Ship of Fools: Fly the Friendly Skies?

Thread: Fly the Friendly Skies? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020145

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

A doctor was dragged against his will off a United Airlines flight yesterday, getting his face bloodied in the process. Outrage and some viciously funny memes ensued.

Today another man was threatened with being handcuffed and dragged of a United flight for not yielding his seat to a "higher-priority" passenger.

(This is the same airline that smashed a performer's guitar then gave him the unholy runaround refusing to recompense him. They claimed to have learned from their mistake then. Clearly they did not.)

My takeaway from this, other than I will never, ever fly United, is that the airline industry needs re-regulating. Clearly this whole "businesses will regulate themselves if the government just steps out of the way" bullshit is bullshit.

Thoughts about these incidents, or about airline regulation, or related topics?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

For me, it doesn't come to being dragged out of the seat. They cancel or re-assign the plane to another late flight before you can get on the plane.

And thanks to the miracle of smart phones, you can watch while they don't post that your flight is going to be late when you can find out that it hasn't left the previous airport.

That said, most of the other airlines in the US are not much better.

As for this incident, the official reaction was almost as bad as the incident. "Reacommodation of passengers who were designated volunteers" is Orwellian.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"designated volunteer"

You're right, Orwell would be proud.

I read (I do not have confirmation) that searches at Merriam-Webster* for "volunteer" went up 1900% today.

_____
*US's largest dictionary publisher

[ 13. April 2017, 04:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

This is the price of freedom...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This is the price of freedom...

How is this freedom? Freedom for United, yes, but not for its passengers.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for this incident, the official reaction was almost as bad as the incident. "Reacommodation of passengers who were designated volunteers" is Orwellian.

Do you have a link showing where the phrase "designated volunteer" was used by United?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This is the price of freedom...
How is this freedom? Freedom for United, yes, but not for its passengers.

I heard a radio program recently about the rise of no-frills airlines like Spirit and Frontier. The original idea was that they were going to corner the niche market of people who care about nothing other than price. But the other airlines took notice, and while they might provide slightly better services, they pretty much all run the same model.

This is one of those things where people are going to be tempted to say "fly with someone else if you don't like it," but the reality is that you have very limited choice when flying, and the choices are all cutting services and customer service as quickly as they can get away with it.

(I'm probably one of the Ship's biggest airline defenders, and I am still reluctant to whine about stuff like paying for drinks or checked bags, but it needs to be said, the consumer has very little power to modify airline behavior, short of posting the video to YouTube that causes the airline's stock to tank.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My takeaway from this, other than I will never, ever fly United, is that the airline industry needs re-regulating. Clearly this whole "businesses will regulate themselves if the government just steps out of the way" bullshit is bullshit.

Thoughts about these incidents, or about airline regulation, or related topics?

As I understand it, United absorbed Continental which has given it a virtual monopoly on many domestic routes in the US. Antitrust legislation looks to be in order.

On the other hand, given that the EU has not (so far) followed the US and the UK in banning laptops in cabins to certain destinations, there is also a case to be made that this is an attempt by the US to force people off the big three Middle Eastern carriers onto US ones. That looks like too much government interference (rather than intervention by a regulatory body).

Overall, it seems to me that flying in Europe is a better customer experience than in the US. I think some of this is down to regulation and some down to culture.

On the one hand, the average passenger is, I think, politer in Europe (for instance, it's extremely rare in Europe to see anyone leave their seat after landing before the seatbelt sign is switched off).

On the other, enforcement training seems to focus more on non-confrontation and de-escalation than in US culture.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

It certainly gave us pause when booking our internal US flights for our upcoming visit.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This is the price of freedom...
How is this freedom? Freedom for United, yes, but not for its passengers.

I suspect that simontoad was referring, in non-complimentary terms, to the general process of de-regulation.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Why couldn’t United’s employees have dealt with the situation, put their staff (who apparently needed seats people had paid for) on another flight, or simply waited?

Surely some patience is required in difficult situations?

The need by those in uniform for instant obedience is a very worrying one. One should instantly obey the one in uniform 'or else'. In this case be dragged down a plane, in others (usually if pulled over when driving while black and not instantly obeying) get shot. It's interesting to note that he was an Asian bloke. Would a blonde white man or woman have been treated the same?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Without remotely excusing the way this man was treated, the likely pressure on United was to get an aircrew to the destination airport in time to staff a flight from there to somewhere else without breaching regulations about rest times etc.

It was bad planning that this wasn't sorted before the flight boarded so that passengers who were to be bumped didn't even board the plane, and very bad handling of the resultant situation.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There are those who have been warning what unfettered capitalism might look like for years: nothing gets in the way of the needs of the corporation - that is the first (and possibly the last) law. Did people really need an incident like this to illustrate it?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am not offering any excuses for United, but there was already a serious disruption of service before this incident.

A storm had wreaked havoc at the Atlanta airport, which is a hub for United, several days earlier. A huge number of flights had been cancelled, and United was doing its damndest to get its scheduled service back to normal.

They decided to bump four passengers so that crew needed in another city could have their seats. The obvious way to handle this was to offer ever-larger sums of money to passengers to give up their seats. AIUI, they offered $800, but did not raise their offer.

The way they handled the situation was not only wrong, but stupid.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

He made an easy target, being nearly 70 and Asian (therefore probably smaller of frame than most men on the plane).

My son insists on speculating about what would have happened if they'd targeted his dad, who is also Asian, nearly 70, and from a profession you don't expect to fight back (a pastor).

It would have been an even bigger mistake, as a midnight mugger on Christmas eve found out. Mr. Lamb is an Air Force vet and has military martial arts training.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
It certainly gave us pause when booking our internal US flights for our upcoming visit.

My brother's mother-in-law flew back to Korea yesterday, with at least her first leg on United. He said that he had never seen a more attentive and polite staff. Maybe they will be the friendliest airline in the country for a while, at least until this incident is mostly forgotten.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

All public servants (everybody in fact) needs to realise that in every single pocket is a handy video recorder with the facility to send that video round the world in seconds.

No need for CCTV.

Your company's shares can plummet when your employees forget their manners - better to train those employees how to be human beings, whatever the short term cost. The long term cost could be much bigger. Reputations built over years toppled in seconds.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The standard tactic of blaming the victim has also been resorted to.
Which led to this, another sterling comedy column from Petri at the POST.
"Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

As for this incident, the official reaction was almost as bad as the incident. "Reacommodation of passengers who were designated volunteers" is Orwellian.

I was also amused by the United CEO talking about "denying boarding" to a man who was sitting on the plane.

No. That's not how English works. The process of getting on to the aircraft is called "boarding". Once someone is on the plane, he has boarded. It is no longer possible to deny him boarding.

It is possible to remove him from the plane, but not to deny him boarding.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I have no sympathy for United at all, at least not from what I've read about this incident. It appears that there was an announcement in the lounge asking for volunteers to take a later flight as this one was overbooked (though, surely, that would have been known for a couple of hours as they'd have known how many people had checked in). I'm rarely in a great hurry to get somewhere, so may well have taken up their offer of a hotel and a later flight with a bit of cash thrown in.

But, it seems extremely odd to start boarding and then realise you still need four more volunteers. A willingness to volunteer while in the departure lounge is likely to disappear once you've gone through all the effort of finding your seat, cramming your carry-on around your feet as there's no room in the over head locker, and got yourself as comfortable as possible.

Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats. But checking-in too many passengers seems to be the height of incompetance. If there have been delays and they're trying to get delayed passengers into the planes then the place to ask if someone would take a later flight (especially if that's the next day) would be at check-in - before handing over luggage and waiting in line for security.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

That said, most of the other airlines in the US are not much better.

As for this incident, the official reaction was almost as bad as the incident. "Reacommodation of passengers who were designated volunteers" is Orwellian.

Most US airlines are beaurocratic and soulless, and most engage in the same practices of overbooking. But united has much lower customer satisfaction ratings and this is why. What most airlines do in this situation is continue upping their offer until the get a real volunteer. If no one will voluntarily deplane for $800 try $1000. Keep increasing until someone goes for it-- this is one of those situations where market forces work, and it's fair since the root of the problem is a capitalist one-- increasing corporate profits. This works well in other airlines, with the deplaned passengers who truly volunteer often pleased with their bargain rather than bloodied. But United was too cheap-- unwilling to offer more than $800 for a 24 hour delay-- and will end up losing millions as a result

The epic response of CEO Munoz showed why this is the case. Took him 3 tries (after the Orwellian double speak above along with a bit of victim blaming) to get to "sorry"

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats.

I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have had a travel agent tell me that if I am taking a flight within the US and I have a choice between a US carrier or an EU carrier, I should take the EU carrier because there are more protections through the EU.

This all has to do with deregulation. It started a number of years ago. Regulations used to provide better protections to the consumer; but starting during the Clinton era, those protections were lifted.

Now Trump is saying he wants to further deregulate other industries (in particular, the financial sector). The only entity that benefits from that is the business, not the consumer.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
In the future, law enforcement will not be involved in removing a "booked, paid, seated passenger", Mr Munoz said. "We can't do that."

I'd have thought this was a common sense approach to customer service, but apparently it takes United CEO Oscar Munoz a couple tries to arrive at this position.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats.
I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.

But again, other airlines handle this differently, with much different responses.

I was once in just such a situation on a return flight from Hawaii. A bit of extra cash and an extra night's stay in paradise? Yes, please. Sadly, I didn't jump fast enough and more nimble passengers snapped up the deal before I could.

Of course, if you're not returning from Hawaii, you have to sweeten the deal a bit more to make it attractive. But it's hard to imagine there's no figure that would induce a traveler to voluntarily stay behind for 24 hours, even if you're staying in Buffalo NY rather than Honolulu.

People are traveling for all sorts of reasons, with all sorts of financial and personal matters on the line for their arrival. For some, like me on my Hawaii trip, a 24 hour delay is not such a big deal, and with sufficient compensation, they'll be quite happy with the deal. For others (like the doctor in this case) there's much more on line-- perhaps you are traveling to a once-in-lifetime job interview, going to a medical appt with a specialist that took you months to book, or arriving just in time for a loved one's funeral. Perhaps you are a single mom who has no childcare for an overnight stay. Similarly, job situations vary greatly-- if you have a last-minute delay that keeps you going to work the next day, some employers will simply dock you a personal day holiday-- others will terminate you.

All of these variable circumstances can be nicely sorted out again by simple market forces if you just keep upping the offer until you get a real volunteer who will happily walk away with the extra cash.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I started flying at 5 this morning. 3.5 hours later I notice while waiting for the second flight that 3 of 100 people are not on their "miraculous smart phones". Everyone over 60 types with 1 index finger at 6 words per minute while looking over the tops of their eyeglasses. Everyone under 40 types with both thumbs at 390 words per min while watching netflix at the same time.

Correction to the above. Flight #1 delayed 30 mins so flying didn't really start until 5:30. (Flight #2 delayed 45 mins)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It would have been cheaper for United to roll out another jet for those four crew persons. Heck, it would've been cheaper for them to hire a space shuttle. The hit they're going to take now is orders of magnitude huger. You do not recover from a PR disaster like this.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

NPR had a game theorist on this morning, talking about how the airlines could handle the overbooking situation better, and about how United particularly screwed this one up, even before calling in the goon squad.

First, work it out before people are on the airplane. Once people are on the airplane, their concept of the seat changes from an image of a seat that they will occupy in the future to an actual seat which they are entitled to sit in. Once people have a concept of ownership of a seat, they become less likely to give up that seat.

Second, don't make announcements and wait for people to stand up. Humans are scared of appearing to be suckers. If you have to raise your hand and announce to the rest of the passengers that you are willing to give up your seat, you risk looking like a sucker if no one else jumps at the offered price. So maybe do it by text message, or at the desk at check-in.

Third, when offering money or vouchers, start high, and go lower until you get down to the number of volunteers that you need. If you start at two thousand dollars, you will get more than enough volunteers, and you know who really will not get off the plane. Then go down incrementally, until you get to the actual price that will result in the proper number of volunteers. (And, I suppose, you could keep going from there, until you drop below the requisite number of volunteers.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, it seems extremely odd to start boarding and then realise you still need four more volunteers.

The story I heard was that the United employees needing to travel to Louisville didn't show up until the plane was largely (or completely?) boarded, so the gate agents didn't know they needed four more spaces until the plane was already full of people.

Which is major league incompetence on the part of the airline, really.

I wonder, also:

This was a Sunday evening. Most people on the plane would have been expected at work on Monday morning. I wonder what fraction of people have the flexibility to take a buyout and stay an extra day.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I wonder how they choose their "volunteers". If someone is kicked off a plane, I assume the carry-on luggage goes along. What if the person has checked luggage? I can imagine someone being taken off a plane and forced to wait for a later plane without even a toothbrush.

I tend to think overbooking should be banned, not only by airlines but by hotels and other industries.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats.
I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.

Though, there are also statistics on people who need a seat on a flight at the last minute - those who missed their flight (part of the above) or were there but couldn't board as it was overbooked, occasions when a flight is cancelled or a smaller plane is needed, even flight crew who are in the wrong airport.

Basically it seems like the over-booking model is one that is necessarily inflexible. And, when strained will always snap - leading to the sort of situation where someone who has paid the price for their seat is turfed off the flight they need to be on and put on another flight that doesn't suit their needs.

I guess the old practice of selling stand-buy tickets for any flight that had room doesn't work in the current climate of security checks.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Without remotely excusing the way this man was treated, the likely pressure on United was to get an aircrew to the destination airport in time to staff a flight from there to somewhere else without breaching regulations about rest times etc.

It was bad planning that this wasn't sorted before the flight boarded so that passengers who were to be bumped didn't even board the plane, and very bad handling of the resultant situation.

A friend of mine, for many years a minion of a major carrier, said that in this particular case, he would have just booked a van and driver to take the staff members there directly. It's not as if they needed to get a crew from Yellowknife to Winnipeg.

I've twice happily accepted denied-boarding compensation-- once, when others did not volunteer and the gate agent looked desperate, I spoke with him and we agreed on the cash and accommodation, as well as an upgrade and two spare lounge passes (an engineer friend used to volunteer regularly and financed a few holidays out of it).

Others have written on the tone-deaf response of United staff, which is so obvious and embarrassing that one hardly needs to comment again. Sadly, more than one bishop has indulged in similar self-defensive and side-stepping language.

As well, two staff have been put on leave, which suggests that they did not operate in accordance with procedure (i.e., they assaulted the passenger)-- such things do not happen in a vacuum. These staff must have received signals or even explicit direction that such abuse is smiled at. Rogues always have friends and never operate independently.

I have seen some estimates of the cost of this foolishness to United, and it seems to me that they would have likely been better off to have chartered private jets for each of the four passengers, likely at a cost of about US$40 000, champagne and pedicurist included. It would have been cheaper by tens of millions.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Basically it seems like the over-booking model is one that is necessarily inflexible. And, when strained will always snap - leading to the sort of situation where someone who has paid the price for their seat is turfed off the flight they need to be on and put on another flight that doesn't suit their needs.

Kevin Drum did some analysis of which airlines eject the most paying customers. Interestingly Delta has the most denied boardings but the fewest ejections. They seem to have figured out that the time to make these decisions is before the passengers are actually seated on the plane.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The attorney (of course you knew there would be one, right?) representing the dragged passenger reports that his client suffered serious concussion, a broken nose and loss of teeth.
We could probably have a betting pool, on how much United is going to have to pay him. There is not a jury in the US which will not find against United, even assuming you could empanel jurors who have not read of the case or seen the video; if I were them I would settle out of court ASAP.
I will place my bet at $100 million.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I despise United Airlines, and the only reason I'm not boycotting them because of this situation is because I've already been boycotting them for several years.

United Airlines certainly deserve to have their pants sued off of them. But so does the Chicago Department of Aviation security office. It was their guys who actually attacked and dragged the passenger. (Really -- they didn't ever raise the armrest rather than drag him over it?)

[Mad]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.
Though, there are also statistics on people who need a seat on a flight at the last minute - those who missed their flight (part of the above) or were there but couldn't board as it was overbooked, occasions when a flight is cancelled or a smaller plane is needed, even flight crew who are in the wrong airport.

I would suppose that those things can be taken into account. Although I can see that there is scope for a short-sighted airline obsessed with short-term profit to shave things too close.

(Similarly most banks lend out at any time more than their actual assets. Which is fine if they've estimated the risk correctly. And a bit of a problem if they haven't. Which never happens because bankers always rationally estimate the risk.)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Also this past Sunday, a passenger on a United flight from Houston, Texas, to Calgary, Alberta, was stung by a scorpion.
[Eek!]

(They "consulted with a physician on the ground" -- another reason it's a bad idea to drag physicians off of planes. They might be needed.)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats.
I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. If the seat has been sold, the airline already has the money. Why should they care if the person who bought the seat shows up or not? Besides, they can usually sell it to a standby passenger, thus collecting twice for the same seat.

Overbooking should be banned. Period.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This is the price of freedom...
How is this freedom? Freedom for United, yes, but not for its passengers.
I suspect that simontoad was referring, in non-complimentary terms, to the general process of de-regulation.

Yep. Plus freedom ends at the door of big business, dunnit.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selling more tickets than a plane can carry is strange enough practice, though it does provide some cover for passengers not turning up and there being empty seats.
I believe it's standard practice in the industry. The number of people who don't turn up predictably falls sufficiently short of the number of people that it makes statistical sense.
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. If the seat has been sold, the airline already has the money. Why should they care if the person who bought the seat shows up or not? Besides, they can usually sell it to a standby passenger, thus collecting twice for the same seat.

Overbooking should be banned. Period.

The overbooking is driven by the refundable fares that are available for business travelers who need flexibility. Given those, there's usually a 5 to 10% cancelling of tickets. It will be interesting to see if refundable fares continue.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I have now seen 2 articles mounting fairly convincing arguments that what United did was simply illegal.

Essentially, the argument is that these things have to be done before boarding, not after. The rules are structured to delineate "denying boarding" provisions from "removal" provisions, and that United attempted to justify its actions by referring to the "denying boarding" provisions when the man had already boarded. None of the grounds allowed for "removal" applied.

Cue internet discussions where amateur lawyers try to argue that a person on board a plane hasn't actually "boarded" until the plane moves, but frankly the structure of the legislation makes a fairly compelling case. If you want to bump passengers, you do it in the lounge beforehand. You don't drag them off the plane after you've already accepted their boarding pass.

[ 14. April 2017, 12:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It will be interesting to see if refundable fares continue.

Precisely. Even expense-account business travelers have to travel. They have no choice but to fly unless they want to arrive several days late for their appointments. The airlines have them by their, erm, dossiers.

Make all fares non-refundable, period. OK, if plans change, issue a travel voucher for future flight -- the airlines already charge a hefty "rebooking fee" for those. They're not going to lose a penny, except as a result of bad publicity caused by stupid actions.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
amateur lawyers try to argue that a person on board a plane hasn't actually "boarded" until the plane moves

In that case, the airlines had better re-write the script that flight attendants use to announce that "Boarding is now complete" (which assumes that it was in progress) when they close the door.

[ 14. April 2017, 12:27: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
amateur lawyers try to argue that a person on board a plane hasn't actually "boarded" until the plane moves
In that case, the airlines had better re-write the script that flight attendants use to announce that "Boarding is now complete" (which assumes that it was in progress) when they close the door.

Exactly the kind of thing I've been trying to point out to some people, to no avail. They talk about a boarding process, and yet every step of their argument requires boarding to be an instantaneous thing where all the passengers, in a legal sense, suddenly collectively "board" at a point in time well after they are all physically on the plane.

And no legal definition is used to back this nonsense up. Nothing to displace the natural meaning of the language, where each passenger boards at the point in time when they walk onto the plane. They just seem to believe that the answer HAS to be the same for every passenger.

But then, I've spent nearly a decade learning that people can't cope with relational concepts. They want to define "boarding" instead of "boarding of a passenger", and so end up defining it by referring to something that the plane does. The passenger gets ignored in the definition.

[ 14. April 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The passenger gets ignored in the definition.

When airlines treat passengers as numbers on a spreadsheet, then this doesn't seem an inappropriate description.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I wonder how they choose their "volunteers". If someone is kicked off a plane,

There is no regulation guiding this. They are free to choose their own method, typically it being the cheapest ticket purchased; first removed.

quote:

I assume the carry-on luggage goes along. What if the person has checked luggage? I can imagine someone being taken off a plane and forced to wait for a later plane without even a toothbrush.

Most airlines know where on the plane your luggage is. If it cannot be removed efficiently, it will be rerouted later. This can happen to your luggage even if you stay on the plane.

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. If the seat has been sold, the airline already has the money. Why should they care if the person who bought the seat shows up or not?

Refundable tickets.

quote:

Besides, they can usually sell it to a standby passenger, thus collecting twice for the same seat.

Never been on a flight with an empty seat? They are looking to maximise profit. Your convenience isn't their priority.

quote:

Overbooking should be banned. Period.

I don't like it either. And United handled it very poorly and unnecessarily. But, according to an LA Times article, the rate of passengers being bumped is less than a 100ᵗʰ of a percent.

[ 14. April 2017, 15:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If the seat has been sold, the airline already has the money. Why should they care if the person who bought the seat shows up or not? Besides, they can usually sell it to a standby passenger, thus collecting twice for the same seat.

Overbooking should be banned. Period.

I expect the airline has to use less fuel if it runs with all its seats filled, which costs it less money. Not that the airline probably cares about the environmental impact, but I'm glad that environmental impact is lessened.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I wonder how they choose their "volunteers". If someone is kicked off a plane,
There is no regulation guiding this. They are free to choose their own method, typically it being the cheapest ticket purchased; first removed.

quote:

[qb] [QUOTE]
Overbooking should be banned. Period.
I don't like it either. And United handled it very poorly and unnecessarily. But, according to an LA Times article, the rate of passengers being bumped is less than a 100ᵗʰ of a percent.

Again, not really a problem if you keep upping the offer til you get willing volunteers. A problem when you're too cheap to arrive at a fair figure.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Precisely. Even expense-account business travelers have to travel. They have no choice but to fly unless they want to arrive several days late for their appointments. The airlines have them by their, erm, dossiers.

Make all fares non-refundable, period. OK, if plans change, issue a travel voucher for future flight -- the airlines already charge a hefty "rebooking fee" for those. They're not going to lose a penny, except as a result of bad publicity caused by stupid actions.

Unfortunately, the same applies to public sector employees who have to travel as well. I book travel for university employees and we make deals for refundable tickets and insurance and changes and so forth because we don't want to waste the taxpayer's money when shit happens. We're also responsible for students traveling e.g. on field trips or exchange, and again, when shit happens, we need to be able to get them home asap.

At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. Most travellers seem to want the cheapest fare possible, so that's the product the airlines provide. How do you get cheap fares? Operate at maximum occupancy, and sell each seat as many times as possible.

Re: European airlines being nicer - of course they are; they have competition - a decent train system. The alternative to flying in North America is 16 hours in the car and 8 hours in a cheap motel. Every day. For several days. [Help]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I expect the airline has to use less fuel if it runs with all its seats filled, which costs it less money.

I can't see how a heavier plane would use less fuel than a lighter one. If you hold all other variables equal (type of plane, route, etc.), the only variable affecting fuel use would be weight. The less the weight, the less fuel used.

[ 14. April 2017, 22:26: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I expect the airline has to use less fuel if it runs with all its seats filled, which costs it less money.
I can't see how a heavier plane would use less fuel than a lighter one. If you hold all other variables equal (route of plane, route, etc.), the only variable affecting fuel use would be weight. The less the weight, the less fuel used.

Take the number of passengers that turn up and take their seats. Then suppose the airline can fit them all on nine flights or else the airline can fit them onto ten flights at 90% capacity. I would suppose that the nine full flights will use less fuel than the ten flights at 90% since the weight of the airplane is non-negligible.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Am interesting example but I thought we were referring to running a plane at 100% capacity versus a couple of empty seats. You appear to have changed the subject.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A plane with less passengers will use marginally less fuel than one that is full. But, the difference will be marginal. The majority of the fuel use is in lifting the aircraft itself (including the fuel for the rest of the flight and reserve). The fuel used per passenger will decrease with more passengers, even though the total amount of fuel used increases.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

A slight change to United's booking policy has been announced.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Am interesting example but I thought we were referring to running a plane at 100% capacity versus a couple of empty seats. You appear to have changed the subject.

I was talking about how the policy works over a period of time based on the law of averages. It's not the cost per flight that matters to the overall running costs or profitability (or environmental burden) of the airline: it's the cost over a period. I apologise if that wasn't clear. The policy overall works because the few occasions where they have to pay out to induce a passenger to take a later plane are compensated for by the savings on the majority of occasions.
That is, it works until some smart-alec manager with no real grasp of statistics thinks he can cut costs and improve profits by raising the number of overbookings and capping the compensation paid out.

[ 15. April 2017, 15:47: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well, United is no longer alone in attacking passengers. An American Airlines flight attendant allegedly hit a mom holding two children, and challenged a man who came to her defense to hit him. There is seriously something wrong in the state of Denmark that is the American airline industry.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

At least American had the smarts to apologize immediately, upgrade the woman to first class for her entire overseas trip, and suspend the flight attendant.

What happened was bad, but American did a much better job of damage control.

Moo

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Discussion on the radio yesterday included that some airlines ban the use of videoing of passengers or staff without their permission being granted in advance. Which sounds fine under normal circumstances, but...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At least American had the smarts to apologize immediately, upgrade the woman to first class for her entire overseas trip, and suspend the flight attendant.

What happened was bad, but American did a much better job of damage control.

They learned from the United incident. One wonders if they would have done so well three weeks ago. Our experience with American has been uniformly bleak.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Discussion on the radio yesterday included that some airlines ban the use of videoing of passengers or staff without their permission being granted in advance. Which sounds fine under normal circumstances, but...

Exactly.I'd like to see attendants try to shutdown passenger phone videos being taken during a crisis. Too many phones, not enough attendants who aren't involved in the drama. Plus them trying to shut down recording during a brouhaha would become part of the story. That dog don't hunt.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Discussion on the radio yesterday included that some airlines ban the use of videoing of passengers or staff without their permission being granted in advance. Which sounds fine under normal circumstances, but...

This is interesting. These are private companies offering services to the public whilst moving between different law systems. Add the practical difficulties of enforcing the filming and distribution; how efficacious the prohibition?
ETA: Partial X-post

[ 23. April 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Our experience with American has been uniformly bleak.

Ditto. I've vowed never to fly them again. I took Southwest to San Diego this weekend.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Our experience with American has been uniformly bleak.
Ditto.

Me too. I've had reasonable experiences with United, but every time I've flown American, the flight attendants have been unpleasant and aggressive. So I avoid them.

(Re cellphones: People should be granted privacy whilst travelling. Photographing strangers on a plane is the act of an arsehole (even if they're famous). Just don't do it.

Videoing this kind of thing is a different kettle of fish entirely.)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Re cellphones: People should be granted privacy whilst travelling. Photographing strangers on a plane is the act of an arsehole (even if they're famous). Just don't do it.

I was on an international flight that had a large number of teenagers going on a "mission" trip. Early in the morning, as people were just beginning to wake up, some little brat thought it hysterically funny to come down the aisle of the plane taking flash photos of all the passengers.

(Teens going on "mission" trips may be a subject for a Hell thread some time.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
[Teens going on "mission" trips may be a subject for a Hell thread some time.

Do your inverted commas suggest (ahem!) some kind of scepticism about such trips? [Devil]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Heheheheh. I just pulled my teen OFF going on one of those thingies.

And what's with this crap expression "being on mission" now? "On a mission" I can understand, and "in mission" if a general expression is wanted; but "on mission" reminds me of "on fleek" or "on my period"...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LC--

I'm guessing that "on mission" means you have a plan, and you're actively sticking with it.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Surely it's no different grammatically from a reporter being "on assignment."

I've heard lawyers say they are "on trial" when representing someone in court, although you would think it would be the defendant, not the lawyer, who would be that technically.

And what about being "on vacation" or "on holiday"?

"On mission" may grate but grammatically speaking it's not wrong.

Meanwhile, to get back on thread . . . I've just returned from San Diego via Southwest Airlines and found the experience, well, not exactly delightful, but almost so, to tell the truth. However, Terminal 1 at San Diego International Airport was created by the devil for the amusement of him and his minions.

[ 25. April 2017, 12:39: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Re cellphones: People should be granted privacy whilst travelling. Photographing strangers on a plane is the act of an arsehole (even if they're famous). Just don't do it.

I was on an international flight that had a large number of teenagers going on a "mission" trip. Early in the morning, as people were just beginning to wake up, some little brat thought it hysterically funny to come down the aisle of the plane taking flash photos of all the passengers.

(Teens going on "mission" trips may be a subject for a Hell thread some time.)

Arseholes for Jesus. Lovely.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
[Teens going on "mission" trips may be a subject for a Hell thread some time.
Do your inverted commas suggest (ahem!) some kind of scepticism about such trips?

I think they often serve as a sanctified (and therefore more socially acceptable) gap year option.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And an 'approved' opportunity to get away from parental supervision.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Arseholes for Jesus. Lovely.

No one said the mission had anything to do with Christianity. That may have been the case, but you made a rather large assumption there.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Surely it's no different grammatically from a reporter being "on assignment."

I've heard lawyers say they are "on trial" when representing someone in court, although you would think it would be the defendant, not the lawyer, who would be that technically.

And what about being "on vacation" or "on holiday"?

"On mission" may grate but grammatically speaking it's not wrong.
.

It grates because I'm only ever hearing it on (horrible) Christian radio in the context of families or radio stations being "on mission" together, which we're supposed to cheer as a Good Thing. the "mission" is normally unspecified and indeed probably nonexistent (say I, with my cold shrunken heart) but hey, it makes us feel all so ethical and intentional .... grrrrrrrr.

I'm glad I'm not meeting these people in real life. If so, I'd doubtless hand them a broom and a pooperscooper and suggest they come down to the inner city and get busy with real mission.

ETA: And they can get off my lawn, too.

[ 25. April 2017, 14:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
think they often serve as a sanctified (and therefore more socially acceptable) gap year option.

These were younger teens going away for a week or so to harrass, I mean “minister to” the locals. Without knowing the language, culture, or religion of the people they were going to “save.” Their adult leaders were equally ignorant.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Arseholes for Jesus. Lovely.
No one said the mission had anything to do with Christianity. That may have been the case, but you made a rather large assumption there.

Yes, this was a “Christian” mission. mousethief had it right.

They also took great pride in the fact that they convinced the flight crew to change the originally-scheduled "PG" rated movie and replaced it with one that was "G."

I wish they'd been going to a less-civilized country --- maybe the natives would have eaten them

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Pffft. Sometimes I wish they'd up the age (to 60, maybe?) so nobody could go on these things who hadn't learned the basics of how not to be a pain in the arse yet. Childish.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Sorry to continue the tangent, but I also have objections with the 60+ crowd.

A former friend of mine (70+) went to "Africa" (it took me a while to get her to specify which country) to help build a well. She was raising funds from friends and family to pay air transportation, etc. -- it was very expensive. She was hurt that I wouldn't support her, when she would be doing something so worthwhile. The money raised would have gone a lot further, and done a lot more good for the "Africans" had they used it to help the local people build the well and learn a trade. More wells could have been built and more people helped. And yes, this was a church "mission trip."

This same person is a Registered Nurse and has gone on church trips to Mexico and Central America to help in medical clinics. I think that's wonderful, since she's using her skills and training to help those with no other access to medical care. But raising thousands of dollars to send a 70+ woman with no construction experience to build a well did not strike me as a worthy cause.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Arseholes for Jesus. Lovely.
No one said the mission had anything to do with Christianity. That may have been the case, but you made a rather large assumption there.

An assumption, but not a large one.

This is a mostly Christian website
Christian and Christianish religions are famous for doing missions, not so much in the other major religions
Pigwidgeon is American. They are nearly 3/4 Christian(ish)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Sorry I wasn't clearer in my first post about these little darlings.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I agree with you in general about mission trips. The only real use I see for them is the effect they (may) have on the travelers and on their congregations back home--IIRC, quite a few career missionaries got interested to start with on a mission trip. Which is why we (my congregation was on the receiving end of some of these trips) would basically sigh and put up with them, for the sake of our Christian brothers and sistes who needed to come, though we didn't need them to come. (and boy, wouldn't those sentiments utterly hack off the leadership of the sending congregations!) [Killing me]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Surely it's no different grammatically from a reporter being "on assignment."

I've heard lawyers say they are "on trial" when representing someone in court, although you would think it would be the defendant, not the lawyer, who would be that technically.

And what about being "on vacation" or "on holiday"?

"On mission" may grate but grammatically speaking it's not wrong. ...

Tangent alert

Interesting. Usage here allows "on vacation" and "on holiday", but does not allow "on mission" and probably not "on assignment". Both require an indefinite article "on a mission" and "on an assignment". So I think, grammatically "on mission" is grammatically wrong here.

I don't know why, except to say that in the two examples where one doesn't have to have the article, there is a slight difference in meaning between "on holiday" - a state - and "on a holiday" where there's something a bit more specific but not much about the holiday.

"On trial" also, is definitely something that only happens to the accused here. The lawyer is "in court". A person in a civil matter is not "on trial", though the issue, just about, could be.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Lamb Chopped:

Or unintended effects on the missionary... A few nights ago I was listening to a radio documentary in which a fellow was describing his experience in Amazonia, where he had gone to translate the Bible into one of the indigenous languages. The language (can't recall which one) has a complex system of obligatory evidentiary suffixes, so translating statements of faith into the target language is impossible, as the grammar doesn't admit of that. Have you seen Jesus? Did your father see Jesus? Etc. are grammatically required bits of information. Consequence? Missionary is now an atheist.

Ha!

[ 25. April 2017, 22:20: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

continuing the tangent...

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree with you in general about mission trips. The only real use I see for them is the effect they (may) have on the travelers and on their congregations back home--IIRC, quite a few career missionaries got interested to start with on a mission trip. Which is why we (my congregation was on the receiving end of some of these trips) would basically sigh and put up with them, for the sake of our Christian brothers and sistes who needed to come, though we didn't need them to come. (and boy, wouldn't those sentiments utterly hack off the leadership of the sending congregations!)

I also agree re the inherent dangers, but see more potential benefits to well-designed short term mission trips.

There is a benefit to the goer-- to the person (youth or 60 year old) who gets out of their comfort zone and sees life in another culture, worships in another culture. That's nothing to be sneered at-- it's just not charity. So you need to see it as that-- something that is benefitting YOU, not you being the Gracious Gift to the Poor Undeserving Masses. Be appreciative, respectful, and humble-- expect to learn.

And having that experience will help to spread the word of what life is like elsewhere-- hopefully the beautiful as well as the broken. You can share needs, advocate for justice, speak with some first-hand experience, even if it's limited. Those are benefits-- if used judiciously. That can lead to increased funding, advocacy, etc.

You can uplift and encourage long-term career cross-cultural workers-- if you're really listening to what they need rather than making them cart you around on make-work jaunts and tourist expeditions.

But for these benefits to accrue the trip needs to be well-designed, with humility, and understood again as part of our spiritual formation ministry rather than our mission outreach-- for our benefit. In general, it's best to partner with local agencies-- especially local churches (including those not of your own denomination) and ask them how you can partner/support what they are already doing rather than being a pain in the neck making them do more work.

[ 25. April 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Lamb Chopped:

Or unintended effects on the missionary... A few nights ago I was listening to a radio documentary in which a fellow was describing his experience in Amazonia, where he had gone to translate the Bible into one of the indigenous languages. The language (can't recall which one) has a complex system of obligatory evidentiary suffixes, so translating statements of faith into the target language is impossible, as the grammar doesn't admit of that. Have you seen Jesus? Did your father see Jesus? Etc. are grammatically required bits of information. Consequence? Missionary is now an atheist.

Ha!

You know, I'd like to see that grammar system laid out in detail. Not because I doubt its difficulty, but I find it impossible to imagine an entire group of human beings who made no forays into faith of any sort (which seems to be one of the human basics, culturally speaking). It's bloody hard to figure out a language from the outside--I think of the many many people who insist Vietnamese has no pronouns (though it does, oodles of them, they just don't behave in the standard European ways). There was also a fairly influential anthropology text written as an emic experience of pygmy culture. The writer came out convinced that the pygmy group he lived with worshipped the forest as a god, though every quote he gave proved rather the opposite--that they had some sort of god distinct from the forest.

It is so very, very hard.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yo, Cliffdweller--You preach, girl! [Overused]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0