Dr Dao and the United Airlines incident

[Zaphod]

GXA wrote:

I do not think making the 10k limit public matters.  If I had the flexibility, I would bite at 5k a ticket, or 2k a ticket, and there may be others who would bite sooner.  It would be difficult to collude with a planeful of passengers.  As their offers go up, there will eventually be a party who find the tradeoff worth their while.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the interesting dynamics. Say you got a group to agree to let it get bid up until it was across some threshold someone could bite. You have possible cooperation for a better overall outcome vs. the individuals personal gain by cutting in ahead of the threshold. Often its best to work together, yet it almost never works out in reality. Fun thought experiments though.

[GXA]

I do not think making the 10k limit public matters.  If I had the flexibility, I would bite at 5k a ticket, or 2k a ticket, and there may be others who would bite sooner.  It would be difficult to collude with a planeful of passengers.  As their offers go up, there will eventually be a party who find the tradeoff worth their while.

[RetiredERdoc]

I wonder if people in the past had a very poor understanding of what the airlines could pay, so they would take the 500$ not realizing it could go to 1350 or whatever. but now it is very public about the 10k.

[Zaphod]

East coast wrote:

It’s an

RetiredERdoc wrote:

So now Delta and United  have announced that they will increase their payout for people being bumped to up to 10k. Does this mean that everyone will now hold out for the full 10k? For example, United announces they need a seat, any volunteers for $500? Who is going to say, yes, I will take $500 when they could potentially make $10k? Does this mean that everyone is going to have to pay higher ticket prices  to make up for this? According to a recent news story, “A total of 40,629 passengers were denied boarding involuntarily on domestic flights in 2016”

Does this mean airlines will have to come up with $406,290,000 more each year? I know not all airlines have announced the bump in price, but maybe I am extropilating too much.

Click to expand…

It’s an auction, so they start low until they get a response. Vast majority of the time they only get to the low hundred $$. I fly a fair amount and I’ve seen it get up to $1k only once. This really doesn’t change much.  airlines are increasingly becoming credit card companies – something like half their income from credit cards, so this change will have zero effect on price of a seat.

Click to expand...

However, announcing such a limit could easily lead to collusion, which would lead to some very interesting game theory situations. I would do it. Not sure if it was the best to tell everyone, but PR stuff of course.

[East coast]

It's an

RetiredERdoc wrote:

So now Delta and United  have announced that they will increase their payout for people being bumped to up to 10k. Does this mean that everyone will now hold out for the full 10k? For example, United announces they need a seat, any volunteers for $500? Who is going to say, yes, I will take $500 when they could potentially make $10k? Does this mean that everyone is going to have to pay higher ticket prices  to make up for this? According to a recent news story, “A total of 40,629 passengers were denied boarding involuntarily on domestic flights in 2016”

Does this mean airlines will have to come up with $406,290,000 more each year? I know not all airlines have announced the bump in price, but maybe I am extropilating too much.

Click to expand...

It's an auction, so they start low until they get a response. Vast majority of the time they only get to the low hundred $$. I fly a fair amount and I've seen it get up to $1k only once. This really doesn't change much.  airlines are increasingly becoming credit card companies - something like half their income from credit cards, so this change will have zero effect on price of a seat.

[RetiredERdoc]

So now Delta and United  have announced that they will increase their payout for people being bumped to up to 10k. Does this mean that everyone will now hold out for the full 10k? For example, United announces they need a seat, any volunteers for $500? Who is going to say, yes, I will take $500 when they could potentially make $10k? Does this mean that everyone is going to have to pay higher ticket prices  to make up for this? According to a recent news story, "A total of 40,629 passengers were denied boarding involuntarily on domestic flights in 2016"

Does this mean airlines will have to come up with $406,290,000 more each year? I know not all airlines have announced the bump in price, but maybe I am extropilating too much.

[Wudoc111]

Wow,  7 Pages of threads and probably it should be buried.

But Simon - 50 lbs rabbit that was flying from Heathrow to Ohare (expensive ticket 2000 pounds) died on route.

Watch your pets. O.O

Luckily I fly Alaska Airlines.

 

[East coast]

Lithium wrote:

East coast wrote:

You are absolutely right about the real value of the vouchers United gives. As a frequent flier I have these stacked up in my back pocket – you can’t even combine them. Luckily since I fly enough that doesn’t end up mattering too much. I actually haven’t seen anywhere distinguish definitively whether or not it was $800 in voucher or $800 cash equivalent. Oscar’s statement even said that the offer was actually $1k, so confusion there as well.

Click to expand…

Don’t these vouchers expire after a year anyway?  I’m assuming they aren’t transferable either.  If true, Delta’s move to increase offers to 10k doesn’t mean a lot, since most people aren’t going to want to fly that much.  Their marginal utility is pretty abysmal.

http://airlinevouchers.net/guide.php

Click to expand...

That's correct on the year expiration - at least for United; I fly them far and away the most, so can't speak to the other airlines, as I don't fly them much. I was on a Delta flight last year where we were offered a choice of something like $1000 in voucher form or an Amex gift card for $750. Don't remember the exact numbers but that was close. I would think United might consider doing that.

United sends me them after delays/cancellations, so I get $25/$50 ones a few times a year, but it's irritating that you can't combine them. You can transfer them to someone else - they just give you a code you plug in at check out, so it's not attached to your FF account. Had an international flight cancellation a few weeks ago that gave me $125 - I do think that's a genuinely nice gesture, as issues happen with delays/cancellations, and it's just set up as an auto 'gift'.

[AR]

Zaphod wrote:

AR wrote:

Based on your very last paragraph, it’s quite clear that you don’t understand what I’ve been saying. Innocent until proven guilty applies because whether he is legally wrong or not is one of the points I’m trying to make.  I’ve said more than once that United can for improper reasons deny him service, be successful in executing the denial, and not face any consequences (because the passenger doesn’t complain). 

Click to expand…

It sounds like you are trying to argue my earlier point which you vehemently rejected.

Click to expand...

That's because you're very confused.  I'll try to break it down into smaller sentences so maybe you'll get it.

1. I have been discussing whether Dao was legally wrong or not

2.  That is one of the points I have been trying to make (repeatedly)

3. The concept of being innocent until proven guilty applies to that

Since you stated literally opposite of #3 (see below), it defies logic that you think I'm somehow arguing your point. Generally, when someone is this aggressively wrong, it's some sort of troll.  After your last few posts I guess that's the most likely conclusion.   Bravo.  You got me.

Zaphod wrote:

Again, “innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal concept. Doesnt apply. It certainly doesnt apply to businesses that can just plain refuse you service, the circumstances rarely matter. You have a tendency to project criminal statutes onto everyday and business practices where they just dont apply.Click to expand...

 

[VagabondMD]

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

Johanna, you have brought Facebook back into my life.  Just when I thought I was out….they pulled me back in!

Click to expand…

What the heck did I do to deserve such a heinous accusation?

Click to expand...

Starting this thread.

Great taste...less filling...great taste...less filling...

[jfoxcpacfp]

ENT Doc wrote:

Johanna, you have brought Facebook back into my life.  Just when I thought I was out….they pulled me back in!

Click to expand...

What the heck did I do to deserve such a heinous accusation?

[ENT Doc]

Johanna, you have brought Facebook back into my life.  Just when I thought I was out....they pulled me back in!   

[Zaphod]

AR wrote:

Based on your very last paragraph, it’s quite clear that you don’t understand what I’ve been saying. Innocent until proven guilty applies because whether he is legally wrong or not is one of the points I’m trying to make.  I’ve said more than once that United can for improper reasons deny him service, be successful in executing the denial, and not face any consequences (because the passenger doesn’t complain).

Click to expand...

It sounds like you are trying to argue my earlier point which you vehemently rejected.

[AR]

Zaphod wrote:

So it is the default but simultaneously is not, is for criminal yet is default for all interactions, civil, etc….Which is it?

I simply asked of Dao is bringing the suit and is therefore the plaintiff, who is the presumed innocent? Seems straightforward.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is straightforward, but for some reason you're not getting it.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.  In a criminal case, the defendant is generally found guilty or not guilty.   And when someone refers to the "presumption of innocence" that is a concept related to criminal cases.  The important point is that the question of guilty vs innocent is what occurs in criminal trials.

In civil trial, guilt or innocence is not at issue.  It doesn't matter whether Dao sues united or united sues Dao, they're both civil actions.  Asking who is innocent or presumed innocent in a civil matter, literally makes no sense, because the point of civil proceedings is not to determine guilt or innocence.

 

 

 

[Zaphod]

So it is the default but simultaneously is not, is for criminal yet is default for all interactions, civil, etc....Which is it?

I simply asked of Dao is bringing the suit and is therefore the plaintiff, who is the presumed innocent? Seems straightforward.