Slashdot Mirror

They reverted that policy long ago. More than two years ago for sure. There was a time they experimented with not allowing families with kids, but it didn't last long.

Military, disabilities, parents traveling with small children...all get early pre-board on United.

It's all on their website

https://www.united.com/web/en-...

FAA regulation 91.21 makes it a crime to use any portable electronic device that is not approved by the Carrier.

United Airlines (just to pick one) prohibits all radio receivers and transmitters.

So, are you going to retract your statement about transmission vs reception?

You just have to pay a slightly higher fare for the larger seats.

If you refuse to pay a little extra for the extra legroom, well you've just demonstrated why the airlines are prioritizing lower fares over more space.

The law and the contract you agreed to when you bought the ticket are what controls here, not what you think is "reasonable" or in "good faith" at a particular moment in time.

Here is United's Contract of Carriage document - in particular see rule 25. Here is the Federal Code of Regulations section regulating overselling. Notice the last sentence of 250.3(a) in the CFR (aka FAR) which governs the policies airlines must make regarding overselling which states that:

Such rules and criteria shall not make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or subject any particular person to any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.

This makes it difficult for an airline to consider special cases (such as true, or untrue, claims that "I have to see patients tomorrow") as if they do so and allow Passenger A who was initially selected for removal to remain on the flight, they now have to now remove Passenger B who would have otherwise remained on the flight -- opening the airline up to a lawsuit from Passenger B. Thus, the last resort of random selection among the lowest priority passengers.

If you fly United, you agree to all the rules above. If you don't like them, don't fly United. If it's really important that you get somewhere, pick an earlier flight (and certainly not the last one of the day) or have a backup plan (another airline, another flight, a private charter on call, etc...).

I don't like overbooking but it reduces the cost of airline tickets. Perhaps a new set of fare classes could be added which would guarantee a seat. These tickets would probably still have restrictions but would be just like what you seem to want. They might cost quite a bit more, they might be completely non-refundable/transferable unless the flight departs more than two hours late, they might require checking in 30 minutes before scheduled departure (at which time they would become standby tickets but still be non-refundable even if you don't get a seat because all seats are filled by other standby passengers).

Perhaps you should start an airline that differentiates itself by not overbooking at all if you feel strongly about it (the CFR doesn't seem to require overbooking, just allow it). Maybe it will be so popular you will get rich and put the rest of the airlines out of business (although I doubt it -- most passengers are very price sensitive).

The odds of being involuntarily booted from a flight are tiny compared to all the other reasons you might not get where you expect at about the time you expect. Other risks such as mechanical failures, crew shortages, computer failures, weather holds (even not at your source or destination -- but the plane planned for the flight is stuck on the ground at a third airport) are far greater risks so it is reasonable to assume that all passengers are prepared for failing to get where they expect at about the time they expect.

BTW, if someone fears being denied boarding due to overbooking, there are several ways to dramatically reduce the odds of being selected. One is to buy a higher class (business or first) class seat. Another is to check luggage (the airline doesn't want to delay your flight by having to find and retrieve your luggage from the plane). Another is to join the airline's frequent flyer club. Another is to become disabled -- perhaps chop off a leg or gouge out your eyes (but I really don't recommend this last strategy).

Specifically:
https://www.united.com/web/en-...

Actually, their Contract for Carriage states they overbook and that they may involuntarily not board passengers based on priority. All airlines have something like this and do the same. Check-in early (most allow 24 hours before the flight), and be a member of their frequent flier program (even if you don't fly that often), as both will keep you from being the low person on the priority list.

United Airlines Contract for Carriage

UA screwed up by allowing 4 UA employees to show up at the gate after boarding, and then try to get people out of the plane. Logistically these employees should have reserved their spots 24 hours before, and the last 4 of the lowest-priority passengers should have been re-scheduled to later flights, BEFORE boarding.

We have a simple implied contract:

And a much more complex explicit contract. You should ask to see the "contract of carriage", which you agreed to by purchasing a ticket. It's part of the stuff you don't read when you click "buy".

United Airlines Flight 3411 is NOT a United Airlines flight. The U.S. government allows mis-labeling. Flight 3411 is a CommutAir flight.

United's CEO Oscar Munoz made the situation FAR worse by the pretend caring in what he said: United is investigating why authorities dragged a passenger off a flight -- here's what it found.

Quotes from the CEO:

"... we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding..."
It was not "apologetic". The passenger was already boarded. There was no "we".

"Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers..."
They could have tried asking someone else, and increased the price they would pay.

To employees: "I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."
That badly worded sentence also shows a lack of social ability.

The incident was like a billion-dollar advertisement saying, "Don't fly United Airlines." A New York Times story, United Airlines Passenger Is Dragged From an Overbooked Flight, now has 4983 comments! (07:48 am PDT)

The issue was not connected with anything United Airlines did. The result, however, is that the United Airlines CEO demonstrated that he isn't a good choice to lead a company. In my opinion, the United Airlines Board of Directors should consider getting a new CEO.

Background information: When airlines overbook a flight, these federal rules apply.

This is Jet Blue, not United.

United has had free streaming movies for some time now. Only exception is the 737s that came from Continental that have DirecTV.

https://www.united.com/web/en-...

Air China, Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, China Southern, China Eastern, Emirates, United, All Nippon Airlines, and many more ban the use of Bluetooth on their airlines. I guess if you never travel outside the US you're OK. But, considering that China, India, and SE Asia alone account for about half of all humanity - that's a mighty big market you're going to basically say "you can't use your phone for music" to.

Most people who trade miles (risky, wouldn't recommend it, but it exists) value United miles at around 1.4 cents/mile. It used to be 2+ cents because United is a member of Star Alliance, arguably the best airline partner program out there. But the last few years they've added a lot of restrictions on how you can use miles from one partner airline on a different partner.

Income and prizes (sweepstakes) have always been taxed, even if the prize is merchandise. So I don't see why this would be any different. It has the unfortunate side-effect where someone may win a half million dollar home, and because they're unable to afford the taxes on it they're forced to immediately sell it. At which point they're taxed again because the money from the sale is "new" income - gotta love the government. AFAIK, American Express is the only company which will also pay your taxes on prizes they award you. So if you win a $100,000 BMW from them in one of their prize contests, they will also give you enough cash to pay the tax on that. Plus more cash to pay the taxes on the cash they gave you to pay the taxes for the prize. Plus more cash to pay the taxes on the cash they gave you to pay taxes on the cash they gave you to pay the taxes for the prize. etc.

Usually, just donating the prize to charity is the simplest way to avoid it becoming a tax windfall for the government. The charity gets the full value of the donation, and you get a tax deduction for that value (even though you never actually received the value of the prize - another flaw in our tax code).

Judging by images like these, today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s.

Hoo boy. Do you have any idea how much more expensive flying was in the 1970s, before deregulation?

In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
"In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268."

Of course that factoid cherry picked the 1974 fare to coincide with the Arab oil embargo. But current oil prices are actually higher in inflation-adjusted dollars, and a cheap ticket between LA and NY is still around $350.

Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.

Of course that's exactly what happened. Because back when the LGA-LAX ticket cost $1442, very few people flew. The fundamentals of weight on an airplane and fuel use means the more people you can squeeze on a plane, the cheaper it is (per seat) to operate. So when federal regulation fixed the lowest airline price at $1442 making it inaccessible to the vast majority of people, the planes were emptier and the airlines could get away with fewer seats.

Air travel is in the state it's currently in because passengers prioritized lower fares over seating space, and the airlines found a way to deliver upon passenger desires. If passengers had demanded lush, business-class seating as you suggest, then that's what airlines would have delivered. Most of the seats on airplanes would be business-class sized, and a LGA-LAX ticket would still be around $1442 (actually, probably higher since current real oil prices are higher than in 1974).

i.e. It's not that current seating is "inhumane", it's that your definition of "humane" differs from what the vast majority of people buying airline tickets consider to be acceptable. Many airlines have premium economy seats offering an extra 5-6 inches of legroom at a higher price. A few people are willing to pay for those, but not many. If more people were wiling to pay for those bigger seats, the airlines would put more of them in - unless you're a monopoly, you always make more money giving people what they want.

The fundamental problem with air travel is that it's too fast. People look at that tiny seat and figure they can deal with it for a few hours. If air travel were slower and you were stuck in that seat for a day or two, people would demand more room.

There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent.

Of course there is. Lots of airlines have a "little bit better choice" option.

Here's one - About $50 - $75 more on a flight to Canada -

http://www.united.com/CMS/en-U...

http://www.united.com/web/en-U...

Now. Ask about ticket price.

What kind of airlines do you fly on? All the major U.S. domestic carriers do, as far as I can tell. Just now spot-checked Continental, Delta, United, and Southwest.

they were both unsustainable "gimmicks" driven by political pissing contests rather than by any actual demand.

I suspect that the biggest issue Concorde faced was that it wasn't allowed to go super sonic anywhere near land.

Keep in mind that London to New York could be done in about 3½ hours (fastest is 2:52:59 from tarmac to tarmac) for a 5,585 km flight. New York to Los Angeles is 3,961 km so you'd expect something like 2:45 for that trip. Los Angeles to Tokyo is 8,830 km so you'd expect a 6 hour flight there. Since the plane is faster than the time zones, you could leave LAX at 10 AM for a 9 AM meeting in Tokyo. Currently the flight alone is 11 hours, and with time zones etc. you're probably looking at something like an 18 hour flight (i.e. leaving at 3 pm the day before). And do you really want to go into an all day meeting right after having spent the last 11 hours in an air plane? Six hours is more manageable. That's a small nap, a movie, and a quick shower and change of clothes.

And the Concorde was almost as efficient as a Gulfstream G550 business jet which is almost 30 years older.

At this time the Concorde design is more than 40 years old. The main complaint about it was noise, even though aircraft like the Boeing VC-137 were louder. One would think that 40 years of additional engine and aircraft design would allow you to reduce not only take-off and landing noise, but also that of the sonic booms, allowing for super sonic flights over land as well. And there have recent experiments and designs targeted at reducing the sonic boom. As it turns out those experiments points to how to make the Concorde a viable super sonic transport over land areas as well.

So, no - that's not political pissing contests driving development, but political pressure (justified or not) holding development back.

Let's dream up some numbers - imagine you were able to create a viable Concorde v.2010. It's more fuel efficient than the original, so let's up the 17 passenger miles/gallon to 22. That's a 30% improvement through better materials (lighter plane), better aerodynamic design and better engine. This is about 4.1 times worse than a Boeing 747-400.

At the moment a one way ticket (JFK - LAX) booked 14 days in advance is about 300 dollars for a morning flight. The flight is about 6 hours, but only about 3½ hours when you factor in the time difference (but about 9 hours going the other way). I don't fly in the US, so I just used United as my reference.

Enter the above mentioned Concorde v.2010. 3 hour flight time (on the plane), so if you have to be at LAX by 9 AM, you can leave JFK at 9 AM as well. This is currently only doable if you book a hotel at the other end or take a 5 AM flight from New York. To be in New York at 9 AM, you'd have to catch a red-eye or book a hotel the night before. This doesn't change with Concorde v.201, unless you want to leave on a 3 AM flight out of LAX with a Concorde (3 hour flight time, 3 hour time difference).

The afternoon flights are just as good. At the moment JFK - LAX would have you landing in LAX in the middle of the night, and LAX - JFK are even worse. For the Concorde v.2010 you'd be looking at a 6 pm flight out and arriving at JFK around midnight, or landing in LAX at slightly earlier than you left JFK.

So now, not only do you get to your destination about 2½ times faster, you also save the cost of hotels, AND you get to have all day meetings on different sides of the continent without it ruining the previous and following day.

From a business perspective it'd easily be worth a 10 fold ticket price. Compare 3,000 dollars as a singl

And who should you fly instead?

United: $15 first/$25 second
US Air: $15/$25
Delta: $15/$25
Continental: $15/$25
Northwest: $15/$25

I got bored here, but I think you get the picture....

Well maybe not, since airlines do not offer a Muslim meal AFAIK
 
You don't know very far. The western nation airlines all offer not only Muslim but also Hindu and Kosher meals:
 
  United Airlines religious meal options
  American Airlines special meal options
  British Airways special meals
 
The list goes on. Pretty much every major airline. Oh wait, just checked Emirates. There aren't Kosher or Hindu option there. For some reason their sample menu looks just like the other airlines' Muslim sample menus.

What airlines are you flying that have no free drinks? Heck, even Southwest has all the free drinks you want, and they're a barebones carrier....

The last airline I flew was united, and while drinks were still "free" they were talking how drinks were no longer going to be free. I should have been more clear. Let me try again...

Lately there has been a trend to cut amenities which were priviously included in the ticket price. This presently includes meals, and my last flight the only food which was offered was of their snackbox collection which was $5.00. This was disapointing as it was a flight over 5 hours over 2100miles which technicaly should have an an option for a Sandwich or a Salad, also $5.00, unless TED doesn't get those things.

But regardless of whether they charge for soft drinks or not, it's a hassle getting drinks, and when you do finally get a drink, it's served in a tiny cup, with i'd guess 2 oz of ice, and 2oz of drink. Even on a 4hr flight this is a tad annoying. Bringing your own drink, even just water saves alot of hassle, esp when you need your ears to pop.

where's the site to help people resign from the state?

Actually, any of these sites can help. Just be sure that you tell them that you only need a one way ticket.

http://www.untied.com/ - which is just a merciless basher site of United Airlines (i.e. http://www.united.com/

It's sad and hilarious - United Airlines completely sucks

This sounds like a great idea, but I can see some legitimate causes being harmed. For instance, Untied.com is a typo of United, which is used to protest some labor practices at United Airlines.

I guess the question is, how is MS going to determine the legitimate misspellings from the illegitimate misspellings? Certainly United doesn't like the misspelling above, but it's not anti-consumer like misspelling a company name and winding up at a spam site, or worse yet, a phishing site. -- Paul

Hey, United? Can I have a dime? Pleeeeeeeze?

Screw the NYT, since it's just a press release you can read it direct from United.

Not that it isn't a pita to have to wait, but I wait at least that long, or I take a taxi. The company is covering it for business, and if it's not business, then anyone who would be picking me up probably came in on the same plane as me.

In short, there are plenty of ways around a 40 minute wait that don't require a cell phone call from the air. So it's hardly a reason for me to have to suffer the droves of cell phone yappers in a cramped environment. Anyway, the only people who could possibly need to be at that level of constant contact have an entourage of people to take care of such things, or better yet, their own damn airplane. Think POTUS. People still flying a commercial airline don't need to be able to call from the air.

• The IT guy at Podunk Lutheran College has no money: Gratis.
• The IT guy at a medium-sized real estate agency has some money: $500.
• The IT guy at a Fortune 100 company has tons of money: $50,000.

For some reason, this sounds familiar.

The potential danger is just too great. It's like letting someone carry a blow torch on board. I recommend you all print out these articles and U.S. Mail a letter like the following to the F.A.A.

Dear FAA:

In light of the recent problems (see attached) with rechargable batteries for Apple PowerBook computers, I urge you to immediatly ban all Apple Powerbooks from being connected to in-flight power systems on commercial aircraft.

I fly several times a month, and am greatly concerned that these defective PowerBooks are like a ticking timebomb, ready to cause an accident.

Please consider the attached technical summaries of the problem and make an appropriate ruling.

Sincerely,

cc: Norm Minetta

I have a few questions.

First, pph == pints per hour?

Do turboprop engines, like those that power Bombardier intermediate range, intermediate capacity airliners, like the Dash-8 have the same altitude (in)effeciencies as the engines used in larger airliners?

I have heard about how the 9-11 has proven to be an excellent excuse for the insurance industry to gouge their customers. And I would easily believe they would be happy to gouge airlines that flew tested, proven smaller airliners. Is there a reason you mentioned the extra costs of insuring untested, unproven light jets?

As for where these light jets might fly...

Set the way back machine for the early eighties. My older brother had to go with his high powered boss to help deliver a high-level technical presentation, in Chicago. The presentation was well received. There were questions afterwards. And when it was finally finished the junior executive who had been delegated to serve as the host was very sorry to say that, even though their flight did not leave for some time, it was now rush-hour, and there was no way they could get across the city to O'Hare Airport in time for their flight.

My brother was a typical Canadian, not pushy, willing to take a later flight. But his boss was atypical. And he said to his host, "wait a second, I have played Microsoft Flight Simulator. Isn't the Greater Chicago area sprinkled with small airports capable of flying a Cessna?"

The original version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, capable of running on the old 8088, was set in Chicago, and let the player fly between that assortment of airports. It was a popular program. And my brother's boss had been playing it.

Well, the host nods, and agrees that there is a small, cessna-capable airport, ten minutes away. "Okay", says my brother's boss. "Get on the phone and charter us a flight from there to O'Hare."

This proves possible. There is a cessna available for charter, and it is ready and waiting when they get to the airport. Now my brother is a big guy. 6'4". And his boss is a big guy too. My brother ends up sharing the rear seat with their luggage and whatever technical aids they brought. And his boss sits up front beside the pilot.

Did I say they were big guys? I guess the plane was near, or above, its recommended take-off weight. Because as they proceed down the runway a buzzer goes off. My brother's boss turns to the pilot, to draw it to his attention, and says, "I believe that is your stall indicator."

The pilot ignores him, until he has finished taking off. And then he turns to him, and says, "Never interrupt a pilot like that! You have been playing with that goldarn Flight Simulator program, haven't you? You have no idea how much trouble that program has caused me!"

Lol.

Anyhow, here in Toronto there is a small, little, boutique airport, almost right downtown. It has short runways. But long enough for little intermediate range airliners like the Dash-8.

This little airport is on an Island. To get there from the downtown hotels your shuttle bus or cab has to navigate two miles of congested downtown streets, and then you have to take a ferry. It only has to cross a gap of a few hundred feet. But it still imposes a considerable delay. So, the time to get to the main airport is only 2 or 3 times longer than getting to the boutique airport.

There are developers with plans to expand the Island airport, get rid of the ferry, by building "fixed link", ie. a bridge, or tunnel. They also want to extend the runway, so it can take larger jets. Us locals are generally opposed. And the recently elected mayor said he would kill the expansion.

I did fly out of that small boutique airport once. Again, in the early eighties. I flew on a turboprop that seated 20 passengers. And I

Good news for United Airlines and Qantas Airways.

How do you propose to check in, when they look at the name as it is returned from the database, and it doesn't match your ID?

You haven't flown recently, have you? It is trivial to check in without anyone checking your ID against the database, so long as you have no baggage. Heck, some airlines even offer online checkin from home. If you need to check a bag, though, you're right.

Seeing the current state of the airlines, they're all set to go right out
of
business. Somehow I question this business model. :)

Now I'm not complaining at much about my $240 ticket from Pittsburgh to San Diego, except that now it's under $200. How do they expect to stay in business, again?

I just went to United Airlines website last time I scheduled my tickets for a flight to Chicago, and noticed that they're pretty comprehensive.

Next year they'll float a rumor of thinking of acquiring Lockheed Martin, KFC, and Kiwi Shoe polish.

Now there's an idea, perhaps Microsoft should buy up bankrupt airlines, phone companies, or energy traders.

Lord knows they've got the cash and the companies in question could use the help. For a few billion Microsoft could be an airline or telecommunications monopoly as well.

The cruising speed of a typical commercial jutliner is about 550 mph.

The speed of sound is about 761 mph (sea level, bleah bleah.)