Delta just upped their denied boarding compensation to $9,950

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/14/delta-denied-boarding-compensation/

UA should have beat them to this...I suppose this will be part of April 30th announcements.
AA will probably have to match too

•Previously gate agents were limited to offering $800 worth of vouchers in compensation, while supervisors were limited to offering $2,000 worth of vouchers in compensation
•Delta has now increased compensation limits for voluntary denied boardings — gate agents can now offer up to $2,000 worth of vouchers, while supervisors can offer up to $9,950 worth of vouchers

They can overbook me for $9,950

Posted this in another thread, but I think this deserves its own.

My head can't wrap around the economics of it all on a Friday, but can't the unintended consequence simply be that DL overbooks flights by more seats. With 2,000-10,000 worth of vouchers to hand out, they can easily overbook some flights by 10 seats and have enough vouchers for VDB's.

Or am I reading it wrong? When I read "$$$ worth of vouchers," I take that to mean an agent can offer multiple vouchers to multiple peopl that total no more than that $ ceiling. Does this actually say that an agent can offer a single person up to a $2,000 voucher if no one takes anything lower?

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers. That's the beauty of the EU law that makes airlines pay in cash. I can take that cash and walk over to another airline's counter and buy myself another plane ticket, on the same day.

No, because the cost of overselling is higher, it should make it less likely they'll oversell (assuming the inputs into the yield systems change).

A similar example is the classic business problem, how many units should I produce? You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... n_quantity

Doubt that's for a Y seat on a 1 hour Delta Express flight...

I note the OP's post just mentions vouchers. What about cash?

It's a nice dig at United although I find it interesting that previously Delta had the same limit ($800) in vouchers for gate agents as it appears United did. More seriously I suspect that Delta is also having a close look at their T&Cs to make sure they cover everything they should. I would imagine they'll wait until United announces their changes before announcing their changes/updates.

usairways85 wrote:

My head can't wrap around the economics of it all on a Friday, but can't the unintended consequence simply be that DL overbooks flights by more seats. With 2,000-10,000 worth of vouchers to hand out, they can easily overbook some flights by 10 seats and have enough vouchers for VDB's.

Or am I reading it wrong? When I read "$$$ worth of vouchers," I take that to mean an agent can offer multiple vouchers to multiple peopl that total no more than that $ ceiling. Does this actually say that an agent can offer a single person up to a $2,000 voucher if no one takes anything lower?

I believe the $2,000 and $9,950 is for a single person
9,950 for multiple people is not actually that much

SamYeager2016 wrote:

I note the OP's post just mentions vouchers. What about cash?

It's a nice dig at United although I find it interesting that previously Delta had the same limit ($800) in vouchers for gate agents as it appears United did. More seriously I suspect that Delta is also having a close look at their T&Cs to make sure they cover everything they should. I would imagine they'll wait until United announces their changes before announcing their changes/updates.

They may have some internal policy on this but nothing stated.
I think they just wanted to beat UA with this release

I imagine after UA makes their policy change announcement more changes could be on the way for Delta, including cash

From an old gate agent, if people would show up when they have booked then you would not have to oversell. In my 18 years of experience in that job there were a lot more overbooked flights that went out with empty seats then actually went oversold. About a 10 to 2 ratio.

bigbird wrote:

From an old gate agent, if people would show up when they have booked then you would not have to oversell. In my 18 years of experience in that job there were a lot more overbooked flights that went out with empty seats then actually went oversold. About a 10 to 2 ratio.

The assumption here is that an empty seat is an unpaid seat, and hence a loss maker. I have a feeling that this may not be true, because most of these tickets must be non-refundable tickets anyway. So, the entire fare or at least a good chunk of that ticket money stays with the carrier even if the passenger doesn't show up. What carrier try to do by overbooking is to 'maximizing' the revenue. They already have money the customer paid originally to cover the cost. If anything, a lighter plane may be cheaper to fly.

Carrier can play around with the ratio of refundable vs non refundable tickets they sell on problem routes. THat should cover the risk of flying empty seats. I bet overbooking is such a low handing fruit to maximize revenue that it is very hard to accept flying empty seats.

If the ratio is 10/2 why would you change and accept empty seats? Odds are in your favor to overbook.

At a certain point, economics kicks in and the system will adjust. If the consequences of overbooking become more expensive, then the airlines will scale back their overbooking to make the need to pay this compensation less frequent. It's not unlike how the tarmac delay rules in the U.S. led carriers to cancel flights much more quickly in weather events.

drgmobile wrote:

At a certain point, economics kicks in and the system will adjust. If the consequences of overbooking become more expensive, then the airlines will scale back their overbooking to make the need to pay this compensation less frequent.

It depends what the vouchers really cost the airline. Personally if I were offered $10k in vouchers or $1k in cash I'm taking the cash every time.

Overbooking, while frustrating when it doesn't work as intended, actually provides much better customer service when it does work as intended. It allows the airline to transport the most amount of people as possible.

A good example is a DEN-ORD flight I was watching the loads on last weekend. It was oversold by 5 people about 2 hour before departure. It went out with 6 open seats. There were that many misconnects. If they had denied booking those extra 5 people, the flight would have left with 11 open seats and those 5 people who were not offered transportation would have had to fly the next day, or choose a different carrier.

The positive aspects of overbooking don't stop at the airline's financial department, it allows them to book last minute passengers and offer transportation to people who otherwise would not be able to travel that day.

Of course, most of the time, especially at hubs, overbooking allows as many people as possible to get on the airplane, and it very rarely comes down to involuntary denied boarding. Most of the time overbooking works 100% as intended. Someone gets a flat tire, sets their alarm too late, misses the train, gets a speeding ticket on the way to the airport, etc. Many overbooked flights don't even get into the voluntary denied boarding stages, as there's enough of a human element where people just don't show up for flights for whatever reason.

What are the stipulations, if any, of the vouchers? Domestic only? Certain times of the year? I must say that if you are going to offer someone $10k in vouchers, depending on the individuals lifestyle, that's a lot of flying.

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers.

Lots of people are less rigid than you when it comes to changing plans. (Pay for four tickets to Orlando by traveling a day later? Sure!) DL already has very low rates of IDB. They'll just need a few more volunteers to make the rate of IDB effectively zero.

Overbooking of flights is the best thing that ever happened to me. I think for 99% of all overbooking situations, customers that volunteer to get bumped are happy. The airline is happy. and it is a huge win-win for the airlines and the flying public as airlines are able to fill up every seat and share the profits with investors and customers with lower fares.

I have travelled the world on tens of thousands of dollars of VDB compensation. I have earned hundreds of thousands of additional miles while spending that compensation. Sure, I have been very flexible over the years... but I was always delighted when a flight was oversold! I know most everyone who was bumped along with me was always happy. I have been more than properly compensated for my flexibility.

A mistake was made by United... but the airline industry should not change a very financially rewarding policy (for almost everyone involved) over a very few instances where they were boneheaded. To indict the overbooking process in general because of a very small number of problems is a huge miscalculation. Airlines have ejected passengers for a variety of reasons.... and many of them can be considered boneheaded.... and they had nothing to do with Overbooking.

Let's focus on the boneheaded situations and how they were handled in general and not the overbooking policy to seek reform.

Better for most travelers would most simply arrange booking on the next flight available on any airline along with modest compensation. Maybe even an upgrade on seat and access to a lounge if more than a couple hours delay. Most of us simply want to get where we were going with a minimum of hassle. My last trip with WN, two legs each way, had a plane replacement and some other delays. The desk summoned flyers whose trips were rescheduled, passengers did not have to do any of the re-arranging. Net delay for us was about 15 minutes.

Quick reminisce from 1989, was travelling CO from DEN-LGW in J. Overbooked they offered me a flight to NYC and then First Class to LHR with BA, which I grabbed with both hands.Seems back then there was for flexability amoung airlines.

The voucher is good for one year from the date of issue. As in Delta's case, are non-transferable, can be used for any flights or vacation packages available from Delta. They're good on any flightsubject and class of service available thru Delta. That means, any Delta flight number, whether on Delta metal or codeshare.
This is for voluntaryou denied boarding. You will still get cash for involuntary denied boarding to the sum of 400% of your one-way fare, up to $1,350.

Most of the people who don't show up for a flight are on refundable tickets.
On Delta, roughly 70% of the travel vouchers will go unused, so they're not really losing money at all.
Delta is expecting more people to act like the United guy in the future, so they're trying to make sure they won't get into an IDB situation.

Shoot, I would take $400 in vouchers and I'd be fine, A few instances they've offered a lot of money and still nobody takes it.

WingsFan wrote:

The assumption here is that an empty seat is an unpaid seat, and hence a loss maker. I have a feeling that this may not be true, because most of these tickets must be non-refundable tickets anyway.

The vast majority of no-shows are refundable/changeable tickets, that's part of why those tickets cost more.

Sancho99504 wrote:

The voucher is good for one year from the date of issue.

This is a key element of why offering a voucher for "$9,950" probably doesn't end up costing the airline much more than a voucher for, say, $1,500. Very few passengers are likely to spend anywhere near that sum annually on DL (after all, the spend threshold for Platinum Medallion is $9,000) and if a passenger were to choose to spend the voucher on a couple of long-haul business seats, it's likely that those seats would have otherwise gone unsold.

flymco753 wrote:

A few instances they've offered a lot of money and still nobody takes it.

The attractiveness of "store credit" with a fairly close-in expiration date (one year) can be poor for infrequent travelers. Also, sometimes the substitute flight offered is incredibly inconvenient; i.e. the substitute for the overbooked ORD-SDF flight was nearly 24 hours later and wasting an extra day in Chicago isn't necessarily feasible for everyone.

I bet United would have liked to offer $10K to each of four passengers to volunteer themselves off of Flight 3411 last Sunday. It would have cost them a whole lot less than the bad PR they ended up receiving.

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers. That's the beauty of the EU law that makes airlines pay in cash. I can take that cash and walk over to another airline's counter and buy myself another plane ticket, on the same day.

This is why it's called "volunteering". If you don't want $9000, then don't volunteer! I'm sure someone else will.

Your supposed "stupidity of overbooking" makes airlines billions in revenue. Without it, fares would be significantly higher.

The EU law just means that carriers give out less compensation (cash costs more). I guess that's a win if you fly different airlines all the time. Me, I'd rather have the higher $ amount in a voucher.

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers. That's the beauty of the EU law that makes airlines pay in cash. I can take that cash and walk over to another airline's counter and buy myself another plane ticket, on the same day.

Nobody's trip is going to get ruined by overbooking. You will happily take your preferred amount as full compensation, OR, you will go to your destination.

Surely the key here is "vouchers" the compensation should be money i.e. cash or a virtual credit card credit. This would compensate the customers correctly and give the airlines an incentive, not to over book. To balance this, no-shows should be non-refundable or have substantial penalties.

ScottB wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

The voucher is good for one year from the date of issue.

This is a key element of why offering a voucher for "$9,950" probably doesn't end up costing the airline much more than a voucher for, say, $1,500. Very few passengers are likely to spend anywhere near that sum annually on DL (after all, the spend threshold for Platinum Medallion is $9,000) and if a passenger were to choose to spend the voucher on a couple of long-haul business seats, it's likely that those seats would have otherwise gone unsold.

flymco753 wrote:

A few instances they've offered a lot of money and still nobody takes it.

The attractiveness of "store credit" with a fairly close-in expiration date (one year) can be poor for infrequent travelers. Also, sometimes the substitute flight offered is incredibly inconvenient; i.e. the substitute for the overbooked ORD-SDF flight was nearly 24 hours later and wasting an extra day in Chicago isn't necessarily feasible for everyone.

Another benefit to the issue of vouchers is that it may get some infrequent flyers to spend more on your airline than they otherwise would.

For example, let's say an infrequent traveler takes a voucher for say $400 on airline X. Being an infrequent traveler, there is a decent chance that passenger may not have flown again with airline X in the next twelve months. But now that they have their voucher, they feel the need to "use it or lose it."

So they go to book a vacation flight somewhere, and they look at flight costs. Now psychologically, the person will feel inclined to want to book a flight that costs at least $400, because any flight cost less than that is leaving money on the table. And since it is very unlikely that the total cost is exactly $400 for the flight, they book a flight that costs more than $400.

So to conclude the example, they book a vacation flight that costs say $512. The passenger feels like they got a great deal, because they only paid $112 out of pocket for their second flight, AND airline X gets $112 in extra spending that the passenger would not have otherwise spent with them.

At some airports Delta also offers gift cards in those values such as AMEX and Amazon.

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers. That's the beauty of the EU law that makes airlines pay in cash. I can take that cash and walk over to another airline's counter and buy myself another plane ticket, on the same day.

Specifically regarding the ruined trip angle: you can not reasonably plan a trip with the expectation that a flight change will ruin it, because you're placing yourself not only at the mercy of overbooking policies, but also weather, mechanical issues, and other scenarios.

That said, I agree cash would be a far more compelling option. Cash has a higher effective cost to the airline, though, so I would not expect cash offers to have the same face value, and I think it would be fair for airlines to offer a lower face value in cash compared vouchers.

So for example, United currently offers 2x the fare in vouchers for involuntary bumping, or 4x the fare if the resulting delay is more than 2 hours. I'd probably be equally content if not more so with 1.25x and 2.5x in cash as an alternative to 2x and 4x in vouchers.

Flighty wrote:

airbazar wrote:

It doesn't change the whole stupidity of overbooking and ruin someone's trip. $9,000 in vouchers doesn't allow me to go buy another plane ticket on a different airline for the same day and it still ruins my trip the same way. I'm now held hostage by the the airline that gave me the vouchers. That's the beauty of the EU law that makes airlines pay in cash. I can take that cash and walk over to another airline's counter and buy myself another plane ticket, on the same day.

Nobody's trip is going to get ruined by overbooking. You will happily take your preferred amount as full compensation, OR, you will go to your destination.

Tell that to the guy who got his face bashed in, and dragged off the plane against his will.

Delta comes swooping in and announces changes to their own program just like that. Where is UA, why is it taking so long? This isn't rocket science.

jumbojet wrote:

Delta comes swooping in and announces changes to their own program just like that. Where is UA, why is it taking so long? This isn't rocket science.

United have already announced that they are conducting an internal review which will report back on April 30. And unlike Delta, who's approach is just to throw money at the problem, United is doing a top-to-bottom review of overbooking, IDB, volunteering, compensation etc. United are actually trying to understand the issues and make informed changes, whereas Delta don't actually care about their customers and just want a good headline rather than actually fix anything.

airbazar wrote:

Tell that to the guy who got his face bashed in, and dragged off the plane against his will.

That wasn't due to overbooking.

But the idea is that these new policies you will see being implemented will help make any VDB successful and reduce the chance of an IDB situation. Had they upped their offer United would not be in this situation.

Tugg

WingsFan wrote:

bigbird wrote:

From an old gate agent, if people would show up when they have booked then you would not have to oversell. In my 18 years of experience in that job there were a lot more overbooked flights that went out with empty seats then actually went oversold. About a 10 to 2 ratio.

The assumption here is that an empty seat is an unpaid seat, and hence a loss maker. I have a feeling that this may not be true, because most of these tickets must be non-refundable tickets anyway. So, the entire fare or at least a good chunk of that ticket money stays with the carrier even if the passenger doesn't show up. What carrier try to do by overbooking is to 'maximizing' the revenue. They already have money the customer paid originally to cover the cost. If anything, a lighter plane may be cheaper to fly.

Carrier can play around with the ratio of refundable vs non refundable tickets they sell on problem routes. THat should cover the risk of flying empty seats. I bet overbooking is such a low handing fruit to maximize revenue that it is very hard to accept flying empty seats.

My initial feeling against overbooking is that is a wrongful practice. However, I understand why airlines, and hotels do it.

Let us imagine for a second that I buy a ticket 4 months in advance, ORD-SFO for $200. Simple supply and demand dictates that the remaining seats on the aircraft are now more valuable as I took a seat out of inventory. As time ticks closer to day of departure, the flight begins to fill up at higher fare prices. All the while, I am holding onto my $200 ticket. Ultimately I choose to not show up for my flight. Yes the airline got $200 from me but could have, in all likelihood gotten a higher fare from someone else. Hence, the airlines calculate the probability that some customers will ultimately not show, and re-list those seats as bookable at a higher fare.

What needs to change is how airlines handle overbooks when they ultimately gamble and loose. It is not the customers fault that an airline chooses to overbook and should be rewarded for it. However, I don't think the practice of overbooking needs to go away completely.

77H

LOL you guys actually think Delta is going to give you $9950 to give up your seat just more grandstanding by this ego driven airline that always has to one up people but never delivers. I want to hear from the first person that get $9950 for giving up their seat who isn't flying first or business class.

77H wrote:

WingsFan wrote:

bigbird wrote:

From an old gate agent, if people would show up when they have booked then you would not have to oversell. In my 18 years of experience in that job there were a lot more overbooked flights that went out with empty seats then actually went oversold. About a 10 to 2 ratio.

The assumption here is that an empty seat is an unpaid seat, and hence a loss maker. I have a feeling that this may not be true, because most of these tickets must be non-refundable tickets anyway. So, the entire fare or at least a good chunk of that ticket money stays with the carrier even if the passenger doesn't show up. What carrier try to do by overbooking is to 'maximizing' the revenue. They already have money the customer paid originally to cover the cost. If anything, a lighter plane may be cheaper to fly.

Carrier can play around with the ratio of refundable vs non refundable tickets they sell on problem routes. THat should cover the risk of flying empty seats. I bet overbooking is such a low handing fruit to maximize revenue that it is very hard to accept flying empty seats.

My initial feeling against overbooking is that is a wrongful practice. However, I understand why airlines, and hotels do it.

Let us imagine for a second that I buy a ticket 4 months in advance, ORD-SFO for $200. Simple supply and demand dictates that the remaining seats on the aircraft are now more valuable as I took a seat out of inventory. As time ticks closer to day of departure, the flight begins to fill up at higher fare prices. All the while, I am holding onto my $200 ticket. Ultimately I choose to not show up for my flight. Yes the airline got $200 from me but could have, in all likelihood gotten a higher fare from someone else. Hence, the airlines calculate the probability that some customers will ultimately not show, and re-list those seats as bookable at a higher fare.

What needs to change is how airlines handle overbooks when they ultimately gamble and loose. It is not the customers fault that an airline chooses to overbook and should be rewarded for it. However, I don't think the practice of overbooking needs to go away completely.

77H

I disagree with your analogy actually you are helping the airline because with the purchase of the $200 you are driving up the cost of all tickets purchased after you bought yours that meaning even though you didn't up all tickets purchased would be at a lower fare any way if you had not bought yours so weather you show up or not doesn't make you space any more valuable plus they don't have to carry you at such a low fare so actually you are doing the airline a favor by not showing up because you space if not occupied will be occupied by a higher fare passenger that will not then be in an over booked situation..

Unless there is a cash-in value and option for vouchers, the US3 will continue to target uninformed foreigners, as their voucher redemption rates must be very low, and such travellers have less time/inclination to complain.

I bet there are some JV, code share and alliance partners who have been dragged into this through association, also applying pressure on the US3 to improve.

klm617 wrote:

77H wrote:

WingsFan wrote:

The assumption here is that an empty seat is an unpaid seat, and hence a loss maker. I have a feeling that this may not be true, because most of these tickets must be non-refundable tickets anyway. So, the entire fare or at least a good chunk of that ticket money stays with the carrier even if the passenger doesn't show up. What carrier try to do by overbooking is to 'maximizing' the revenue. They already have money the customer paid originally to cover the cost. If anything, a lighter plane may be cheaper to fly.

Carrier can play around with the ratio of refundable vs non refundable tickets they sell on problem routes. THat should cover the risk of flying empty seats. I bet overbooking is such a low handing fruit to maximize revenue that it is very hard to accept flying empty seats.

My initial feeling against overbooking is that is a wrongful practice. However, I understand why airlines, and hotels do it.

Let us imagine for a second that I buy a ticket 4 months in advance, ORD-SFO for $200. Simple supply and demand dictates that the remaining seats on the aircraft are now more valuable as I took a seat out of inventory. As time ticks closer to day of departure, the flight begins to fill up at higher fare prices. All the while, I am holding onto my $200 ticket. Ultimately I choose to not show up for my flight. Yes the airline got $200 from me but could have, in all likelihood gotten a higher fare from someone else. Hence, the airlines calculate the probability that some customers will ultimately not show, and re-list those seats as bookable at a higher fare.

What needs to change is how airlines handle overbooks when they ultimately gamble and loose. It is not the customers fault that an airline chooses to overbook and should be rewarded for it. However, I don't think the practice of overbooking needs to go away completely.

77H

I disagree with your analogy actually you are helping the airline because with the purchase of the $200 you are driving up the cost of all tickets purchased after you bought yours that meaning even though you didn't up all tickets purchased would be at a lower fare any way if you had not bought yours so weather you show up or not doesn't make you space any more valuable plus they don't have to carry you at such a low fare so actually you are doing the airline a favor by not showing up because you space if not occupied will be occupied by a higher fare passenger that will not then be in an over booked situation..

I explained in my original post that I would be driving up prices. What I am getting at is if I do not show up, and the airline does not overbook, my seat goes empty at $200. If the airlines overbook, they have a chance to sell my seat at a higher fare later. Me buying a seat and not showing up does not help the airline alone other than my raising prices through supply and demand.

Maybe the airlines should operate like this. They'll agree to stop overselling but in return, they can charge the customer a no-show fee. There are plenty of industries that do this. I've missed a few doctors appointments and received a $50 bill in the mail.

77H

klm617 wrote:

LOL you guys actually think Delta is going to give you $9950 to give up your seat just more grandstanding by this ego driven airline that always has to one up people but never delivers. I want to hear from the first person that get $9950 for giving up their seat who isn't flying first or business class.

We are sorry that the aviation world doesnt funnel their entire business through Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and that every carrier doesn't offer non-stop service to every city with at least a 4,500 foot runway and 1 PDEW. Really, really sorry but stop trying to prop up Detroit's ego.

iamlucky13 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

So for example, United currently offers 2x the fare in vouchers for involuntary bumping, or 4x the fare if the resulting delay is more than 2 hours. I'd probably be equally content if not more so with 1.25x and 2.5x in cash as an alternative to 2x and 4x in vouchers.

Involuntary Denied Boarding is cash at those rates, not vouchers. As an incentive, the company does allow agents the empowerment to offer a voucher in lieu of the cash at $200 higher than what the cash amount would be...not like that's much.

And it was announced internally today that the company and it's flying partners will no longer oversell a flight within 60 minutes of departure for means of deadheading crew members. But that's typically not where the problem occurs...it's that the crew members do not check-in until they get to the gate, which can be during boarding. I guess it's a start.

jumbojet wrote:

Delta comes swooping in and announces changes to their own program just like that. Where is UA, why is it taking so long? This isn't rocket science.

Because UA is reviewing their entire program and can't afford to make any rush decisions. But you know that - it's not rocket science.

77H wrote:

klm617 wrote:

77H wrote:

My initial feeling against overbooking is that is a wrongful practice. However, I understand why airlines, and hotels do it.

Let us imagine for a second that I buy a ticket 4 months in advance, ORD-SFO for $200. Simple supply and demand dictates that the remaining seats on the aircraft are now more valuable as I took a seat out of inventory. As time ticks closer to day of departure, the flight begins to fill up at higher fare prices. All the while, I am holding onto my $200 ticket. Ultimately I choose to not show up for my flight. Yes the airline got $200 from me but could have, in all likelihood gotten a higher fare from someone else. Hence, the airlines calculate the probability that some customers will ultimately not show, and re-list those seats as bookable at a higher fare.

What needs to change is how airlines handle overbooks when they ultimately gamble and loose. It is not the customers fault that an airline chooses to overbook and should be rewarded for it. However, I don't think the practice of overbooking needs to go away completely.

77H

I disagree with your analogy actually you are helping the airline because with the purchase of the $200 you are driving up the cost of all tickets purchased after you bought yours that meaning even though you didn't up all tickets purchased would be at a lower fare any way if you had not bought yours so weather you show up or not doesn't make you space any more valuable plus they don't have to carry you at such a low fare so actually you are doing the airline a favor by not showing up because you space if not occupied will be occupied by a higher fare passenger that will not then be in an over booked situation..

I explained in my original post that I would be driving up prices. What I am getting at is if I do not show up, and the airline does not overbook, my seat goes empty at $200. If the airlines overbook, they have a chance to sell my seat at a higher fare later. Me buying a seat and not showing up does not help the airline alone other than my raising prices through supply and demand.

Maybe the airlines should operate like this. They'll agree to stop overselling but in return, they can charge the customer a no-show fee. There are plenty of industries that do this. I've missed a few doctors appointments and received a $50 bill in the mail.

77H

I like that Idea sounds reasonable to me. At least it will stop the constant inconvenience to passengers with capacity at an all time low. But I suspect the real reason they do it is to sell as many seats as they can twice.

klm617 wrote:

77H wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I disagree with your analogy actually you are helping the airline because with the purchase of the $200 you are driving up the cost of all tickets purchased after you bought yours that meaning even though you didn't up all tickets purchased would be at a lower fare any way if you had not bought yours so weather you show up or not doesn't make you space any more valuable plus they don't have to carry you at such a low fare so actually you are doing the airline a favor by not showing up because you space if not occupied will be occupied by a higher fare passenger that will not then be in an over booked situation..

I explained in my original post that I would be driving up prices. What I am getting at is if I do not show up, and the airline does not overbook, my seat goes empty at $200. If the airlines overbook, they have a chance to sell my seat at a higher fare later. Me buying a seat and not showing up does not help the airline alone other than my raising prices through supply and demand.

Maybe the airlines should operate like this. They'll agree to stop overselling but in return, they can charge the customer a no-show fee. There are plenty of industries that do this. I've missed a few doctors appointments and received a $50 bill in the mail.

77H

I like that Idea sounds reasonable to me. At least it will stop the constant inconvenience to passengers with capacity at an all time low. But I suspect the real reason they do it is to sell as many seats as they can twice.

Where I used to work, we did not intentionally overbook, but a bad reservation system that we used for a few years allowed seats to be booked twice under certain circumstances, which was horrible at times. In those cases, it was the equivalent of and IDB and that usually meant a full refund and a future trip comp.

Our policy on no-shows was a 50% reschedule fee, regardless of ticket price paid. We waived it on a case by case basis but generally it stood. When people no-showed they were not happy about the fee! It was fully disclosed at the time of booking as being a nonrefundable trip at a certain point before their day of travel. Oh wellz.

For those seats that had no-shows, we sometimes had people "standing by" in hopes of a no-show on an otherwise sold out trip. On those occasions, we sold the seats twice. Frankly, if you no show, it's none of your business at that point if we resell the seats - because you no-showed. Our goal was never to overbook, but when it did happen, or when we had no-shows with standby's, that was how it went.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Where I used to work, we did not intentionally overbook, but a bad reservation system that we used for a few years allowed seats to be booked twice under certain circumstances, which was horrible at times. In those cases, it was the equivalent of and IDB and that usually meant a full refund and a future trip comp.

This is still a major problem in the industry. Even if airlines choose not to overbook, the nature of travel agency (and interline) bookings and the weakness around current messaging standards make proper inventory management really difficult. Plus, agencies have the ability to issue tickets which is a problem because in a perfect world, the airline would always be the one issuing the ticket which would ensure that inventory is always managed by the airline.

Plus there are plenty of bad reservation systems floating around which cause the problems that you describe. Airline technology has to improve to fix problems like accidental overbooking.

klakzky123 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Where I used to work, we did not intentionally overbook, but a bad reservation system that we used for a few years allowed seats to be booked twice under certain circumstances, which was horrible at times. In those cases, it was the equivalent of and IDB and that usually meant a full refund and a future trip comp.

This is still a major problem in the industry. Even if airlines choose not to overbook, the nature of travel agency (and interline) bookings and the weakness around current messaging standards make proper inventory management really difficult. Plus, agencies have the ability to issue tickets which is a problem because in a perfect world, the airline would always be the one issuing the ticket which would ensure that inventory is always managed by the airline.

Plus there are plenty of bad reservation systems floating around which cause the problems that you describe. Airline technology has to improve to fix problems like accidental overbooking.

Well, not only did we do a full refund and a new trip comp, we also quickly learned to hold seats on trips that tended to sell out as a hedge against an over-booking. Unfortunately, what would happen is that on the trips we didn't sell out, we would rarely have someone show up unexpected, but on trips where we held, say, 4 seats, 8 people would show up unexpected. lol But at least we tried.

My personal experience with 30+ years of flying primarily with DL and AA - I was never bumped involuntarily. Both airlines were able to entice passengers to take another flight when appropriate. I fly UA several times a year, but frankly, I'll avoid them in the next year or so.

ptcflyer wrote:

Overbooking of flights is the best thing that ever happened to me. I think for 99% of all overbooking situations, customers that volunteer to get bumped are happy. The airline is happy. and it is a huge win-win for the airlines and the flying public as airlines are able to fill up every seat and share the profits with investors and customers with lower fares.

I have travelled the world on tens of thousands of dollars of VDB compensation. I have earned hundreds of thousands of additional miles while spending that compensation. Sure, I have been very flexible over the years... but I was always delighted when a flight was oversold! I know most everyone who was bumped along with me was always happy. I have been more than properly compensated for my flexibility.

A mistake was made by United... but the airline industry should not change a very financially rewarding policy (for almost everyone involved) over a very few instances where they were boneheaded. To indict the overbooking process in general because of a very small number of problems is a huge miscalculation. Airlines have ejected passengers for a variety of reasons.... and many of them can be considered boneheaded.... and they had nothing to do with Overbooking.

Let's focus on the boneheaded situations and how they were handled in general and not the overbooking policy to seek reform.

Amen! I have to travel every other weekend on my own nickel for graduate study and thanks to VDB vouchers I have paid very little out of pocket. If I see that a flight I'm on appears overbooked, I'll even get to the airport early to make sure I'm first on the volunteer list. At the out-station I travel to most frequently, all of the gate agents know that I'm always eager to volunteer. While I know I may not be representative of most travelers in this case, on any given flight there are usually a few folks whose plans are flexible at the right "price point." I've seen far more potential volunteers who were disappointed that they weren't needed than IDBs.

klm617 wrote:

77H wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I disagree with your analogy actually you are helping the airline because with the purchase of the $200 you are driving up the cost of all tickets purchased after you bought yours that meaning even though you didn't up all tickets purchased would be at a lower fare any way if you had not bought yours so weather you show up or not doesn't make you space any more valuable plus they don't have to carry you at such a low fare so actually you are doing the airline a favor by not showing up because you space if not occupied will be occupied by a higher fare passenger that will not then be in an over booked situation..

I explained in my original post that I would be driving up prices. What I am getting at is if I do not show up, and the airline does not overbook, my seat goes empty at $200. If the airlines overbook, they have a chance to sell my seat at a higher fare later. Me buying a seat and not showing up does not help the airline alone other than my raising prices through supply and demand.

Maybe the airlines should operate like this. They'll agree to stop overselling but in return, they can charge the customer a no-show fee. There are plenty of industries that do this. I've missed a few doctors appointments and received a $50 bill in the mail.

77H

I like that Idea sounds reasonable to me. At least it will stop the constant inconvenience to passengers with capacity at an all time low. But I suspect the real reason they do it is to sell as many seats as they can twice.

That's couldn't be further from the truth. Revenue management has software that takes historical data from different routes and tells them that x amount of pax no-showed on average over the past x years on this date, so you can overbook by x because x aren't going to show. They've been doing it for a very long time, with a lot of success by the way. In 15 years in the industry on the above wing side, I've experienced an oversell situation on about 1 in 15 flights I've worked on average. Even less as a fare paying passenger.

Sancho99504 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

77H wrote:

I explained in my original post that I would be driving up prices. What I am getting at is if I do not show up, and the airline does not overbook, my seat goes empty at $200. If the airlines overbook, they have a chance to sell my seat at a higher fare later. Me buying a seat and not showing up does not help the airline alone other than my raising prices through supply and demand.

Maybe the airlines should operate like this. They'll agree to stop overselling but in return, they can charge the customer a no-show fee. There are plenty of industries that do this. I've missed a few doctors appointments and received a $50 bill in the mail.

77H

I like that Idea sounds reasonable to me. At least it will stop the constant inconvenience to passengers with capacity at an all time low. But I suspect the real reason they do it is to sell as many seats as they can twice.

That's couldn't be further from the truth. Revenue management has software that takes historical data from different routes and tells them that x amount of pax no-showed on average over the past x years on this date, so you can overbook by x because x aren't going to show. They've been doing it for a very long time, with a lot of success by the way. In 15 years in the industry on the above wing side, I've experienced an oversell situation on about 1 in 15 flights I've worked on average. Even less as a fare paying passenger.

Who are you disagreeing with here? I haven't said anything in my post that runs counter to what you are saying as I am well aware of the formulas used by RM. When I fly non-rev, I pay very close attention to the oversell figures. The higher the oversell figure, the better the chances I make it to where I'm going.

77H