Noshow wrote:

Why not stop overbooking totally and create a standby system to market any left over empty seats at short notice for cheap instead? Take away the risk from the paying passenger.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Polot wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Airlines want to double dip - they want to have full seats AND charge for changes to reservations or not showing up for/ missing your flight.

Airlines are hardly the only ones to do this. Try cancelling most appointments (where money will be exchanged) <24 hours, or not showing up and trying to reschedule, and see what happens. For all industries.

There is a reason that everyone does that- they are encouraging you to actually show up when you say you will instead of just having a free for all where you have no clue how busy or quiet it will be.

Yeah, but you're missing the point. Airlines overbook flights so when one doesn't show up another fare paying passenger is in that seat. The analogy you're giving is when one doesn't show up the business is screwed. Name another industry that overbooks appointments like the airline industry does with seats AND charges change fees like the airlines do? I can't think of one, which is why you'll get small fees from a salon, doctor's office, etc. because there's nobody waiting to take your place.

deltacto wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Why are they hard to redeem? It's like a gift card.

Rules like
1)expiration dates
2)you can not use more than one voucher towards a ticket (if they give you 2 $200 vouchers, you must buy 2 separate tickets to use both of them)
3)you cant give the voucher to someone else

manny wrote:

Overbooking is another one of those laws that benefit the industry at the expense of the consumer. Yet airlines screw customers by giving them travel vouchers which are usually hard to redeem instead of actual cash/cheque.

Its time there was something done to dial back this and customers compensated more fairly.

slvrblt wrote:

deltacto wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Why are they hard to redeem? It's like a gift card.

Rules like
1)expiration dates
2)you can not use more than one voucher towards a ticket (if they give you 2 $200 vouchers, you must buy 2 separate tickets to use both of them)
3)you cant give the voucher to someone else

Don't know where some of you get your info; many misconceptions in this thread. But to this post:

1) True. They expire.
2) Wrong. you can use multiple vouchers on a ticket. At least, where I work, you can.
3) Wrong again. No, a random person can't just use a voucher with your name on it but yes, YOU can use the voucher for a a ticket for someone other than yourself.

DFWEagle wrote:

Overbooking in itself is not the problem and there are advantages to it.

Polot wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

deltacto wrote:

Rules like
1)expiration dates
2)you can not use more than one voucher towards a ticket (if they give you 2 $200 vouchers, you must buy 2 separate tickets to use both of them)
3)you cant give the voucher to someone else

Don't know where some of you get your info; many misconceptions in this thread. But to this post:

1) True. They expire.
2) Wrong. you can use multiple vouchers on a ticket. At least, where I work, you can.
3) Wrong again. No, a random person can't just use a voucher with your name on it but yes, YOU can use the voucher for a a ticket for someone other than yourself.

Honestly the biggest problem is some airlines make them a pain in the ass to redeem. I've gotten vouchers from AA that require me to call the airline to redeem, you can't do it online via their website. Which is stupid and entirely done to make the process more inconvenient in hopes that you won't actually use the voucher.

OSUk1d wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

The part I was replying to is not actually quoted, however he was not saying IDB should get 10x, he was saying anyone who volunteers a seat in an oversold situation should start at 10x their ticket cost and a confirmed seat. That is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than making a purchase, handing over your dollars, only to be told on arrival (assuming not late), that what you purchased, doesn't really exist.

You keep the offer simple. If overbooked by four, you choose the last four to check in. They get the 10x offer. If not accepted, you ask the next four, until you have four volunteers. Simple and predictable. I suppose there will be those in the know, that try to be the last to check in, but you soon ID them, and scale the overbooking on flights which they book.

You can dress it up anyway you like, but overselling in the airline industry has become 'acceptable' practice. In most other industries, selling something you don't have, would constitute fraud. The practice is needed for many of the reasons described. But, there must be published, enforceable, industry-wide cash payment rules, and disclosure of the number of passengers overbooked by each airline and route.

If over booking exceeds an agreed industry percentage on a route by route basis, there should be further federal financial penalties.

Hopefully airline software becomes smarter, and/or they schedule more or bigger aircraft, and/or they add extra flights.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the software has become smarter and IDB is very rare. I don't know how much you think flights are overbooked by but adding extra flights because a flight is overbooked by a handful of people when there are usually other ways to get them there makes no sense.
You also don't seem to get that in a time sensitive industry going through passengers in a certain order until you find someone is not practical. Plus, there are people who chase compensation and now you're encouraging people to try and be the last ones to check in.
And the main problem with your idea is that there are people who will regularly take much less than you are saying airlines should be forced to give. So why should they be forced to give $1000 on a $100 ticket when many people will take $400 and the next flight?

Planesmart wrote:

If aviation is a time sensitive industry, why have IDB's at all? And if so rare, why does the way volunteers are identified make a difference?

Planesmart wrote:

I was just making a few suggestions. To stop people trying to be last to check in to collect compensation (why would they bother if the problem is really so rare?), then take the first to check in, or those that booked last, or paid the lowest fare, or........................... Just publish a policy.

Polot wrote:

Also it is involuntary denied boardings that are rare and not a major issue. Overbooking is not rare but also not usually a major issue, because airlines typically have no problem finding enough volunteers with the current systems. You (and the OP) seem to be treating the two as one and the same. The whole premise of the thread is flawed, because overbooking of flights has not become a major issue at all.

slvrblt wrote:

deltacto wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Why are they hard to redeem? It's like a gift card.

Rules like
1)expiration dates
2)you can not use more than one voucher towards a ticket (if they give you 2 $200 vouchers, you must buy 2 separate tickets to use both of them)
3)you cant give the voucher to someone else

Don't know where some of you get your info; many misconceptions in this thread. But to this post:

1) True. They expire.
2) Wrong. Of course you can use multiple vouchers on a ticket. At least, where I work, you can. And, you'll get a residual amount back, if there is some left.
3) Wrong again. No, a random person can't just use a voucher with your name on it but yes, YOU can use the voucher for a a ticket for someone other than yourself.

Planesmart wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also it is involuntary denied boardings that are rare and not a major issue. Overbooking is not rare but also not usually a major issue, because airlines typically have no problem finding enough volunteers with the current systems. You (and the OP) seem to be treating the two as one and the same. The whole premise of the thread is flawed, because overbooking of flights has not become a major issue at all.

Again, if IDB's are very rare, compensate the affected passengers very generously.

alfa164 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

guyanam wrote:

Bad excuse. Airlines charge hefty change fees and we are forced to pay them, or not travel. Making airlines look like the victim here is a true joke. In order to get a full refund, it either has to be a refundable fare (these aren't cheap) or a major medical emergency.
I maintain that airlines disrespect their passengers and treat their front line staff even worse as it is this group, and not the little bureaucrat hiding in his office, who face passenger wrath and the stress which ensues.

THIS!
I was wondering how long before someone would post this. Airlines want to double dip - they want to have full seats AND charge for changes to reservations or not showing up for/ missing your flight. Airlines are making BILLIONS in revenue. It would not hurt them if 1 or 2 seats went out open. They're still collecting $200+ from those 1 or 2 seats, which sometimes is even more than the ticket itself, so the airlines get to keep all the money the passenger is practically forfeiting. Give me a break and cry me a river!

What would you do about those flights which are overbooked by "phantom" reservations? I have been on many a flight to South America that was overbooked by 20-30 passengers, only to find there were empty seats available at the time the flight took off. Why? It seems travel agents will make bookings and hold them for passengers who can't make up their mind which day the want to travel; they hold seats on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday... multiple days... until the passenger decides when to go.

I suspect this may happen to flights in other parts of the world, too, but it is definitely happening there. I suppose you think the airline should "take the hit" for empty, unsold seats... but, in fact, every passenger will "take the hit", because fares will rise to match the revenue needed for the flight.

Well-calculated overbooking is a necessary evil for both the airline and the flying public. Unfortunately, the few times the situation gets out of hand at the gate gets all the attention.

ITB wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

ITB wrote:

No, it's not a ridiculous post. Already there have been calls for government intervention in the U.S. via rule making changes and potential legislation. This has become a very serious matter. It behooves the airlines to tread carefully and have all their cards in order. While it may seem a minor matter to some, there might be hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill. When Senators and Representatives begin to bark, the airline companies tend to listen, as they wisely should.

No, it really is ridiculous. There are calls for all kinds of things, doesn't make them legitimate issues.

Well, you can say that. But when Doug Parker, Ed Bastian and Oscar Munoz, among others, are summoned to Capitol Hill to face a panel of unhappy Congressmen and women, I can assure you they won't consider it a laughing matter.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Not getting defensive just having a discussion. I have been on many NWA flights Post 9-11 and we had to return to gate after MSP audited the bag and passenger list and noticed it did not match so it was back to the gate to off load a passengers bags that got loaded in error. so I know of at least NWA following the Post 9-11 rules on domestic flights and shoot even pre 9-11 we were in NRT and had to go to remote stand to offload about 10 bags from down below So some airlines follow the LETTER and SPIRIT of the rules others do not sorry. Strange that TSA/FAA admin have both stated that airlines are to bag match on ALL flights Domestic or International or face fines and other remedies. I know you were not attacking me you are okay and yes as long as we continue as we are we are going to have a blast. I dont personally know where you work however based on your handle I would say Mesa ? however I do not want to assume a thing.
And got ya on the times we are on the same page paragraph and sentence now .

Those still aren't the rules. It is not about some airlines not following the rules. There is no rule that passengers who aren't on the flight have their bags pulled on a domestic flight.
But after just reading that "story" about "UScareways," your posts make sense to me. At least as far as where they're coming from and I can take anything you say with a grain of salt.

Not from what I saw :
What about PPBM?
Positive Passenger Bag Match Procedure is in place in all US Airlines & Airports in response to the 9-11 attacks despite of the costs incurred it is the rules handed down by the Department of Homeland Security and is strictly enforced on each flight and is mandatory on International flights out and inbound also. even is adequate screening is done PPBM rules still apply . There is no exceptions to this rule as set forth by the Department of Homeland Security failure to follow said rules enforcement action can and will take place . PER DHS

Noshow wrote:

Why not stop overbooking totally and create a standby system to market any left over empty seats at short notice for cheap instead? Take away the risk from the paying passenger.

OSUk1d wrote:

ITB wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

No, it really is ridiculous. There are calls for all kinds of things, doesn't make them legitimate issues.

Well, you can say that. But when Doug Parker, Ed Bastian and Oscar Munoz, among others, are summoned to Capitol Hill to face a panel of unhappy Congressmen and women, I can assure you they won't consider it a laughing matter.

And it shows you how illegitimate Congress is. As many real issues as there are, if they would waste their time on this, that's on them.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Overbooking worked well before I did it many times but I was always offered a flight in a timely manner within an hour or two of my original flight not having to wait 6 to 10 hours for my next flight option.

Ah, you must have been connecting through ATL. Most routes don't have hourly service, and many only have 1-3 flights a day.

MesaFlyGuy wrote:

1.I get to the gate 1 hour prior to departure, start making announcements looking for potential volunteers, and page up the passengers in jeopardy of being removed and inform them of the situation, assuring them that I am trying my hardest to find out about volunteers.

In the UA/Dr Dao case, there have been allegations of racism in selecting him for deboarding. I'm still not clear - how do you know who needs to be removed?

StarAC17 wrote:

1. I worked for a business that wasn't an airline but operated similarly. We not only charged a 50% reschedule fee for no-shows but we also resold those seats if someone else wanted to go. As far as I'm concerned, if we tell you a no-show is a 50% reschedule, and you no-show, you pay the 50% reschedule. It shouldn't be dependent on whether or not we are able to sell those seats to someone else, which sometimes happened and sometimes didn't. For that matter, sometimes the no-shows were on a sold out trip and sometimes they were on a trip with a 20% load factor. That's irrelevant. You can't run a business where every single situation has to be judged based on multiple changing factors. With an airline, if I buy a non-refundable ticket and there is a change fee, does the change fee change because:

1. The seats went out empty and other seats were empty as well?
2. The seats went empty on an otherwise sold out flight?
3. The seats were resold to somebody else?

Again, as far as I'm concerned, your contract with the airline is simply that - between you and the airline. What they do separate from you is irrelevant to your situation.

Planesmart wrote:

zeke wrote:

I think airlines (insert hotel, car hire etc) would be happy to not overbook as long as passengers didn't want their money or booking moved to another flight if they don't show for their original flight.

In reality passengers want refunds or to be moved different flights and make the unused inventory the airlines cost.

I always enjoy your informed posts Zeke, but on this subject, airline management takes the moral high ground - a heads we win customers, tails you lose.

I often as not seem to have a different point of view with Zeke on things, but his post above is spot on.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I think the problem is that some airlines sell full-refundable tickets. This only encourages no-shows on which the airline doesn't make any money. I think there should always be some kind of penalty on applying for a refund, let's say a maximum 70 percent refund. That way you discourage people to apply for a refund instead of just flying the booked flight.

When I buy a non-refundable ticket, I am trading flexibility and more money for risk and less money. When someone buys a fully-refundable ticket, they are choosing to spend more money than I am willing to knowing that they need the full flexibility for their personal situation. I have no data, but I'm assuming that the folks that do this usually show up and fly their itineraries, but for the airline the higher fare regularly paid by these folks offsets the costs associated with the occasional reschedule they may make.

Fully-refundable ticket holders are not getting away with something anymore than non-refundable ticket holders are. Each is paying for the risks, amenities, and flexibility that they require.

Planesmart wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

No more ridiculous than making a purchase, handing over your dollars, only to be told on arrival (assuming not late), that what you purchased, doesn't really exist.

You keep the offer simple. If overbooked by four, you choose the last four to check in. They get the 10x offer. If not accepted, you ask the next four, until you have four volunteers. Simple and predictable. I suppose there will be those in the know, that try to be the last to check in, but you soon ID them, and scale the overbooking on flights which they book.

You can dress it up anyway you like, but overselling in the airline industry has become 'acceptable' practice. In most other industries, selling something you don't have, would constitute fraud. The practice is needed for many of the reasons described. But, there must be published, enforceable, industry-wide cash payment rules, and disclosure of the number of passengers overbooked by each airline and route.

If over booking exceeds an agreed industry percentage on a route by route basis, there should be further federal financial penalties.

Hopefully airline software becomes smarter, and/or they schedule more or bigger aircraft, and/or they add extra flights.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the software has become smarter and IDB is very rare. I don't know how much you think flights are overbooked by but adding extra flights because a flight is overbooked by a handful of people when there are usually other ways to get them there makes no sense.
You also don't seem to get that in a time sensitive industry going through passengers in a certain order until you find someone is not practical. Plus, there are people who chase compensation and now you're encouraging people to try and be the last ones to check in.
And the main problem with your idea is that there are people who will regularly take much less than you are saying airlines should be forced to give. So why should they be forced to give $1000 on a $100 ticket when many people will take $400 and the next flight?

Either IDB is very rare, and paying more compensation to affected passengers will likewise be very small, or, it is a bigger issue than claimed, so paying more compensation will hurt. If the latter, airlines will make their software even smarter.

If aviation is a time sensitive industry, why have IDB's at all? And if so rare, why does the way volunteers are identified make a difference?

I was just making a few suggestions. To stop people trying to be last to check in to collect compensation (why would they bother if the problem is really so rare?), then take the first to check in, or those that booked last, or paid the lowest fare, or........................... Just publish a policy.

Just because something is common practice, doesn't make it ethically right or not fraudulent.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

ITB wrote:

Well, you can say that. But when Doug Parker, Ed Bastian and Oscar Munoz, among others, are summoned to Capitol Hill to face a panel of unhappy Congressmen and women, I can assure you they won't consider it a laughing matter.

And it shows you how illegitimate Congress is. As many real issues as there are, if they would waste their time on this, that's on them.

I beg to differ Michigans very own John Conyers raised the red flags on the NW/DL Merger plans after Anderson & Steenland bold faced lied to the congressman about what was going to happen. I wished Conyers Blocked the merger Oh how I wished he did ! All be it hes on the opposite side of the aisle of me. here is the video again for your viewing pleasure : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd1Dm3-IF_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lT3mQ87f0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB5YCaNTbwM
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvSzgB5Vh9Q
Gotta love the archives of Youtube and C SPAN

coairman wrote:

Why overbookings most of the time are a non-issue:

1) in a hub, there are sometimes mis-connections.....missed connections due to ATC, weather or mechanical. Sometimes lots of them during irregular operations.

2) Local passengers who checked in online or at the ticket counter are running late.

3) Passengers who are confused at the airport who are at the wrong gate, or distracted with surfing the internet, talking on the phone, smoking, language barriers or drinking too much at the bar.

4) Usually a flight will get volunteers to take alternate flights.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

coairman wrote:

Why overbookings most of the time are a non-issue:

1) in a hub, there are sometimes mis-connections.....missed connections due to ATC, weather or mechanical. Sometimes lots of them during irregular operations.

2) Local passengers who checked in online or at the ticket counter are running late.

3) Passengers who are confused at the airport who are at the wrong gate, or distracted with surfing the internet, talking on the phone, smoking, language barriers or drinking too much at the bar.

4) Usually a flight will get volunteers to take alternate flights.

Honestly, I sometimes wish gate agents would get on the microphone and yell "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NOW LISTEN - THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN!" So many people cannot shut up for two seconds in a crowded gate area so the rest of us can hear what is being said. Honestly, I often have no idea what the gate agent is saying, let alone the pilot.

deltacto wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Why are they hard to redeem? It's like a gift card.

Rules like
1)expiration dates
2)you can not use more than one voucher towards a ticket (if they give you 2 $200 vouchers, you must buy 2 separate tickets to use both of them)
3)you cant give the voucher to someone else

mjoelnir wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

coairman wrote:

Why overbookings most of the time are a non-issue:

1) in a hub, there are sometimes mis-connections.....missed connections due to ATC, weather or mechanical. Sometimes lots of them during irregular operations.

2) Local passengers who checked in online or at the ticket counter are running late.

3) Passengers who are confused at the airport who are at the wrong gate, or distracted with surfing the internet, talking on the phone, smoking, language barriers or drinking too much at the bar.

4) Usually a flight will get volunteers to take alternate flights.

Honestly, I sometimes wish gate agents would get on the microphone and yell "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NOW LISTEN - THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN!" So many people cannot shut up for two seconds in a crowded gate area so the rest of us can hear what is being said. Honestly, I often have no idea what the gate agent is saying, let alone the pilot.

One of my most annoying experience with ground staff I had in LHR. I was 8 hours delayed coming in, having of course missed all connections. The crew on the airplane hd found a connection for me, and vocal and written instructions what I should do. I was let out of the airplane and started to run. Than I encountered the ground staff. She would not take the written down information and when I tried to to tell her what I was told it went, "I do not listen to you, just do as I tell you". I tried to follow her instructions as arguing would just have cost time and of course I missed that flight too. Coming back to that same service desk later, she vanished somewhere in the back and the supervisor explained to me that how should she have known that something had been arranged for me. Me opinion was than and still is, by listening to a customer.

I think some ground staff would be good drill instructors rather being a customer service representatives.

manny wrote:

DFWEagle wrote:

Overbooking in itself is not the problem and there are advantages to it.

There are no advantages for passengers because of overbooking. Unless you consider all the anxiety caused to passengers because of overbooking.

Its another industry centric law that came into because of lobbying.

manny wrote:

DFWEagle wrote:

Overbooking in itself is not the problem and there are advantages to it.

There are no advantages for passengers because of overbooking. Unless you consider all the anxiety caused to passengers because of overbooking.

Its another industry centric law that came into because of lobbying.

mcg wrote:

manny wrote:

DFWEagle wrote:

Overbooking in itself is not the problem and there are advantages to it.

There are no advantages for passengers because of overbooking. Unless you consider all the anxiety caused to passengers because of overbooking.

Its another industry centric law that came into because of lobbying.

Sorry this is incorrect. The primary advantage to passengers from overbooking is more passengers get to fly on the flights they want to fly on. If the flight wasn't overbooked, the passengers who get the last few bookings wouldn't be able to fly. The secondary advantage is that some folks like to volunteer and they are paid (sometimes a lot of money) to do so.

solomanflyer wrote:

IATA has said that, overbooking of flights is normal for airlines and they can continue overbooking of flights it seems.

But when considering about passengers, it is not that fair for them to go, catch there flight and getting disappointed due overbooking..

Respective authorities should focus there concentration on this point..

klm617 wrote:

And that is the exact problem I have every time I transit in Atlanta their training is awful and you can't tell them anything hey just because you work for the company doesn't mean you know everything I remember once having to give the girl working at the check in counter my destination airport code because she didn't know what it was.

flytimbo77 wrote:

Sorry if someone's said this before, but couldn't they get round this by obtaining a disclaimer at the booking stage (if they don't already) - something along the lines of "although every effort will be made to offer the booked seat, it may in some cases be necessary to transfer your booking to an alternative flight. If this becomes necessary, remuneration will be offered to cover costs bla bla bla...."

Perhaps they should also have available a certain number of 'stubborn' seats which are guaranteed and not subject to overbooking, and perhaps for which a surcharge is payable. In other words you pay a bit extra if you're not flexible and absolutely have to be on that flight, but if you tick to say you will accept an alternative flight if necessary, you could save on your flight cost. Once all the 'stubborn' seats are gone, you can still book one of the flexible seats but you're accepting that you may get bumped.

Don't airlines already do the above? I can't see why this wouldn't resolve the majority of problems. It doesn't help UA of course.

avek00 wrote:

solomanflyer wrote:

IATA has said that, overbooking of flights is normal for airlines and they can continue overbooking of flights it seems.

But when considering about passengers, it is not that fair for them to go, catch there flight and getting disappointed due overbooking..

Respective authorities should focus there concentration on this point..

Overbooking of flights is basically a rarer occurrence than it's ever been. While discussion of compensation amounts is appropriate, there's no fire here.

mcg wrote:

manny wrote:

DFWEagle wrote:

Overbooking in itself is not the problem and there are advantages to it.

There are no advantages for passengers because of overbooking. Unless you consider all the anxiety caused to passengers because of overbooking.

Its another industry centric law that came into because of lobbying.

Sorry this is incorrect. The primary advantage to passengers from overbooking is more passengers get to fly on the flights they want to fly on. If the flight wasn't overbooked, the passengers who get the last few bookings wouldn't be able to fly. The secondary advantage is that some folks like to volunteer and they are paid (sometimes a lot of money) to do so.

lightsaber wrote:

I do not have enough status on the US3 to risk preferential booking on them. I agree with kavok, increase compensation and watch the problem go away. DL seems to have the issue solved.

Lightsaber