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
That would be where United screwed up. At no point have I said United was without fault. Their actions were legal, but stupid. Both parties handled this as poorly as humanly possible.
They’ll probably wind up paying him out of court because in the end winning in court is bad PR. It’ll bring this whole thing back up again years after it’s been forgotten, and nobody sympathizes with big companies so when they do win in court that very act generates ill will. It’s kind of sad this guy is gonna get a fat check for acting like a baby, but that’s how it goes.
Which is exactly why UAL has changed their crew scheduling rules that a dead-heading crew member needs to be at the gate at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Dao wasn’t even belligerent, much less acting like a child:
United Airlines: New video suggests Dr. David Dao was not “belligerent” before removal
If Dao asks for enough in the way of damages, and tries to attach liability to UAL for his injuries, I would not be surprised at all to read that United argued in its legal briefs that Dao was a Rule 21 passenger. But as long as he is "reasonable," I figure United will go along with him being entitled to damages, be they Rule 25 or plain old "breach of contract" damages.
He refused to leave. That very act is belligerent and childish.
Dao had to see patients at the hospital at 8am the next morning. He faced professional repercussions if he failed to make his rounds.
I quit flying in 2002 because of the way you are treated. I didn’t throw a tantrum and refuse to leave.
I think they’ll wind up paying him a lot just to make him STFU. They’re not going to worry about rules, other than the gag order in their settlement agreement. There’s no margin in going to court, takes too long, generates too much bad PR. Heck given how corporate life is it’ll probably be a different CEO by the time it hit court and the new CEO sure won’t want that trouble, pay him, make sure there’s timed payments so he’s insensitive to keep it zipped, and move on.
The CEO of United, Dao’s fellow passengrrs, and video all say/show he was non-belligerent.
If they tell you you must get off (and this is against your wishes), they MUST compenstate you in addition to getting you on the next flight with available seats. For an overnight, the compenstation is 400% of the fare value (in the form of a check) or $1350, whichever is less. That is in addition to getting you there, and if you want, you can demand ane will get an "involuntary refund" for the price of your fare.
Once you are in that "involuntary" stage, you are in the driver's seat in negotiating with the airline.
-- Still, they'll now wind up paying him a lot of cash. --
I bet they pay their lawyers more to defend this case, than they end up paying Dao.
On what charges? From my (and other's) reading of the contract of carriage, he was absolutely within his rights to refuse to give up his seat. The police would have had no legal basis for arresting him.
Have we come to the point that we are willing to let the government and corporations have arbitrary power over us, without any basis in law? Even though the airlines have bought off their captured regulators to the point that the passenger almost no power whatsoever in the terms of the contract of the ticket, with a regular part of their standard operating procedures such that in almost any other business, would be prosecuted as outright fraud, yet they were still on the wrong side of that slanted 'contract', which is barely worthy of the name.
FWIW:
United 'clarifies' that Flight 3411 was not oversold
United says Flight 3411 wasn't overbooked. It just had no open seats left
I've noticed a great number of posters here conflate "breach of contract" with "illegal." Just saying, I bet your remark is met with objection.
I know what you mean, I think, that UAL can remove Dao from its plane with no penalty other than that associated with breach of contract.
Again:
the simple act of refusing to leave IS belligerent.
When your kid lays on the floor refusing to move is that belligerent? Of course it is. When college students stage a sit in are they being belligerent? Again, of course. It is quarrelsome, antagonistic, and contentious, behavior. Period. You don’t have to be making noise or being physical, the direct act of refusing to comply IS belligerent.
Thank you!!! Bookmarking this
‘From my (and other’s) reading of the contract of carriage, he was absolutely within his rights to refuse to give up his seat.’
The CEO of United agrees with you.
Well we obviously disagree.
You CAN'T be serious....
Again, Oscar Munoz would not have gone on the public record saying Dao was totally innocent of wrongdoing if Dao had been belligerent. Munoz specifically noted that Dao was seated in his assigned place, and had every right to be there.
” ... 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”
The four crew members were from a partner airline, not United employees.
There are many other false statements in this screed, including the claim that Robert Samuelson is an economist. He is not, but he pretends to be one at the Washington Post.
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.