Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Kirby: Pax Compensation Proposal Raises Safety Concerns

Kirby: Pax Compensation Proposal Raises Safety Concerns

Old Sep 13, 23, 6:32 am
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,623
Kirby: Pax Compensation Proposal Raises Safety Concerns

At the Chamber of Commerce Aerospace Summit in Washington on Tuesday, Kirby claimed the mandatory-compensation ideas under study at DOT would not only cost United "a God-awful amount of money," but compromise airline safety culture.

Coverage: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/airl...icle5-readmore

Money quote: “We should never risk changing the safety culture in aviation... I do not want a pilot, I do not want a mechanic, thinking about the extra cost of delay when they’re thinking about a decision.”

The Bloomberg reporter added: Kirby "did not explain why the industry would tolerate conditions that might lead workers to ignore safety issues out of fear for their jobs."

Airlines in Europe required to observe EU/UK261 compensation regulations do not appear to be quantitatively less safe as a result.

Last edited by BearX220; Sep 13, 23 at 7:00 am
BearX220 is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 6:51 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NYC
Programs: BA Silver, UA 1K, DL Platinum
Posts: 666
Someone should tell him to buy travel insurance for his airline.

The compensation equivalent of 261 would cost 0 because there is always weather and ATC understaffing

The duty of care would be more meaningful and help rebalance the power dynamic between billion dollar companies and individuals
rather_be_on_a_griffin is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 6:59 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,190
Originally Posted by rather_be_on_a_griffin
Someone should tell him to buy travel insurance for his airline.

The compensation equivalent of 261 would cost 0 because there is always weather and ATC understaffing

The duty of care would be more meaningful and help rebalance the power dynamic between billion dollar companies and individuals
As a practical matter all passengers will pay a bit more to compensate those who draw the short straw with delays. Its basically a mutual insurance program. But thats not a bad thing.

kirby is just using the old think about the children political strategy.
drewguy is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 7:54 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NYC
Programs: BA Silver, UA 1K, DL Platinum
Posts: 666
The opening question for him should be do you think EU airlines are less safe or your staff are less ethical? Shut his gaslighting down.
dw, Spiff, SEA-Flyer and 30 others like this.
rather_be_on_a_griffin is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 8:20 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,323
Originally Posted by rather_be_on_a_griffin
The opening question for him should be do you think EU airlines are less safe or your staff are less ethical? Shut his gaslighting down.
Just a bit OT, but I think the same question is fair game to ask of those vigorously defending the 1,500 hour rule for an unrestricted ATP in the United States. One might get a slightly different response!
EWR764 is online now  
Old Sep 13, 23, 8:25 am
  #6  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 54,840
Originally Posted by rather_be_on_a_griffin
The opening question for him should be do you think EU airlines are less safe or your staff are less ethical? Shut his gaslighting down.
I agree. Someone should ask him to prove his allegation that EU airlines are less safe because of EU 261. Better yet, Kirby should be asked why he isn't severing his joint venture with LH, given they are apparently less safe than UA.
Spiff, artvandalay, st530 and 3 others like this.
halls120 is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 8:28 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 56
I do not want a pilot, I do not want a mechanic, thinking about the extra cost of delay when theyre thinking about a decision.
Think of Kirby and the earnings call
mogi67 is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 8:56 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by halls120
I agree. Someone should ask him to prove his allegation that EU airlines are less safe because of EU 261. Better yet, Kirby should be asked why he isn't severing his joint venture with LH, given they are apparently less safe than UA.
UA flying to and from EU also needs to conply with EU261 so they are less safe too on those routes.
josephniezbedny is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 8:58 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1K 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott Ti, LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 55,211
One of the more distressing societal trends in recent years is a willingness by both public and private figures to flat out lie without consequence.
Spiff, Rare, SPN Lifer and 33 others like this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 9:16 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by Kacee
One of the more distressing societal trends in recent years is a willingness by both public and private figures to flat out lie without consequence.
Well, until we penalize it, lying will continue to work. 😃

With specific reference to the airline business: It's not merely lying that's the issue, it's penalty-free reneging / failure. There aren't many industries where a seller takes the buyer's money well in advance of providing what's paid for, then subsequently do not provide it or anything close, shrug a corporate shrug, and dare the customer to do anything about it. To imply that modifying that dynamic heightens safety risk is to me ludicrous.
Spiff, SNAGuy, SPN Lifer and 24 others like this.

Last edited by BearX220; Sep 13, 23 at 12:37 pm Reason: Repair typo /. grammar
BearX220 is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 10:03 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,323
Originally Posted by Kacee
One of the more distressing societal trends in recent years is a willingness by both public and private figures to flat out lie without consequence.
Seems that as long as the controlled, crafted "messaging" sounds warm-and-fuzzy, and fits some sort of palatable ongoing narrative, people are willing to look past what their eyes can see!
EWR764 is online now  
Old Sep 13, 23, 10:05 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,264
Originally Posted by drewguy
As a practical matter all passengers will pay a bit more to compensate those who draw the short straw with delays. Its basically a mutual insurance program. But thats not a bad thing.
Of course its a bad thing. What right do I have to reach into your pocket to compensate myself for my mishaps? If I want travel insurance, I can buy it.

Originally Posted by Kacee
One of the more distressing societal trends in recent years is a willingness by both public and private figures to flat out lie without consequence.
Its not a lie, though. Its more misdirection. Im not worried about an individual employee thinking about the costs of a delay, but Im absolutely worried about unethical management teams pick your own least favorite airline here. EC.261 is indisputably a financial incentive to fly unsafe planes.

The idea that EC.261 makes airlines more likely to operate on-time is bunk just look at the on-time statistics, which are no better in Europe than they are in the US. And the idea that airlines will pay the cost out of their profits is a misunderstanding of economics. If US airlines are forced to pay out, say, $500 per passenger on an average of 5% of their flights, airfare will rise by about $30 per ticket $25 to pay the claims and $5 in incremental profit for the airlines.

If you really want EC.261-style protection, buy travel insurance or self-insure. Put $30 into a savings account for every flight you take, and withdraw it the next time you have a long delay. Presto!
SPN Lifer, Kevin AA and leoo like this.
jsloan is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 10:13 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,632
Will someone please think of Kirby et al's bonuses?

There's no evidence that EU pilots are more likely to compromise safety to avoid EU261 compensation, nor is there any evidence that US pilots are doing any such thing ex-EU. There's certainly no evidence that it's common for crewmembers to be fired over a delay that triggers EU261 compensation.

If we go by Kirby's logic, Delta's profit sharing scheme or any kind of compensation scheme tied to the airline's profits endangers safety. Maybe they should get rid of his bonuses and stock based compensation.

Last edited by stupidhead; Sep 13, 23 at 10:20 am
stupidhead is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 11:22 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by jsloan
The idea that EC.261 makes airlines more likely to operate on-time is bunk — just look at the on-time statistics, which are no better in Europe than they are in the US. And the idea that airlines will pay the cost out of their profits is a misunderstanding of economics. If US airlines are forced to pay out, say, $500 per passenger on an average of 5% of their flights, airfare will rise by about $30 per ticket — $25 to pay the claims and $5 in incremental profit for the airlines.
Doesn't the argument that increased costs will be directly reflected in ticket prices assume that fares are based on an airline's cost? We all know that is definitely not the case in the current oligopolistic environment, as all the wonderful price discrimination the airlines achieve demonstrates. Direct flights are not priced more cheaply cheaper than multi-city routings, even though the longer routings may be more costly to the airline.

And it also seems that without delay compensation, the airline values passenger time at zero. So absent compensation it would be perfectly rational for an airline to delay a passenger 5 hours to save the airline $10, at least in the short term.
ProfessorChaos is offline  
Old Sep 13, 23, 11:31 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by josephniezbedny
UA flying to and from EU also needs to conply with EU261 so they are less safe too on those routes.
Since UA is not a "Community carrier" (= airline based in a EU country) the EC261 regulations apply only for UA flights from EU (and some non-EU countries that also follow the same regulations).
SteveinA2 and AJNEDC like this.
Hezu is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.