NEWS The Not So Friendly Skies....

[phrogdriver]

Once again it's what you're willing to pay for.

You want cheap tickets? Then you get full planes, less service and less legroom.

Cheap tickets mean less money to go around so few competitors too.

And most of those pesky regulations are for the benefit of the pax, not the airline.

Having said that, the libtards at the National Review are just plane wrong. The vast majority do everything they can to get the pax on their flights and to their destinations on time. They treat them well. But when things go wrong, many pax turn into rabid animals thinking we are trying to personally screw them over. Sorry but t if you don't treat others in a civilized polite manner than the same is bound to come back to you. Especially when it becomes mass hysteria and screaming when a flight is cancelled or excessively delayed. Yeah, airlines really want to do these...

The libtards also see things like less leg room, full planes and baggage fees as treating people badly. Bullshit. You want to be "treated better"? Pay for it. But a business or first class ticket.

The National Review is probably this country's most prominent conservative magazine. If their editorial staff is full of "libtards," then I think you're just using that term to mean "I disagree with them so I'll just insult them," and we can safely ignore that dumbass term from here on out.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Your comprehension isn't that good is it?

I acknowledged that I assumed Radical Dude was being truthful when he claimed it liberal and that he got one over on me.

I don't read that publication or any others. I have a news feed from all the major U.S. and international news services that I use. If something catches my interest, I google it for more info. I have no clue with publications are conservative or liberal outside major news networks/agencies.

Since you obviously have no comprehension, I think we can ignore your dumbass from here in out.

Obviously the term libtard hurts your snowflake sensibility.

Fucking libtard.

 

[RadicalDude]

To be clear I was being sarcastic when I called it a "liberal rag" because I assumed a minimum level of cultural literacy. My mistake.

 

[xj220]

More like the not so friendly forums here...

 

[Randy Daytona]

Airlines overbook to hedge against people who miss their flights. You ever miss a flight and get rebooked on the next flight more or less free of charge?

If you're willing to pay for a full price ticket to replace the flight you already missed, then you have a right to bitch. Until then, STFU and be happy that you overwhelmingly arrive on time, safely, and IAW the contract of carriage.

The argument is not overbooking - the argument is why the gate agents don't have the authority and the financial wherewithall to resolve an overbooking situation to the satisfactory conclusion of all parties. I am curious to know why you, and Hal and Wink are so intent on keeping the current method of overbooking. (Notice what Delta did today)

You worried about being bumped? Pay for a full fare ticket. It's been said there is a hierarchy and full fares get to stay on while reduced fares get bumped.

Life sucks, you're not going to change it.

Looks like American, Delta and United did decide to change.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-delta-overbooking-20170414-story.html

Psshhh..bitch please... the national populace will forget about this in a week. People only care because it went viral and the talking heads on TV got ahold of it for their weekly social justice rant. It's not because there is some national rage against airline quality. I like my $400 coast to coast flights and so does the rest of the nation. United will lawyer the fuck up and deflect damages on to security personnel.

You are correct, there will be minimal change in the domestic market. I am curious to see how much it affects United's business in the Pacific and if the Chinese consumer reacts differently - the incident made Foreign Policy magazine. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/11/chinese-blame-america-for-united-airlines/

I'll make sure corporations consult you to find out how much profit is acceptable in the future.

Delta Air Lines is moving to make it easier to find customers willing to give up their seats. In an internal memo obtained Friday by the Associated Press, Delta said gate agents can offer up to $2,000, up from a previous maximum of $800, and supervisors can offer up to $9,950, up from $1,350. I think I remember someone suggesting $2,000 earlier. Perhaps they think 1/10 of 01% of profit is a good investment to prevent a public relations fiasco - that in large part was not even United's fault but will nevertheless be blamed for in the mind of the public.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-delta-overbooking-20170414-story.html

This incident may have been more about the police reaction that United's policy, but it was United's policy--which I find fairly questionable--that pushed over the first domino. It's not unreasonable for someone to feel like they should be able to rely on an airline to get them where they need to be when they need to be there, especially if we add the caveat "barring weather or maintenance". And it's also not unreasonable that if they aren't going to be able to do that, the compensation offered needs to feel fair to the people to whom it's offered. That's why a bidding system makes sense. If' I'm flying SW to Vegas to see my parents for 10 days and they offer to bump me and guarantee me a seat on the next flight in a couple hours, I'd do that for $150. (I have done exactly that, and got $275, IIRC.) If my loved one is dying and this is my only chance to see her and the next flight to her city is 10 hours later, $1500 might still not feel like it's enough. If you sell me a ticket in good faith, it's ridiculous that you can just pick an arbitrary number and decide that your dollar amount is all it's worth to me to miss that flight, with no input from me. Someone on that flight would have given up a seat. (Or 4 someones.) Everyone has a price. And asking the airlines to pay that price so that they can overbook seems perfectly fair.

More eloquent than I could write and absolutely spot on.

 

[HAL Pilot]

To be clear I was being sarcastic when I called it a "liberal rag" because I assumed a minimum level of cultural literacy. My mistake.

Aren't you the pompous asshole.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Randy Daytona - I'm not against anything. I'm just telling you of the long term consequences. If something cost the airlines more money, the airlines will pass the cost onto the pax. Maybe not right away but eventually.

But it really doesn't matter to me because Hawaiian doesn't overbook.

 

[wink]

While Delta just got the press for allowing line employees more authority in compensation, AA went down that path maybe 15 years ago. Lasted just a couple years. Agents were happy because they could make their problems go away by spending company money. The airline eventually found that many agents just didn't try hard enough to do their jobs as well as they good because they knew they could buy people off. The company could not find any quantifiable justification for the very large increase in cash paid out so they stopped the program. Human nature. Incentives affect employees too.

 

[Spekkio]

I'll make sure corporations consult you to find out how much profit is acceptable in the future. This argument has gotten completely ridiculous.

I think you missed the point. He was countering the argument that airlines have to institute the practice of using statistical analysis to sell more tix than are actually available just so that they can stay afloat. It's a bs practice that leads to people missing important events when they trust the airline to get them from point A to point B.

Yes, people expect that weather can sometimes derail travel plans. They don't expect to walk up to the counter and hear (paraphrased) "sorry, sir, but we over-booked. Here's a voucher for the cost of your ticket so you can gamble with us again in the future. No, I'm sorry, our company policy does not allow us to pay any additional costs you incurred from our intentional practice of selling more tickets than we can honor, thus causing a sudden change in your travel plans."

If paying a few extra dollars is the cost of knowing that my ticket will actually get me a seat on the plane, then I'll pay it. But I have a feeling that other market forces would keep ticket prices relatively constant if airlines stopped overbooking.

 

[pilot_man]

I think you missed the point. He was countering the argument that airlines have to institute the practice of using statistical analysis to sell more tix than are actually available just so that they can stay afloat. It's a bs practice that leads to people missing important events when they trust the airline to get them from point A to point B.

Yes, people expect that weather can sometimes derail travel plans. They don't expect to walk up to the counter and hear (paraphrased) "sorry, sir, but we over-booked. Here's a voucher for the cost of your ticket so you can gamble with us again in the future. No, I'm sorry, our company policy does not allow us to pay any additional costs you incurred from our intentional practice of selling more tickets than we can honor, thus causing a sudden change in your travel plans."

If paying a few extra dollars is the cost of knowing that my ticket will actually get me a seat on the plane, then I'll pay it. But I have a feeling that other market forces would keep ticket prices relatively constant if airlines stopped overbooking.

You make it sound like it's your Constitutional right to fly on an airline.

They are offering a service. If you don't like their service then go somewhere else. I'm sure you can take a train next time you want to travel.

 

[HokiePilot]

The overbooking problem could be solved pretty easy. On checkin, ask a question of how much money would you be willing to get bumped for. If you have an important business meeting that day. Select a high price. A retired couple with no major plans would probably offer a minimal price.

When the airline needs volunteers they already have the answer. To avoid bickering, the airline should pay all people bumped at the price of the most expensive person bumped. Also, the airlines can use this data. If many people are selecting a high price, best to minimize overbooking that flight in the future.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think you missed the point. He was countering the argument that airlines have to institute the practice of using statistical analysis to sell more tix than are actually available just so that they can stay afloat. It's a bs practice that leads to people missing important events when they trust the airline to get them from point A to point B.

Yes, people expect that weather can sometimes derail travel plans. They don't expect to walk up to the counter and hear (paraphrased) "sorry, sir, but we over-booked. Here's a voucher for the cost of your ticket so you can gamble with us again in the future. No, I'm sorry, our company policy does not allow us to pay any additional costs you incurred from our intentional practice of selling more tickets than we can honor, thus causing a sudden change in your travel plans."

If paying a few extra dollars is the cost of knowing that my ticket will actually get me a seat on the plane, then I'll pay it. But I have a feeling that other market forces would keep ticket prices relatively constant if airlines stopped overbooking.

You also wouldn't like it if your flight was cancelled because the deadheading crew didn't arrive. The vast majority of the traveling public get on Expedia or wherever else and pick the cheapest ticket on whatever airline that happens to be. If United decides to stop overbooking, fly with empty seats, and pass the cost to the ticket price, they will lose business.

People rarely get bumped, and horror stories of people missing important events can largely be mitigated by understanding how the system works. Important meeting tomorrow morning? Maybe don't book the last flight out, because you might not make it for a variety of reasons.

 

[DanMa1156]

Interesting development, similar to what Villanelle was suggesting... Delta will authorize employees to give out to $9,950 for bumping pax.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

Dao and three others were ordered off the plane after four airline employees showed up at the last minute and demanded seats so they could be in place to operate a flight the next day in Louisville, Ky.

Ok, this is how the media twists things to appeal to emotion (from your LA Times link)

Employees can't just show up a

I think you missed the point. He was countering the argument that airlines have to institute the practice of using statistical analysis to sell more tix than are actually available just so that they can stay afloat. It's a bs practice that leads to people missing important events when they trust the airline to get them from point A to point B.

Yes, people expect that weather can sometimes derail travel plans. They don't expect to walk up to the counter and hear (paraphrased) "sorry, sir, but we over-booked. Here's a voucher for the cost of your ticket so you can gamble with us again in the future. No, I'm sorry, our company policy does not allow us to pay any additional costs you incurred from our intentional practice of selling more tickets than we can honor, thus causing a sudden change in your travel plans."

If paying a few extra dollars is the cost of knowing that my ticket will actually get me a seat on the plane, then I'll pay it. But I have a feeling that other market forces would keep ticket prices relatively constant if airlines stopped overbooking.

What you don't get is that margins really are thin and dependent on more factors than any other product out there. For example...Do you know of any other company out there where their margins are affected by 1° difference in air temperature on a given day? After costs SWA only makes on average, something like 10$ a passenger and has some of the lowest costs in the industry.
Maybe a reexamination of WHEN you allow overbooking is in order...i.e. The seasonal times where air traffic is always full.
Lastly, Delta offering more money does not fix the problem because you can still run into a situation where they say no, no no, drag me out of here.

All the folks on here talk about the glory days of Aviation and the diminishing service and blah blah blah, but everyone forgets that all that was SUBSIDIZED by ole Uncle Sam.

 

[Randy Daytona]

All the folks on here talk about the glory days of Aviation and the diminishing service and blah blah blah, but everyone forgets that all that was SUBSIDIZED by ole Uncle Sam.

Glory days are buying a ticket and expecting the airlines to uphold their end of the sale?