Air Canada should abandon United Airlines and partner with someone else
#136
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Fair.
But IDB is still not right IMHO. And so many problems like this would not happen if there are sufficient regulation in place to protect pax's rights
Even if it means everyone has to pay $1 or 2 more per flight. Getting rid of this and piss poor IRROPs treatment is for the betterment of overall society.
But IDB is still not right IMHO. And so many problems like this would not happen if there are sufficient regulation in place to protect pax's rights
Even if it means everyone has to pay $1 or 2 more per flight. Getting rid of this and piss poor IRROPs treatment is for the betterment of overall society.
Let's assume the cost to operate this leg is $100,000. That means, each seat needs to command a yield > $1000, so let's call this $1000/seat is break even for an airline.
Let's assume that an airline charges $1500/seat and let's assume the no show rate is 50% (a number that various airlines have doled out for flights to Cancun and other leisurely destinations). This means the airline now has a gross revenue of $75,000 for this leg, which now makes this route unprofitable.
Therefore, if an airline is not allowed to overbook, then the airline now has to charge at least $2000, which means an increase of $500/seat or 33% more.
Are you willing to pay 33% more? (of course not.) The math indicated in your post indicating $1 or 2 more per seat is flawed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also agree that those who pay the least for their flight should be bumped first. It's only fair to the passengers who have paid more for their ticket.
#137
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 733
Once he was clearly instructed that he was being refused service and told to deplane, he no longer had a defense of a lawful purpose to be on the plane. The other passengers were not refused service and thus were not trespassing. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand?
#138
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
I'll agree that a trespress offence (probably) arose here. I'm just asking Stranger, who has repeatedly said "pax must follow all crew instructions", where this is written in stone tablets, regardless of the instruction's relevance to aircraft or passenger safety. To take this to the absurd, surely I could not be arrested if crew ordered me to write my name in pink with rainbows, and I refused.
Plain English version here: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rewmember.htm#
#139
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
I reported it, I believe before there were any replies, as I didn't think it was appropriate to discuss UA issues in the AC forum.
Apparently I'm wrong, so I'm going to start creating more threads about UA issues here, under the guise of "Why AC shouldn't partner with UA".
Apparently I'm wrong, so I'm going to start creating more threads about UA issues here, under the guise of "Why AC shouldn't partner with UA".
I'm not sure about the usefulness of creating spurious threads as a retaliatory gesture, however...
#140
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Once he was clearly instructed that he was being refused service and told to deplane, he no longer had a defense of a lawful purpose to be on the plane. The other passengers were not refused service and thus were not trespassing. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand?
#141
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Home Airports: CAE/CLT
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, National Executive
Posts: 5,452
Not that i am condoning this in any way, but it seems to me like the culprit here isnt UA, (or by extension AC) it's airport security. I can't help but think that forcibly removing someone from the airplane was a very bad solution but i can't figure out what else they could have done? Offer more money? Probably cheaper to them than what this will cost them in bad PR but once again all UA did was call security, not drag the poor guy. The dragging is on the security guys.
I'm puzzled that once this started happening no one just got up and said :" OK OK, i'll go just leave the poor guy alone. "
I'm puzzled that once this started happening no one just got up and said :" OK OK, i'll go just leave the poor guy alone. "
#142
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YHZ/YQM
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 1,618
Let's assume an aircraft has 100 seats in an all economy class configuration (to make mathematics simpler).
Let's assume the cost to operate this leg is $100,000. That means, each seat needs to command a yield > $1000, so let's call this $1000/seat is break even for an airline.
Let's assume that an airline charges $1500/seat and let's assume the no show rate is 50% (a number that various airlines have doled out for flights to Cancun and other leisurely destinations). This means the airline now has a gross revenue of $75,000 for this leg, which now makes this route unprofitable.
Therefore, if an airline is not allowed to overbook, then the airline now has to charge at least $2000, which means an increase of $500/seat or 33% more.
Are you willing to pay 33% more? (of course not.) The math indicated in your post indicating $1 or 2 more per seat is flawed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also agree that those who pay the least for their flight should be bumped first. It's only fair to the passengers who have paid more for their ticket.
Let's assume the cost to operate this leg is $100,000. That means, each seat needs to command a yield > $1000, so let's call this $1000/seat is break even for an airline.
Let's assume that an airline charges $1500/seat and let's assume the no show rate is 50% (a number that various airlines have doled out for flights to Cancun and other leisurely destinations). This means the airline now has a gross revenue of $75,000 for this leg, which now makes this route unprofitable.
Therefore, if an airline is not allowed to overbook, then the airline now has to charge at least $2000, which means an increase of $500/seat or 33% more.
Are you willing to pay 33% more? (of course not.) The math indicated in your post indicating $1 or 2 more per seat is flawed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also agree that those who pay the least for their flight should be bumped first. It's only fair to the passengers who have paid more for their ticket.
But the UA incident wasn't even due to miscalculated no-show rates. It was a last minute crew relocation, possibly caused by cascading delays in the system.
If regulations have higher penalties for IDB and long delays, then airlines will likely pad their block times a little more, pad their refundable no-show guesses, and possibly increase their MCTs to reduce IDB and long delays. This will increase costs, but not by the amount that you are suggesting.
#143
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Posts: 495
US Code of Federal Regulations, 14 C.F.R. 91.11, 121.580, 135.120.
Plain English version here: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rewmember.htm#
Plain English version here: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rewmember.htm#
I'd say it's a stretch to say that refusing to leave your seat, when it has nothing to do with a operating an aircraft, consists of interference. (Contrast with: "please get out of your seat so that I can fix the emergency exit door".)
Ultimately, my broader concern with the statement that "all crew instructions must be followed" is that we've seen a variety of incidents over the years where situations get escalated based on this alleged authority. This is not absolute authority.
#144
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
An excellent comment. I believe some contributors here have adopted the approach of following blindly whatever somebody in uniform declares, without question or nuance. This is particularly evident aboard airplanes, which hold some sort of special regard in today's increasingly fear-based culture.
#145
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Hence why "Let's assume" appeared many times in my post. My point was that Jumper Jack's comment that a ticket would cost $1 or $2 more if airlines didn't overbook is not accurate. This is the same demographic of flyers who would not pay a nickel more than they have to - so they will have to live in a world where airlines are permitted to overbook in order for them to pay the minimum amount to fly.
#146
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
Thanks, I appreciate that! However, I still don't see anything in those sections giving crew unfettered authority to issue any and all instructions. 135.120 says, "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part." The other sections cited are substantially similar.
I'd say it's a stretch to say that refusing to leave your seat, when it has nothing to do with a operating an aircraft, consists of interference. (Contrast with: "please get out of your seat so that I can fix the emergency exit door".)
Ultimately, my broader concern with the statement that "all crew instructions must be followed" is that we've seen a variety of incidents over the years where situations get escalated based on this alleged authority. This is not absolute authority.
I'd say it's a stretch to say that refusing to leave your seat, when it has nothing to do with a operating an aircraft, consists of interference. (Contrast with: "please get out of your seat so that I can fix the emergency exit door".)
Ultimately, my broader concern with the statement that "all crew instructions must be followed" is that we've seen a variety of incidents over the years where situations get escalated based on this alleged authority. This is not absolute authority.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
An excellent comment. I believe some contributors here have adopted the approach of following blindly whatever somebody in uniform declares, without question or nuance. This is particularly evident aboard airplanes, which hold some sort of special regard in today's increasingly fear-based culture.
More reading if interested concerning a case in Eid v. Alaska Airlines addressing the Tokyo Convention of 1963: http://www.kreindler.com/Publication...e-06162011.pdf
And of course, caveat that this is all under American laws and regulations and I have no personal idea what applies in Canada.
Last edited by TheBOSman; Apr 11, 2017 at 8:38 am
#147
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 7
Unfortunately at the end of the day people will be angry, but it won't have much effect on their behaviour - a lot of people would probably choose UA to save $10
#148
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,429
Yes they will over time. Currently though UA stock down 3.5% which has wiped off $500M. Perhaps the IDB even at $2k would have been cheaper. And according to another poster the video has been viewed 1M times in China alone. Likely to have impact on UA's business for at least the short term. Compounded by the CEOs silly defence of the actions causing a further PR nightmare.
#149
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
Yes they will over time. Currently though UA stock down 3.5% which has wiped off $500M. Perhaps the IDB even at $2k would have been cheaper. And according to another poster the video has been viewed 1M times in China alone. Likely to have impact on UA's business for at least the short term. Compounded by the CEOs silly defence of the actions causing a further PR nightmare.
On The Guardian (UK), five of the top ten most viewed articles involve United Airlines in some way, three specifically to this case and the other two to the leggings issue not long ago.
I sense a potential broken codeshare with AC would be the least of UA's concerns at the moment. Selfishly I would love for AC to break off with UA and switch to AA, I got some miles to burn .
#150
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: YYZ / FRA
Programs: IHG RA; Avis First
Posts: 1,445
Yes they will over time. Currently though UA stock down 3.5% which has wiped off $500M. Perhaps the IDB even at $2k would have been cheaper. And according to another poster the video has been viewed 1M times in China alone. Likely to have impact on UA's business for at least the short term. Compounded by the CEOs silly defence of the actions causing a further PR nightmare.
The winners here are other competitive airlines, media and the forum for generating lots of traffic!
I wonder what the Board would do or say... Maybe ask the CEO to retire its about time to rest with a Golden Parachute.
Last edited by BRAISKI; Apr 11, 2017 at 9:28 am