did not say that the airline could kick you off to give an airline employee a seat. The flight was not overbooked, so this doesn't apply. It also doesn't mention giving up a seat once on the plane. It definitely doesn't mention getting knocked out, which is why people are pissed. It's about abuse of power, by using unnecessary force.

Dan8267 says

There is also a possibility that no one accepts an offer below $10,000.

At some point it would be cheaper to charter a jet for the employees.

jvolstad says

I see the Good Doctor is all lawyered up. Looks like he has two of them!

United may have been unethical and foolish, but they did nothing illegal. The Doctor will lose if this goes before a jury, but most likely United will settle for a $million.

Did the guy have a united ticket or a republic airlines ticket? If united sold his ticket, presumably his contract was with united. They can hire out the flight, but they still have to provide the service.

Ironman says

So are you saying the airline should charge him EXTRA for that, instead of knocking him out for FREE,

This is one of the dumber things you've uttered. The irony is how much he's going to charge them for the privilege.

Strategist says

United may have been unethical and foolish, but they did nothing illegal.

Last time I checked, assault was illegal. Being a rent-a-cop, not a real cop, doesn't give you the right to commit assault even if you are carrying a person off a plain. In any case, he can sue as a tort for pain, injury, emotional trauma, and character assassination. A jury might very well offer him a shitload of money. Remember the McDonald's coffee case? If a jury can award the plaintiff in that, what makes you think this far worse case of intentional harm won't be convincing?

I hope he takes them to the cleaners. And don't worry about airline ticket prices. If airlines had any way to raise prices, they already would have. They sure haven't lacked trying.

Ironman says

So, instead of "plain", if it was vanilla or chocolate, would that make a difference?

Congratulations, the best argument you ever made against something I wrote is pointing out a typo. Did you orgasm? This must be the highlight of your month.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

United may have been unethical and foolish, but they did nothing illegal.

Last time I checked, assault was illegal.

Not vacating his seat when asked to by security was illegal. If he felt his rights were being violated, he could always take up the issue with a lawyer.
Both the Doctor and United over reacted. Nevertheless, I sympathize with the Doctor, and believe he will come out ahead.

Strategist says

Not vacating his seat when asked to by security was illegal.

Show me the law that states that.

And even if that is the case, it does not justify assault. The laws doesn't allow you to assault a person, rape a person, or murder a person simply because they commit a minor crime. We don't live in a society with a "bash the criminal all you want" law that takes effect immediately when a person commits a technical violation of the law.

Put simply, the actions of the airline cannot be justified and they should be held accountable.

This incident also makes a compelling case that overbooking should be illegal and that passengers should be entitled to $10,000 cash immediately if airlines refuse to fulfill transport a person to whom they sold a ticket. It's fraud, plain and simple.

If they shot him first it would have limited the squealing..

Dan8267 says

Remember the McDonald's coffee case?

My first Econ and Law class: It's been a tort to serve food/beverages hot enough to cause damage since the 1500s-1600s when somebody dumped hot soup in the lap of a customer, causing burns. Anything served at a temperature that can't be immediately consumed without harm is a tort; if it was hot enough to scald her legs with 3rd degree burns within seconds; it was too damn hot. Other restaurants brew coffee at 140 degrees; this cools considerably the moment the liquid is added to any kind of cup. This was actually a no-brainer lawsuit.

Additionally, both McDonalds and the Franchisee were aware and warned that their unmodified machines were too hot and posed a liability months before the woman spilled a little coffee on herself. If memory serves, the cost of the regulator was a nickel per coffee machine.

YesYNot says

If other industries were run this way, this would be a night out on the town:. Go out with your wife and kid, park in a garage, order dinner and just as it comes, the waiter kicks you out of your seat. When you refuse, the bouncer knocks you out and drags you to the curb. You go to get your car and find out it's been towed, because the garage needed the spot. You're pissed, but someone says it was all part of the contract you signed by using the facilities, and the contract is 20 pages of fine print on the web site. Yeah, that makes it all better. What a life.

#GorsuchLife just as the Founding Fathers intended

Dan8267 says

If airlines had any way to raise prices, they already would have. They sure haven't lacked trying.

I'm with you about certain aspects of capitalism. But you're wrong here. Airlines are very competitive, and taken as a whole air travel is what economists call elastic, in the sense that consumers do a lot more of it when prices are low. So they all compete with eachother, also knowing that keeping prices down increases volume for all. They have to contend with the JetBlues and Southwests of the world that will annihilate them if they are too greedy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

There is also a possibility that no one accepts an offer below $10,000.

At some point it would be cheaper to charter a jet for the employees.

Uber will take you from Chicago airport to Louisville for $412 right now. It's a 5 hours drive. This half-wit wound up delaying the flight more than three hours. LOL!

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

A seriously gay Chinese doctor should have offered United Airlines a blow job and a free prescription of morphine and made everyone on the plane Moo Shi pork.

Why does he hate FREE!dom?

He's not seriously Chinese, he's Vietnamese, ASSHOLE!

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Anything served at a temperature that can't be immediately consumed without harm is a tort; if it was hot enough to scald her legs with 3rd degree burns within seconds; it was too damn hot. Other restaurants brew coffee at 140 degrees; this cools considerably the moment the liquid is added to any kind of cup. This was actually a no-brainer lawsuit.

Additionally, both McDonalds and the Franchisee were aware and warned that their unmodified machines were too hot and posed a liability months before the woman spilled a little coffee on herself. If memory serves, the cost of the regulator was a nickel per coffee machine.

This is all true, but if the serving coffee at the temperature McDonald's did is wrong, then anyone who ever boils water is criminally negligent is someone else spills that water on them. I boil water all the time to make tea. Does that mean I'm being negligent?

The old woman wasn't greedy as some say, but it's not reasonable to say that person or business should ever boil water to make tea or coffee. If an individual citizen did this instead of McDonald's, would they be liable for someone else's spills?

There's a lot that McDonald's should answer for, but I don't see this as being one of those things. Yes, some people said the coffee was too hot. Others said anything colder is too cold. McDonald's listened to the most popular opinion because that sells the most coffee. McDonald's didn't serve the coffee that hot to burn people. It did because that was what most people wanted.

Following the reasoning behind this case, if a person poked his eye out with a fork, a restaurant would be liable for having forks that are too sharp. I don't have sympathy for McDonald's, but I cannot rationally justify the idea that boiling water to make coffee is wrong. It's what most people do at home.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

If airlines had any way to raise prices, they already would have. They sure haven't lacked trying.

I'm with you about certain aspects of capitalism. But you're wrong here. Airlines are very competitive, and taken as a whole air travel is what economists elastic

I don't know what's lacking, your economics knowledge or reading comprehension skills, but what you just wrote supports what I just said. Airlines cannot raise prices precisely because the market won't bear higher prices and air travel is largely elastic at this point because of telecommunication.

The price plummets in the graph demonstrate that airlines cannot raise prices. They could not even maintain prices. So it sounds like you are saying exactly what I am.

Dan8267 says

This is all true, but if the serving coffee at the temperature McDonald's did is wrong, then anyone who ever boils water is criminally negligent is someone else spills that water on them. I boil water all the time to make tea. Does that mean I'm being negligent?

You're serving yourself, so it's on you. You also don't drink it the moment you pour it, you wait a bit for the tea to seep, by that time it's not going to cause harm.

Dan8267 says

Following the reasoning behind this case, if a person poked his eye out with a fork, a restaurant would be liable for having forks that are too sharp. I don't have sympathy for McDonald's, but I cannot rationally justify the idea that boiling water to make coffee is wrong. It's what most people do at home.

Maybe so, but this is ancient, settled law on the grounds that when something is served to you, you can eat/drink it immediately.

McD's was keeping the coffee at 180 degrees, which is almost boiling. Almost everybody else, including Dunkies, at 140.

Also, you shouldn't be making coffee with boiled water. That's why coffee via perculator tastes like shit. I turn off my water heater the moment I hear/see the first simmer.