Fly the Friendly Skies...

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 16 Apr 2017, 09:29

Andrew wrote:
JasonL wrote:OFFS, die in a fire.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... -amer.html

Yeah, there's no possible way The Machine works any better than what United did here. No, dude, I hate United.
At some point, a lefty coworker is going to claim this incident is proof that corporations have too much power. I think I might ask whether the guy was hauled to United Jail.
Too much power? Pah! I've seen this incident described as proof of the illegitimacy of capitalism.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 16 Apr 2017, 10:00

fyodor wrote:
Andrew wrote:
JasonL wrote:OFFS, die in a fire.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... -amer.html

Yeah, there's no possible way The Machine works any better than what United did here. No, dude, I hate United.
At some point, a lefty coworker is going to claim this incident is proof that corporations have too much power. I think I might ask whether the guy was hauled to United Jail.
Too much power? Pah! I've seen this incident described as proof of the illegitimacy of capitalism.
Agree. By just about every talking head to the left of MSNBC.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Hugh Akston » 18 Apr 2017, 11:24

United Airlines Exposes Our Twisted Idea of Dignity
Now consider the response to the video of the man being removed from the plane. It was more than mere outrage. It was the collective umbrage of millions of middle-class consumers who pay their fees and expect the human dignity that comes with the ticket price. The problem is in that last part: We demand to be treated with dignity by dint of our money, rather than our humanity.

Imagine a different scenario: a public park bench, with a young black man sitting on it, defiantly refusing to leave at the request of security guards. A police officer is called, rudely tells him to go, then yanks him from the bench and drags him off the premises, bruising his head and bloodying his mouth in the process.

I’d wager this would not have sparked the same outrage on social media. It would have been seen as a young ruffian disobeying direct orders from authority figures. The consumer context matters: He hadn’t paid for that seat, and even if nobody explained why he had to leave, he had nothing more than a human right to be there.

We have fallen for this paradigm shift, in every conversation about Dr. Dao’s consumer rights, the exact definition of “boarding the plane” and whether he has grounds to sue. The underlying assumption is that we deserve dignity, but only if we've paid for it.

This is short-sighted. It won’t serve us well when we’ve all lost our jobs to the oncoming robot army. Until we demand good treatment of everyone -- not just middle class ticket holders -- we will be contributing to a system that commodifies our dignity.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 18 Apr 2017, 11:45

Yes. Every person should be treated with dignity.

But, in the case of the black man on the park bench, the cultural problem is more about cop-worship than about the black man's dignity and rights.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20795
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 18 Apr 2017, 11:52

To wit, suppose a cop has been a passenger and "assisted" the deplaning of the doc. It's suddenly not a deal.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 18 Apr 2017, 12:23

Aresen wrote:
Yes. Every person should be treated with dignity.

But, in the case of the black man on the park bench, the cultural problem is more about cop-worship than about the black man's dignity and rights.
I'd say there's also a lot of man bites dog and identification involved. Which both in a way relate back to the author's premise, except I'd say it's far from being entirely about money per se. But then what would a know-it-all blowhard do without a single dimension to reduce everything to?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 18 Apr 2017, 14:44

Mike Rowe with the hottest of takes. Real Americans follow orders and then complain to customer service later.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 18 Apr 2017, 16:27

Mo wrote:Mike Rowe with the hottest of takes. Real Americans follow orders and then complain to customer service later.
Thanks, Mike, for supporting Corporatism.

One of the things I truly hate about the Corporate State is that no one has any rights once they sign a contract with a seller (one that is essentially unreadable, even by lawyers). And those contracts essentially put no obligation on the seller to fulfill even the most basic presumed obligations.

Years ago, I argued with Ayn_Randian on this site about binding arbitration clauses where you essentially have to sign away your rights to sue the seller*. I really believe there needs to be some sort of consumer protection in the sense that a 'reasonable person' expectation that both sides have obligations to fulfill.

*I highly doubt that an arbitrator chosen by the company and therefore obligated to the company for future business is in any way 'independent and impartial.'
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20274
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Jennifer » 18 Apr 2017, 16:46

Building on what Aresen said, I've been surprised and somewhat dismayed by how many acquaintances of mine have taken the argument "Hey, the law allows airlines to bump passengers" as though that's the only variable that does or should matter here. Before the Dao story made the news, I'd wager most would-be airline passengers had no idea that when you buy a ticket, you're not buying guaranteed passage on a flight (weather and other conditions permitting); you're basically buying a high-odds lottery ticket for the chance to get a seat if the airline finds it convenient to let you have one.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JD
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JD » 18 Apr 2017, 16:53

Megan McArdle has a pretty good explanation of modern air travel, although I doubt it will convince anybody.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20795
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 18 Apr 2017, 16:54

Jennifer wrote:Building on what Aresen said, I've been surprised and somewhat dismayed by how many acquaintances of mine have taken the argument "Hey, the law allows airlines to bump passengers" as though that's the only variable that does or should matter here. Before the Dao story made the news, I'd wager most would-be airline passengers had no idea that when you buy a ticket, you're not buying guaranteed passage on a flight (weather and other conditions permitting); you're basically buying a high-odds lottery ticket for the chance to get a seat if the airline finds it convenient to let you have one.
Overbooking and buying people off is a rational thing to do and I have no problem with it. In particular, I'd much rather have the lower fares that strategy permits. The horror here is what the airline did to make it work for them in the short run. They should have just raised the buy out level.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 18 Apr 2017, 16:57

Aresen wrote:
Mo wrote:Mike Rowe with the hottest of takes. Real Americans follow orders and then complain to customer service later.
Thanks, Mike, for supporting Corporatism.

One of the things I truly hate about the Corporate State is that no one has any rights once they sign a contract with a seller (one that is essentially unreadable, even by lawyers). And those contracts essentially put no obligation on the seller to fulfill even the most basic presumed obligations.

Years ago, I argued with Ayn_Randian on this site about binding arbitration clauses where you essentially have to sign away your rights to sue the seller*. I really believe there needs to be some sort of consumer protection in the sense that a 'reasonable person' expectation that both sides have obligations to fulfill.

*I highly doubt that an arbitrator chosen by the company and therefore obligated to the company for future business is in any way 'independent and impartial.'
If contract law accepted my one simple amendment, if two clauses contradict each other*, larger font overrules smaller font and tie goes to the one that is first, then things would be way easier.

* See: Everything half off
Except for anything you actually want to buy
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20274
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Jennifer » 18 Apr 2017, 17:04

JasonL wrote:
Jennifer wrote:Building on what Aresen said, I've been surprised and somewhat dismayed by how many acquaintances of mine have taken the argument "Hey, the law allows airlines to bump passengers" as though that's the only variable that does or should matter here. Before the Dao story made the news, I'd wager most would-be airline passengers had no idea that when you buy a ticket, you're not buying guaranteed passage on a flight (weather and other conditions permitting); you're basically buying a high-odds lottery ticket for the chance to get a seat if the airline finds it convenient to let you have one.
Overbooking and buying people off is a rational thing to do and I have no problem with it. In particular, I'd much rather have the lower fares that strategy permits. The horror here is what the airline did to make it work for them in the short run. They should have just raised the buy out level.
From the airlines' perspective, sure, it's very rational because it lets them maximize their profits -- with the result that people who buy tickets can be denied their flight, and the airline is under no obligation to offer full compensation for any financial (let alone emotional) damages those people suffer as a result. Miss the chance to interview for that job you really wanted, the chance to attend the event for which you bought expensive and non-refundable tickets, the paid speaking or consulting engagement your job requires (or, for doctors like Dao, the chance to meet with patients who already made appointments to see you), the chance to say good-bye to your dying relative before he or she leaves the world stage? Too bad; the airlines' needs are more important.

I'd have more sympathy -- somewhat -- for the "airlines NEED to overbook and it's not considered fraud, because what if someone cancels at the last minute?" argument if not for the fact that those last-minute cancellers still end up paying the airlines.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 18 Apr 2017, 17:11

JD wrote:Megan McArdle has a pretty good explanation of modern air travel, although I doubt it will convince anybody.
She seems to wave off the analysis pushing back on deregulation lowering prices a bit quickly. I have seen pretty convincing analysis that the entirety of price savings, using LAX-ORD as an example (so not short or sparsely traveled), is due to unbundling rather than other factors.

Also, she completely ignores the reasons why people really hate air travel, the abysmal customer service. The cake vouchers are a lie and a shitty scam, until the recent new regs and United foofaraw, compensation for getting bumped, long delays, lost baggage, etc. was meager and travel is significantly slower now. Seriously, airlines have sandbagged their flight times by 15% or more, so that they can improve their on-time numbers. Throw in higher prices and worse service following mergers* and it's easy to see why people get pissed. There are lots of legit reasons why people hate and don't trust airlines.

* Northwest and Continental were better airlines than Delta and United and AA has adopted US Air's bad habits, so overall . AFAIK, NWA and Continental were doing reasonably well, for airlines, prior to the merger.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 18 Apr 2017, 17:32

Jennifer wrote:
JasonL wrote:
Jennifer wrote:Building on what Aresen said, I've been surprised and somewhat dismayed by how many acquaintances of mine have taken the argument "Hey, the law allows airlines to bump passengers" as though that's the only variable that does or should matter here. Before the Dao story made the news, I'd wager most would-be airline passengers had no idea that when you buy a ticket, you're not buying guaranteed passage on a flight (weather and other conditions permitting); you're basically buying a high-odds lottery ticket for the chance to get a seat if the airline finds it convenient to let you have one.
Overbooking and buying people off is a rational thing to do and I have no problem with it. In particular, I'd much rather have the lower fares that strategy permits. The horror here is what the airline did to make it work for them in the short run. They should have just raised the buy out level.
From the airlines' perspective, sure, it's very rational because it lets them maximize their profits -- with the result that people who buy tickets can be denied their flight, and the airline is under no obligation to offer full compensation for any financial (let alone emotional) damages those people suffer as a result. Miss the chance to interview for that job you really wanted, the chance to attend the event for which you bought expensive and non-refundable tickets, the paid speaking or consulting engagement your job requires (or, for doctors like Dao, the chance to meet with patients who already made appointments to see you), the chance to say good-bye to your dying relative before he or she leaves the world stage? Too bad; the airlines' needs are more important.

I'd have more sympathy -- somewhat -- for the "airlines NEED to overbook and it's not considered fraud, because what if someone cancels at the last minute?" argument if not for the fact that those last-minute cancellers still end up paying the airlines.
Except what JasonL said was that the airline would have to buy you out via a bidding process.

Presumably, there would be a 'price-point' for most people that would cover their loss/hardship. ("For $2k, I can take the weekend in Louisville next weekend. I'll just phone mom and tell her I had to put it off.") While there would be some people for whom the emotional cost of missing the flight would be higher than the airline could afford to pay, ("Mom is dying, she may not last two hours, let alone an extra day."), there are bound to be some people out of 100+ passengers who would be willing to trade a delay for a nice payout.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21467
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 18 Apr 2017, 17:35

Mo wrote:Mike Rowe with the hottest of takes. Real Americans follow orders and then complain to customer service later.
Eat a bag of dicks Mike Rowe you fascist fuck.
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24183
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by thoreau » 18 Apr 2017, 17:38

I'm really reluctant to formalize this with any sort of federally mandated bidding process or whatever. I don't want to tie hands when extreme weather shuts down half the air traffic on a holiday weekend and everything is backed up and then an EMT shows up carrying a cooler with an organ that needs to be transported. (Or insert-other-dire-situation-here.)

I just think that there's gotta be some solution that doesn't involve getting cops to drag a doctor off the plane in front of people with phone cameras. The way to avoid the United situation is smarter business decisions and airport police supervisors who are all "Wait, you want my guys to do what now? Why?", not mandated rules for handling congested flights.

I don't claim to know what the best solution was, but with United's shitty customer service record I am utterly unsurprised that this is the "solution" they arrived at.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7367
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 18 Apr 2017, 17:40

JD wrote:Megan McArdle has a pretty good explanation of modern air travel, although I doubt it will convince anybody.
I'm not generally anti-McArdle, but this kind of writing about markets is so much bullshit and I wish people wouldn't do it:
They don’t oversell flights because they don’t care; they oversell flights because we want them to.

Excuse me? I most certainly don’t.

I don’t know about you, personally, since I just made you up for the purposes of this column, and I haven’t had time to really dig into your secret dreams and hidden inner motivations. But collectively, we get the airlines we want, which is to say, the airlines we are willing to pay for.

That is our “revealed preference” -- what economists call “the things people actually do, rather than what they say.” Customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel. The best way to make the tickets cheaper is to put more people in an airplane.
So, in other words, markets might not give you want you want at all. But for some reason we still have to act like "we" have some kind of "collective" revealed preference that should be meaningful to anyone's opinion of actual life in a (quasi-)market system. Some customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel, but the real issue is that airlines prefer a price that maximizes profits, not the satisfaction of individual consumers. And I happen to be an individual consumer, not an airline or a collective.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 18 Apr 2017, 17:46

thoreau wrote:I'm really reluctant to formalize this with any sort of federally mandated bidding process or whatever. I don't want to tie hands when extreme weather shuts down half the air traffic on a holiday weekend and everything is backed up and then an EMT shows up carrying a cooler with an organ that needs to be transported. (Or insert-other-dire-situation-here.)

I just think that there's gotta be some solution that doesn't involve getting cops to drag a doctor off the plane in front of people with phone cameras. The way to avoid the United situation is smarter business decisions and airport police supervisors who are all "Wait, you want my guys to do what now? Why?", not mandated rules for handling congested flights.

I don't claim to know what the best solution was, but with United's shitty customer service record I am utterly unsurprised that this is the "solution" they arrived at.
I don't think any rule beyond "It is the responsibility of the airline to resolve overbooking/seating conflicts through negotiation with its passengers. The airline may not use force where the aircraft or other passengers are not endangered."

As for the EMT with the cooler, just don't put the cooler in the overhead compartment above my seat. :P
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 18 Apr 2017, 18:01

Mo wrote:
JD wrote:Megan McArdle has a pretty good explanation of modern air travel, although I doubt it will convince anybody.
She seems to wave off the analysis pushing back on deregulation lowering prices a bit quickly. I have seen pretty convincing analysis that the entirety of price savings, using LAX-ORD as an example (so not short or sparsely traveled), is due to unbundling rather than other factors.

Also, she completely ignores the reasons why people really hate air travel, the abysmal customer service. The cake vouchers are a lie and a shitty scam, until the recent new regs and United foofaraw, compensation for getting bumped, long delays, lost baggage, etc. was meager and travel is significantly slower now. Seriously, airlines have sandbagged their flight times by 15% or more, so that they can improve their on-time numbers. Throw in higher prices and worse service following mergers* and it's easy to see why people get pissed. There are lots of legit reasons why people hate and don't trust airlines.
I'm good with the criticisms here as well as Aresen's regulation, but I also have to question the significance of people hating airlines in lieu of airlines seeing a need to change of their own accord and in lieu of that being a result of some government imposed monopoly. People hate banks and all sorts of services that willingly partake in as well. What does it necessarily mean other than that people like to bitch when things aren't exactly as they want them? I'm not really familiar with United's reputation that ostensibly makes this incident so expected for them, but as I said upthread, one reason for all the attention is that this is man bites dog, i.e., it doesn't normally happen. And now that it's happened United's said they're changing (or at least revisiting, I forget) their policy about flying crew ahead of booked passengers. I don't think people's supposed hate of airlines really tells us all that much...
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20274
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Jennifer » 18 Apr 2017, 18:09

thoreau wrote:I'm really reluctant to formalize this with any sort of federally mandated bidding process or whatever. I don't want to tie hands when extreme weather shuts down half the air traffic on a holiday weekend and everything is backed up and then an EMT shows up carrying a cooler with an organ that needs to be transported. (Or insert-other-dire-situation-here.)

I just think that there's gotta be some solution that doesn't involve getting cops to drag a doctor off the plane in front of people with phone cameras. The way to avoid the United situation is smarter business decisions and airport police supervisors who are all "Wait, you want my guys to do what now? Why?", not mandated rules for handling congested flights.

I don't claim to know what the best solution was, but with United's shitty customer service record I am utterly unsurprised that this is the "solution" they arrived at.
Bringing up "extreme weather" in such a context is a bit of a red herring, though. Weather is beyond the airlines' control, and if United had said to Dao and everyone else on that plane "Sorry, folks, we can't take off because of the thunderstorm rumbling over our heads right now" there surely would've been grumbling ... but I doubt Dao or anyone else would've refused to get off a plane which they knew wasn't going to take off anyway, and nobody could reasonably have blamed United for the fact that they couldn't get to their destination on time.

But overbooking -- or, in the actual Dao case, wanting to bump paying passengers off because you need those seats for your own employees -- is a matter over which airlines DO have control. I'm still gobsmacked that selling more seats than you actually have available on the plane isn't considered a form of fraud. (Unless the airlines' gamble is backed up by the knowledge that if they bet wrong -- nobody cancels at the last minute, and every ticketholder shows up expecting to fly -- it's the airlines, rather than involuntarily bumped passengers, who end up suffering as a result: if nobody is willing to take your maximum buyout offer to give up their seat, it's up to the airline to find a way to deal with this. What, they need to take on the expense of chartering a small plane just to fly those four employees to their next airport? Sucks to be United, then. But this current status quo where the deck is stacked completely in the airlines' favor is some major bullshit.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7367
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 18 Apr 2017, 19:23

fyodor wrote:
Mo wrote:
JD wrote:Megan McArdle has a pretty good explanation of modern air travel, although I doubt it will convince anybody.
She seems to wave off the analysis pushing back on deregulation lowering prices a bit quickly. I have seen pretty convincing analysis that the entirety of price savings, using LAX-ORD as an example (so not short or sparsely traveled), is due to unbundling rather than other factors.

Also, she completely ignores the reasons why people really hate air travel, the abysmal customer service. The cake vouchers are a lie and a shitty scam, until the recent new regs and United foofaraw, compensation for getting bumped, long delays, lost baggage, etc. was meager and travel is significantly slower now. Seriously, airlines have sandbagged their flight times by 15% or more, so that they can improve their on-time numbers. Throw in higher prices and worse service following mergers* and it's easy to see why people get pissed. There are lots of legit reasons why people hate and don't trust airlines.
I'm good with the criticisms here as well as Aresen's regulation, but I also have to question the significance of people hating airlines in lieu of airlines seeing a need to change of their own accord and in lieu of that being a result of some government imposed monopoly. People hate banks and all sorts of services that willingly partake in as well.
Those *are* two heavily regulated industries.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20274
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Jennifer » 18 Apr 2017, 19:34

Had to check the archives to make sure I was remembering this properly, and yup--United was also one of the asshole plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Skiplagged.
Jennifer wrote:I'm trying to figure out why this is legally a problem:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/1 ... irline.htm
United Airlines and Orbitz brought a trademark action against Skiplagged.com, a website that reduces flight costs by turning layovers into final destinations.
Skiplagged allows consumers to book a ticket based on the city where a connecting flight departs. This way, passengers can leave the airport at the connecting city, "skipping" the last leg of their itineraries.
"In its simplest form, a passenger purchases a ticket from City A to City B to City C, but does not travel beyond City B," the federal complaint filed Monday states.
This method of booking, known as "hidden city" ticketing, can save a passenger a lot of money. For example, a ticket from Chicago to Doha, Qatar, in December that connects through Amsterdam is half the price of a ticket directly to Amsterdam.
Since airlines cannot sell unused seats on the final leg of the flight, however, they can find such bookings problematic....
If I've already paid to go all the way to Qatar, but don't bother going all the way, why/how is that "problematic" for the airline? So what if they can't sell my unused seat for that last leg of the trip from Amsterdam to Doha? It's actually slightly cheaper for them to fly the plane without the additional added weight of me and my luggage. I get that the airline doesn't want to admit its pricing models are stupid enough that flying from Chicago to Amsterdam and then Amsterdam to Qatar costs only half the price of flying just from Chicago to Amsterdam, but how is it actionable for someone to take advantage of this when flying to Amsterdam?
Jennifer wrote:Due to anti-hypocrisy reasons, I will not mock CNN Wire for only now making a story out of this Skiplagged business. But I remain bemused by the whole thing, and wonder if these claims will actually hold up in court, or if this is ultimately just a nuisance lawsuit, trying to run up legal costs to drive Skiplagged out of business. Orbitz and United, it still seems to me, are doing the equivalent of trying to make it illegal for others to call attention to their loss-leaders, or for that matter to publish ANY sort of money-saving tips. Especially given that, for the customers' perspective, what's happening is "I pay in advance for the airline's service, then I don't use it all."

It's pretty commonplace for businesses to sell "bundled" goods or services more cheaply than individual items: "Buy a combo meal -- burger, fries and soda -- for less money than it costs to buy just a burger and fries!" I personally do not drink soda, but I do eat burgers and fries sometimes and I definitely like to save money -- is it/should it be illegal for me to buy the combo meal for the food, but refuse to take the soda? Illegal for me to share this money-saving tip, thus "hurting" the burger restaurant by reducing its profit margin?

Or when stores advertise "loss leaders" -- selling items super-cheaply, at cost or even at a loss, in hope of enticing customers to come in and buy other items they see -- is it/should it be illegal for a customer to knowingly buy ONLY the loss leaders? Or, again, to share this as a money-saving tip?

That's basically the airlines' argument here, it seems to me: Skiplagged should be illegal because it tells customers who to find the best prices, which hurts the airlines because it costs them money, since naturally they'll do better when customers don't or can't find the best prices.
In the lawsuit, United and Orbitz call Skiplagged “unfair competition” and allege that it is promoting “strictly prohibited” travel. They want to recoup $75,000 in lost revenue from Zaman.

Zaman said he knew a lawsuit was inevitable but he points out that there’s nothing illegal about his web site.

He also said he has made no profit via the website and that all he’s done is help travelers get the best prices by exposing an “inefficiency,” in airline prices that insiders have known about for decades.

“[Hidden city ticketing] have been around for a while, it just hasn’t been very accessible to consumers,” Zaman told CNNMoney.

Indeed, “hidden city,” ticketing is no secret among frequent fliers, said Michael Boyd, President of Boyd Group International, an aviation consulting firm in Evergreen, Co. Boyd worked as an American Airline ticket agent 30 years ago, and says he was trained at the airline to help customers find “hidden city” fares.

“I don’t think it’s illegal what he’s doing,” Boyd said. But lawsuits are expensive and it could end up costing the young entrepreneur who has irked the two billion dollar corporations.
http://fox13now.com/2014/12/29/united-a ... e-tickets/

Come to think of it, my hypothetical where I refuse the soda arguably "harms" the burger restaurant more than skipping the last leg of a flight "harms" an airline -- the plane has to fly to its final destination whether I'm on the flight or not (and will even save a tiny bit on fuel costs by not having my extra added weight), whereas the restaurant might, conceivably, have problems if it ends up with far more leftover soda than it intended....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20795
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 18 Apr 2017, 20:25

Consumer sat is maximized at infinite value for zero cost.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 12987
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 18 Apr 2017, 20:41

JasonL wrote:Consumer sat is maximized at infinite value for zero cost.
ROI calculations are a bitch when your investment drops to zero.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest