longtimeflyin

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.

Nazdoom

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?

TheBOSman

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#

CZAMFlyer

The thread title is about whether AC, as a UA partner, should maintain a business relationship in light of the optics of the latest event. Yes, it has gone off the rails a bit, but name a thread within this forum - or any other - that hasn't.

I'm not sure about the usefulness of creating spurious threads as a retaliatory gesture, however...

CZAMFlyer

Well, this will save a bucketload of cash by rendering moot any future legal action, as you've definitively wrapped up any outstanding question here. I feel silly for having dared to seek clarification as a non-lawyer, because clearly it's obvious to understand by all those sharper minds than mine. I certainly hope any counsel representing the passenger wouldn't fall into the same trap of questioning legal interpretation.

Gamecock

I say UA is the culprit. They boarded the flight with non-revs needing seats. That is what triggered the entire cascade of events.

smallmj

This is a gross oversimplification. The first problem with your logic is that the people paying the $1500/seat have non-refundable tickets. If they no-show, then the airline keeps the money, and also save on fuel because of reduced weight. It is the people who pay $3000 for the same seat, but have the privilege of cancelling last minute that cause some of the problems.

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.

28isGreat

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.

CZAMFlyer

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.

longtimeflyin

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.

TheBOSman

It would depend on how "crewmember duties" is defined. Under 14 CFR 121.533(d) and (e), the pilot in command (PIC):

Without going too OMNI/PR, someone overreaching their authority in the moment will generally only be punished for it ex post facto. If a flight attendant tells me to, using an absurd Kafkaesque example, strip naked and dance in the aisle, and I refuse, and they claim that authority, and the PIC backs up the FA, and I still refuse, the PIC is allowed a wide latitude towards the operation of the aircraft. The PIC can claim I'm disobeying a direct crew member order. The key is the PIC; the FA does not have absolute authority, but the PIC effectively does. And, in most situations, the PIC will back up the FA, even if wrong. Can I sue the airline? Sure, and I (and my lawyers) will probably get a boatload of money. Will the PIC and FA be reprimanded and/or fired? Sure. But I'm still going to be removed from the aircraft and not flying on that plane at that time, as almost happened to this gentleman until two other people gave up their seats instead. I personally don't blindly follow what someone in uniform says, but I also recognize that such an approach may not be the best for a purely focused "get me where I want to go" aim. Discretion is the better part of valour is a cliche because it often is true.

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.

flyerfreddy

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

vernonc

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.

TheBOSman

On The Washington Post, two of the top five most read articles involve this case, including one noting that this is going over very poorly in China, a major international market for United.

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 .

BRAISKI

I wouldn't be surprised if that will continue to drop. Heck even a $5k would be cheaper and very certain that there will be a lot of people would love to take the $5k!

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.