Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[get me outta here]

Perhaps there should be a time limit prior to scheduled flight dep time that it can be cancelled for a full refund. Say 2 hours to allow for another pax to buy the seat - between 1-2 hours it's a 50% refund? That should knock out 98% of no shows.

absolutely - why should you be able to do that! No show then you lose the money......

 

[Quickstatus]

Perhaps there should be a time limit prior to scheduled flight dep time that it can be cancelled for a full refund. Say 2 hours to allow for another pax to buy the seat - between 1-2 hours it's a 50% refund? That should knock out 98% of no shows.

When checkin opens all refundable tickets become nonrefundable

 

[get me outta here]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I agree, it is interesting as apart from airline staff discussed recently and some that I have come across, I tend to be impressed that most Americans I come across have good basic manners. And, manners are about being considerate.

Whatever the jurisdiction, universal concepts such as respect and dignity are not difficult ideals to grasp. Start from there and many issues will sort themselves out. Rebalance the relationship between airline and airline passenger. Civilised behaviour does not need a lot of regulation.

 

[get me outta here]

Doesn't check in open 24 - 48 hours in advance?

When checkin opens all refundable tickets become nonrefundable

 

[equus]

absolutely - why should you be able to do that! No show then you lose the money......

You should be able to do that because you have paid for the right to do so - i.e. it is part of the contract.

Pay a high price for the ability to no-show and receive a refund, or choose to pay much lower for a fare which does not provide a refund.

It is the airline's responsibility to manage the consequences of the terms and conditions they offer. In the cases stated, of pax booking 3 or 4 refundable fares, then choosing the one they want, it is up to the airline to manage the pricing.

Let's say I can book a fully refundable (even after no-show) fare for $1,000, or a fare that cannot be refunded for $300. If I have a choice of 4 flights, and I will take one of them, I can either pay $1,200 for 4 non-refundable flights, no-show on 3 and lose those fares, and fly on which ever I want. Or I can fork out $4,000 for 4 refundable, fly on one, then later get $3,000 back. I get to fly on the one I want for $1,000 (at the price of having to have $3,000 with the airline for a while until I get it back - provided the airline doesn't go broke).

If the prices are changed, and the non-refundable is only $200, then it is cheaper to book and throw away.

Either scenario sees the airline with a certain amount of revenue - and 3 empty seats. The refundable fares would be more attractive for the airline, as they will be able to predict that a certain percentage of those will be no-show (after all, why would someone pay that much if they didn't need the flexibility - just buy the cheaper fare). The non-refundable fares are more difficult to reliably infer whether or not they are being used as throw away because it is cheaper.

In any event, I fail to see that removing fully refundable, even after no-show will really address anything.

 

[TheRealTMA]

There was some discussion from the ACCC in recent months to the effect of making non-refundable tickets illegal. Not heard anything has actually happened yet.

 

[burmans]

You should be able to do that because you have paid for the right to do so - i.e. it is part of the contract.

And amen to that, thanks for jumping in here.

 

[juddles]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

...American police being what they are, he's lucky to have come out of this alive to give evidence......

Skyring, are you serious? Or are you trolling? That comment is baseless, offensive, and simply ridiculous.

There have been many bad police in the USA - unsurprising in such a huge country. But they are a tiny minority. And in this case the security officer is not really a "cop", is he?

 

[Flying mermaid]

You should be able to do that because you have paid for the right to do so - i.e. it is part of the contract.

Pay a high price for the ability to no-show and receive a refund, or choose to pay much lower for a fare which does not provide a refund.

It is the airline's responsibility to manage the consequences of the terms and conditions they offer. In the cases stated, of pax booking 3 or 4 refundable fares, then choosing the one they want, it is up to the airline to manage the pricing.

Let's say I can book a fully refundable (even after no-show) fare for $1,000, or a fare that cannot be refunded for $300. If I have a choice of 4 flights, and I will take one of them, I can either pay $1,200 for 4 non-refundable flights, no-show on 3 and lose those fares, and fly on which ever I want. Or I can fork out $4,000 for 4 refundable, fly on one, then later get $3,000 back. I get to fly on the one I want for $1,000 (at the price of having to have $3,000 with the airline for a while until I get it back - provided the airline doesn't go broke).

If the prices are changed, and the non-refundable is only $200, then it is cheaper to book and throw away.

Either scenario sees the airline with a certain amount of revenue - and 3 empty seats. The refundable fares would be more attractive for the airline, as they will be able to predict that a certain percentage of those will be no-show (after all, why would someone pay that much if they didn't need the flexibility - just buy the cheaper fare). The non-refundable fares are more difficult to reliably infer whether or not they are being used as throw away because it is cheaper.

In any event, I fail to see that removing fully refundable, even after no-show will really address anything.

I suspect a lot of the overbooking and not showing is an anachronism dating from when it was really hard to book a flight except via travel agents. Seems a very inconsiderate way to behave to me.

I had a friend who used to book the cheapest fare and on the very rare times he needed to change he did throw it away and buy another. he said it was a much more cost effective option.

The airlines maintain they need to overbook in order to keep the rest of the prices down. Seems to me it should be user pays. If they really need a no show/refund option then the fare should be high enough to cover the cost of the airline flying with empty seats. If that is already true then the airline is profiteering at our cost (through the inconvenience of being offloaded).

If the fare is expensive enough then people will only do it when it when it is really needed, thus using market forces to change behaviour.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

US airlines are very rules driven, and, on the surface, it seems that the rules were followed to the letter. That would suggest that it is the rules themselves that have issues, and indeed, given the policy updates coming out of various US airlines, it seems they agree.

The whole point about the UA flight to Louisville is that the rules weren't followed. The airline couldn't use IDB as the flight had completed boarding. There was no rule requiring the extra crew to fly that flight. There were no safety or security rules breached.

The airline might have been following company policy... but that policy is not 'the rules' (as in 'the law').

 

[equus]

I suspect a lot of the overbooking and not showing is an anachronism dating from when it was really hard to book a flight except via travel agents.

I actually suspect that a lot of the not showing has nothing to do with booking or fare types, but more to do with connections and irrops.

Any airline not operating on a LCC point-to-point only model (guess what - not much in the way of refundable fares in that model), needs to accommodate moving pax from one flight to another due to later arrivals, no shows, or whatever reason. This creates moving demand - "overbooked" demand when pax are moved later, empty seats when the connecting flight doesn't make it on time.

All of this comes down to yield management. In the end, the objective would be to maximise total seats sold over the route, but individual flights are going to fluctuate. Saying they need to "overbook to keep the prices down" is a bit simplistic - they need to manage yields and loads, and with connections and flexibility that means at times certain flights are going to be overbooked - but when this occurs, why and for how long is variable. If the airline was obliged to hold seats available on later flights for connecting pax, just in case the incoming flight was late (i.e. keep seats on multiple flights for them), then fares will obviously have to rise.

I am not sure it is only market forces that are needed, more like regulation to ensure that contracts are not unilaterally in favour of the airline, so that when they do get it wrong, the compensation for offloading is appropriate and enforceable. This would then mean that airlines yield management would factor in that compensation, and the offloaded passengers will be adequately compensated (and so not complaining). If the compensation requirements become too onerous, then the yield management result would inevitably result in fare increase until things are balanced out.

 

[dajop]

IMHO, it is a total over-reaction, calls for banning overselling etc. This incident was not even directly caused by overselling, this was a crew accommodation issue. Just because one company and a few specific people at the company and in law enforcement completely and atrociously mishandle one particular incident, doesn't mean that overselling should be forbidden - that can only lead to higher fares for all.

In the day and age of big data, I am sure airlines have a good handle on the no-show or last minute change rates on specific routes, for specific airport, and for specific fare classes. In fact the problem may not be so much no-shows as last minute changes. So if you have 30% of a flight in a fully flexible fare class - I am sure airlines know that they might expect x% of bookings in that fare class to be moved within y hours of departure. It is the black art of yield management to optimise profitability of each flight, and this surely involves a degree of overselling.

People's plans change, particularly on short haul routes, meetings that finish early, or that finish late. Good traffic. Bad traffic. People buy flexible tickets to deal with this. Airlines oversell to deal with this.

Now there has been and will continue to be separate discussions about downgrade compensation, to me this seems to be one of the issues that is routinely poorly handled by certain airlines. But maybe overselling of Y and overselling of J cabins belong in different discussions to each other, and indeed to this situation.

 

[Quickstatus]

Doesn't check in open 24 - 48 hours in advance?

Correct current nonrefundable are valid till checkin closes.
Change the refundable period until opening of check would address much of what JB747 says is a contributing issue with overbooking.

 

[Quickstatus]

I agree that this issue was not caused by overbooking. However some elements of the overbooking culture are evident here and so I think that's why this thread has several facets.

The elements of the overbooking culture are manifested here in the practice of calling for volunteers to give up their seats and the subsequent involuntary eviction. I say culture because this is common practice and now based on a belief by the airlines that they can do whatever they like to the seats of fare paying customers.

To assist in the changing of this culture will need some rebalancing of certain practices including overbooking and as JB747 rightly says related to it is the flexible ticket bookings.
While it's true that overbooking does not occur in other industries, a flexible ticket does not either. So to change one will require changing the other.-

Nonetheless most here would agree - Once seated you can't be evicted from the seat unless a safety issue.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

IMHO, it is a total over-reaction, calls for banning overselling etc.

...

Now there has been and will continue to be separate discussions about downgrade compensation, to me this seems to be one of the issues that is routinely poorly handled by certain airlines. But maybe overselling of Y and overselling of J cabins belong in different discussions to each other, and indeed to this situation.

This issue wasn't overselling, but it's all part of the one concept - that airlines think they can move passengers around as they see fit for their commercial advantage. And the passenger gets little recourse. Why should the airline take the highest fare, kick out the lowest fare, and profit the difference?

EmilyP's parents suffered much the same fate as Dr Tao, just because it happened at the check-in counter it didn't get any publicity and no regulator, politician or member of the general public takes up the cause.

Passengers may buy flexible tickets, but it doesn't mean airlines 'have' to oversell to deal with it.

 

[JohnK]

People's plans change, particularly on short haul routes, meetings that finish early, or that finish late. Good traffic. Bad traffic. People buy flexible tickets to deal with this. Airlines oversell to deal with this.

But inconveniencing people that are innocent and do not behave this way is wrong.

 

[oz_mark]

Passengers may buy flexible tickets, but it doesn't mean airlines 'have' to oversell to deal with it.

But inconveniencing people that are innocent and do not behave this way is wrong.

When managed intelligently, overselling is a net benefit to both the airline and the passenger.

(Overselling is hardly unique to airlines - hotels sell more rooms than they have, telco's sell more bandwidth than they have, hosting providers sell more capacity than they have etc etc)

 

[dajop]

But inconveniencing people that are innocent and do not behave this way is wrong.

For economy travel, it's finding the right price such that people are compensated adequately for their inconvenience, or paying to get them there on a competitor around the same time (+/-). I think some of the problems would go away if they offered cash instead of pseudo-money (in the form of vouchers) when calling for volunteers. $400 credit for future travel on airline X is not as appealing as $400 cash, indeed for many $300 cash would be more appealing. If when I went to check in on Monday afternoon at MEL for my 18:25 flight to SIN on SQ, if they'd said we'll give you say $300 cash to take the midnight flight instead, I'd probably say OK to that. Not that overselling is such an issue on most Asian or Australian carriers.

For business class downgrades to economy nothing short of a full refund of the entire ticket should be the practice, not this BS trickery of the difference between the paid J fare (pro-rated by distance) and the cost of fully flexible one way economy fare.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

The easiest way to ensure this incident doesn't happen again is for airlines to ensure they lock down their passenger list prior to boarding. Once boarding commences no changes at all (unless there is medical emergency or safety threat).

Am I being too simple?

 

[oz_mark]

The easiest way to ensure this incident doesn't happen again is for airlines to ensure they lock down their passenger list prior to boarding. Once boarding commences no changes at all (unless there is medical emergency or safety threat).

Am I being too simple?

American have snuck this into their CoC

American will not involuntarily remove a revenue passenger who has already boarded in order to give a seat to another passenger.