Posted on 04/18/2017 11:54:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
That the forceful ejection of a United Airlines passenger the Sunday before last proved so newsworthy indicated something that’s largely been ignored by the airline’s myriad critics and “advisers.” What happened was news precisely because it’s so rare.
But for a commentariat prone to turning anecdote into statistic, United’s resort to force when it came to properly removing David Dao (more on this in a bit) from one of its airplanes was naturally (to the chattering class, at least) a sign of a tone-deaf airline; one clueless about customer service thanks to a culture within the airline that doesn’t prioritize it. United’s actions were apparently also a sign that its executives don’t understand the auction process that economists – who’ve almost to a man and woman never run a business – can apparently design in their sleep. Oh please.
Back to reality, we all know why airlines frequently sell more seats than are physically available. They do so because they have a good sense based on years of statistical analysis of roughly how many no-shows there will be for each flight. The major airlines are plainly good at divining the no-show count as evidenced by travel journalist Gary Leff’s stats in USA Today revealing that, “Out of over 600 million passengers boarding major U.S. airlines in 2015, half a million didn’t have seats. Most of those voluntarily gave up their seats.” Leff adds that the latter explains why a mere 46,000 passengers were actually involuntarily denied boarding in 2015, a rate of 0.09%, according to Leff’s calculations. Again, Dao’s ejection was news precisely because what happened almost never does.
Despite this, economists have as mentioned used United’s alleged error to showcase their presumed worth. You see, economists claim to solve problems. Crunching numbers in their cubicles free of the pressures that concern those who actually run businesses, they come up with “solutions” for those businesses.
Case in point is Robert Samuelson, resident economist at the Washington Post. Though he acknowledges that there are lots of public policy problems that “cannot be easily solved,” he contends that “Fixing airline overbooking is not one of them.” Samuelson’s solution is for airlines to consult another economist who has largely spent his adult years contemplating the many great problems businesses face from Harvard’s leafy campus. According to Samuelson, Greg Mankiw has a plan for the airlines. Here it is:
“Make the airlines pay when they overbook. When they do, ‘they should fully bear the consequences. They should be required (by government regulation) to keep raising the offered compensation until they get volunteers to give up their seats," writes Mankiw. "If $800 does not work, then try $1,600 or $8,000.’"
Samuelson adds that the professor in Mankiw is "sure volunteers will appear as the price rises." Samuelson agrees with the professor, but would “tweak” his proposed imposition of force on businesses “by requiring that all the bumped passengers receive the highest payment.”
Of course the problem for Samuelson and Mankiw, along with countless other economists awoken by United’s alleged error, is that airlines have long been doing what they propose. We know this because airlines regularly oversell flights, only for them to offer rising rates of compensation to reserved passengers assuming they don’t have enough seats. Sorry economists, airlines have long employed the auction process that has oddly given your profession its day in the sun.
As for the proposed regulations offered up by economists mostly untouched by the real world, they’re passing strange simply because economists generally pay lip service to the truism that there’s no such thing as a “free good.” But in demanding federal compensation rules as Samuelson, Mankiw et al are, they act as though the compensation will be paid by 'someone else.' Back to reality, assuming the federal imposition of highly generous compensation for bumped passengers, this will reveal itself either through reduced seat availability for consumers, much higher prices for the consumers in search of low-priced fares, or both. Well-heeled economists presumably don’t consider this truth simply because their air travel is likely not of the supersaver variety.
Regarding Dao, it’s well known at this point that the flight he’d booked a ticket for wasn’t oversold as much as United wanted to transport four crew members to Kentucky in order to staff a flight the next day. So that the airline could serve many more passengers, it bumped Dao, along with three other willing customers. And while PR mavens can fight among themselves about the brand implications of United’s actions vis-à-vis Dao, it’s worth pointing out that the airline did the right thing in removing the obnoxious passenger from the plane.
Lest we forget, a purchase of an airline ticket, particularly a supersaver ticket, is not a guaranteed reservation in the traditional, contract sense. A supersaver ticket is low-priced precisely because such a fare might be bumped – albeit rarely – based on a lack of seats. In Dao’s case he didn’t have a reservation as much as he’d booked the strong possibility of flying when he wanted to. United was correct in removing him much as any business would be correct in removing from its premises any individual engaged in the act of taking. The seat was United’s to allocate, not something owned by Dao.
About this, readers can rest assured that United’s most frequent passengers, as in the ones that generate the most revenue for the airline, are the least likely to be bumped. For members of the commentariat to defend Dao’s right to a seat is for those same members to reject the property rights of businesses. Federal regulations imposed on businesses regularly ignore property rights, and because they do costs for their customers rise to reflect government disdain for property.
The economist in Samuelson concludes that “Making airlines pay more for overbooking would, almost certainly, make them more careful in their scheduling, while also more adequately compensating inconvenienced passengers.” It’s a nice thought from the offices of the Washington Post, but if it’s so simple as Samuelson suggests, why the need for governmental force? Samuelson never considered the latter, and realistically didn’t consider business and economic realities much at all in penning his piece in which he explained to the airlines how they should operate, sans irony.
But for-profit businesses don’t need the help of economists largely unfamiliar with business or profits. As evidenced by how airlines regularly and seamlessly handle the good, pro-consumer strategy of overbooking, they’re already well aware of how to handle passenger overflow. The problem isn’t the airlines, but an economics commentariat ever eager to turn what’s singular into a statistic.
-- John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, a Senior Fellow in Economics at Reason Foundation, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading
Sure it would. “Both sides are wrong” is a complex issue that the mob mentality of social media has a long history of not grasping. Especially when one of those sides is a large “evil” corporation (actually given United’s history they might actually be evil, no quotes). Just because the masses have all gone one way doesn’t mean they’re right. The masses loved Obama, we all know how that worked out. Right and wrong isn’t about public opinion, right and wrong are easily defined concepts and in this case:
bumping passengers after they’ve been seated = wrong, it’s just rude and stupid and guaranteed to lose you customers
refusing to comply with a legally allowed order = wrong, it’s childish and rude (to all the other passengers who had their flight delayed because of his crap) and just not operating in the real world where any halfway intelligent person would know that was an unwinnable fight.
Both sides are wrong, sorry you can’t be bothered to see it.
use for = use force
Thank goodness our society isn’t so far gone that they no longer care about the abuse of the elderly. If the majority was mocking Dao because they didn’t like the way he screamed—as I’ve seen numerous childish posters here do—we’d really be lost.
Fortunately, when three young, brawny and thuggish guys rough up an old, non-aggressive man, the majority still side with the old man. There’s hope.
Who said anything about not caring about abuse of the elderly? Not me. Now you’re in the land of just making crap up and assigning positions. That’s what happens to folks who simply a can’t admit they were wrong. Funny, just like Dao, you’ve taken your spot and you ain’t leaving no matter how childish you must be. That’s really where we’re lost, too many of us can’t be bothered to look at facts and realize that more than one thing can be true.
Well, we’re done, you’re just going to keep insisting that he childish idiot who couldn’t be bothered to comply did nothing wrong, and I’ll keep pointing out he’s a childish idiot. So you can have the last word, I’m sure it will continue down your make believe land where Dao is perfect, because you indeed are a fantasy writer, even when talking about reality.
‘The masses loved Obama, we all know how that worked out.’
Obama is the perfect example of what I’m talking about. With all the fraud, media hype and illegal voting, etc.—and pitted against one of the worst candidates in history—Obama didn’t receive 53% of votes cast in 2008.
With almost certainly MORE cheating in 2012, and another dud challenger, Obama got and even lower percentage.
If sentiments were running 53% Pro-Dao and 47% pro-United, it could be argued that the airline didn’t come off looking that bad.
Or if Obama had won by 90 or 95 percent, you could say the masses were acting stupidly.
As it is, Obama ignited fierce resistance, while United’s support among those who have seen the video is anemic at best.
Dao made a very reasonable and rational case as to why he couldn’t ***volunteer*** to deplane. It in no way justified the excessively abusive force that was used against him, resulting in a concussion, two lost teeth and a broken nose.
And yes, when three young goons inflict on an old man the injuries listed in my prior post, it is elder abuse. Sorry you can’t see it.
Oh my, this guy is a real intellectual. He used the word “Lest”. Funny how all the airlines changed their policy(yes) so fast in light of UAL’s/Chicago Aviation Authority's attack on an old man. I wonder why UAL is now demanding it's employees to book at least 1 hour before boarding? No $hit UAL!
“And yes, when three young goons inflict on an old man the injuries listed in my prior post, it is elder abuse”
-
Should the elderly be immune from having their seats bumped?
.
My immediate point is that the elderly, if they have boarded a plane legally and are sitting quietly in their assigned seat minding their own business, should not be subjected to excessive force such that it leaves them bloody, broken and hospitalized.
‘Infuriated’ United pilots union slams cops for forcibly dragging passenger from plane
http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-pilots-letter-2017-4
Let’s not forget this criminal’s background, not to mention he’s a queer and a huckster. The passenger hauled off a United flight is a lung doctor with a taste for gambling, a history of angry outbursts — and a conviction for trading narcotics prescriptions and cash for gay sex in motels.
Dr. David Dao of Elizabethtown, Ky., confirmed Tuesday that he was the inadvertent star of a viral video stirring outrage around the globe and said he was undergoing hospital treatment in Chicago.
In an interview from his bed, Dao, 69, told Louisville TV station WLKY that he wasn’t feeling well.
lung doctor with a taste for gambling. The bastard!!!
I have a lot of respect for pilots. They’re very intelligent people. But it doesn’t take the smarts of an airline pilot to know you can’t defend the indefensible.
I don’t know about you, but I am a sinner saved by grace. Assuch, I don’t consider myself so morally superior as to warrant reveling in other’s shortcomings.
I am also knowledgeable of the Golden Rule. If three heavy-handed thugs left me hospitalized, I wouldn’t want people sifting through my past to see if they couldn’t find something bad, so they could say I had it coming. Since I wouldn’t want that, I will never do it to someone else.
In addition to his known past, Dao is being subjected to baseless smears. Where did you get the info re his supposed history of angry outbursts? Please be specific, with links.
Also, are you citing the pain pills twice, once re sex and once under the rubric of hucksterism? If not, please provide a citation for the huckster charge. (If they’re one and the same, why list them seoarately?)
seoarately = separately
Again, trying to blame the passenger is laughable. It really really is... United effed up royally. Doa’s only “screw up” as you like to call it, is he didn’t comply like a little sheep.. and honestly he didn’t really fight either. they literally dragged someone doing nothing more than sitting in his seat bashing his head into an armrest and dragging him from the plane.
He didn’t FIGHT, he just sat there.. refusing to voluntarily leave the seat he had paid for and been sat in. That’s not a screw up... United SCREWED UP ROYAL and yes they will pay royally... they already are.
You think United had to open its EARNINGS CALL today by addressing this issue AGAIN because it doesn’t really just how badly they effed themselves then you are indeed beyond naive.
UNITED opened its EARNINGS CALL today by addressing this yet again.. those that think United doesn’t realize now just how badly they screwed themselves are living in denial. Seriously, a call to talk about its financials to investors and that is opened up by yet another APOLOGY over this????
United not only EFFED up on the plane, it compounded the problem a thousand times over when Munoz offered a dismissive “apology” talking about being sorry they had to “re-accommodate” some passengers.
The Target CEO men in the girls room is about the only CEO move in recent history that was nearly as dumb, and it will cost United just as much if not more than it has cost Target.
Ah yes, lets blame the victim here... do you think United had any idea about this guys background, or that his background had any relevance to what happened?
If you do, you are indeed a fool.
Sitting in your seat refusing to get out of the seat you paid for and were seated in only to have some jack booted thugs beat you and drag you off... Yes, yes, this all happened because of some past behavior that lead him to that... Please... Take your blame the victim crap over to Democratic Underground where it belongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.