Passengers off loaded

[Pleb Status]

I work hard on seat selection, especially for such a long domestic flight and would not be pleased if relegated to a middle seat for 4 [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] hours because of such.

This would be my biggest issue with the swap...

 

[mannej]

I'm interested that they would take an aircraft ex-SYD to PER with an ongoing problem requiring 40 less pax, if it is "easy" to fix at an "outpost" why not fix it in SYD prior to departure (unless the aircraft had significant ground time in PER), and/or you're stuck with the same issue ex-PER.

I'm a little confused how a "fuel pump" issue restricts payload (rather than be a go/no-go item) - unless it becomes a "max flow rate" of fuel into the engine hence "max thrust" is reduced (and therefore offset by a lower ToW)?

Arrival time in PER is about 7:30pm, so there is probably greater down time after it arrives in PER.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

EU261 is certainly nice for pax affected by delays/cancellations - I say that as someone who was reimbursed several thousand bucks after getting stuck in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010. However, despite being a beneficiary of the EU rules, I don't think they are reasonable. What objective reason was there to force an airline to pay for accommodation and meals for myself and my family for a week in that situation? It was completely outside the airline's control. Nonetheless, I had to pursue the airline, as travel insurance would not pay up, on the grounds that the airline was liable. The other strange thing is that the compensation is not in any way linked to the fare you pay. For example, you could have paid EUR20 return for a short flight with Ryanair, but then get cash compensation of EUR250 plus accommodation and meals if there is a delay/cancellation.

The fact is, the EU rules impose an additional cost of doing business on airlines, which ultimately all passengers pay for. In some cases, this is explicitly clear - e.g. Ryanair imposes a surcharge of EUR2.50 per flight to cover these payouts. Full service airlines (to my knowledge) have not done this, but obviously those airlines are either paying extra for insurance and/or paying out their own cash to provide compensation, and that extra money has to come from somewhere.

I know affected pax feel a bit better as a result of the compensation, and I guess most other people probably don't realise they are subsidising the compensation payouts for others, so maybe this works reasonably well overall. I'm still not convinced the EU rules are particularly fair or reasonable though.

i agree... airlines paying out for weather related matters... that is a bit of a stretch (probably too far). But the mechanical or other 'airline control' categories I'm all over! I'm not sure airlines should get special dispensation just because... well... they're airlines. We're not back in the 1920s when this was all relatively new.

 

[juddles]

Completely agree. I have never understood how you can sell something you don't have eg more seats than available.

Buzzard, I understand your position, but I also understand (and actually support) the airline's need for overbooking. To not hijack this thread, I started a new one on this subject:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....nk-airline-perspective-83342.html#post1649740

This has some info from an airline on the subject

 

[prozac]

A friend was refused boarding on Friday on Virgin MEL-SYD. Arrived with valid ticket at the airport with plenty of time and simply told there were no available seats.

 

[bam71]

Ouch! Did they put them on the next one? Any compo?

 

[straitman]

Buzzard, I understand your position, but I also understand (and actually support) the airline's need for overbooking. To not hijack this thread, I started a new one on this subject:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....nk-airline-perspective-83342.html#post1649740

This has some info from an airline on the subject

They could always have done what FJ seems to do on a regular basis and that is just unload baggage until the correct weight is reached.

Also remaining OT for a moment and referencing juddles post above. If they do it the way some are suggesting and remembering that most airlines run on a very fine line between profit and loss there would be a noticeable increase in fares needed to adjust for the empty seats. If that happened then those same people would be on AFF complaining about the rise in airfares.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

They could always have done what FJ seems to do on a regular basis and that is just unload baggage until the correct weight is reached.

Also remaining OT for a moment and referencing juddles post above. If they do it the way some are suggesting and remembering that most airlines run on a very fine line between profit and loss there would be a noticeable increase in fares needed to adjust for the empty seats. If that happened then those same people would be on AFF complaining about the rise in airfares.

US airlines ask for volunteers, fares don't seem to have gone up.

Aussie airlines don't even have to pay volunteers, or pay compensation for those bumped. In fact Aussie airlines can actually turn overbooking into a significant profit for themselves. This doesn't seem fair.

I'd rather pay $1 extra per fare and have a hefty EU261 type arrangement, than save a $1 and be left with zero rights. And with competition it might even be that fares rise at all.

 

[jb747]

Aussie airlines don't even have to pay volunteers, or pay compensation for those bumped. In fact Aussie airlines can actually turn overbooking into a significant profit for themselves.

How do they do that?

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

i think something along the lines of EU261 is good, but it seems a bit harsh.

Something I often wonder about is how airlines plan for periods they know bad weather commonly occurs. Should the airlines be held accountable if they schedule the same number of flights when snow storms are a regular occurrence as when weeks go by without weather causing flights to be cancelled?

With the way airlines run their schedules with very tight turn arounds for domestic flights, a day of bad weather can take days to get people back home. Yes, it's beyond their control when the weather turns nasty, but they know that during winter X% of flights are likely to get cancelled. Should they be allowed to wash their hands of the problem they partly contributed to?

 

[JohnK]

It would be annoying and i would cope but I would not indicate "no ... different".

I work hard on seat selection, especially for such a long domestic flight and would not be pleased if relegated to a middle seat for 4 [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]2[/sub] hours because of such.

You're not alone.

Seat selection is very important to me especially on long hauls where I have bulkhead/exit row pre-allocated. Qantas cancelled on of my domestic flights recently and proactively put me on one of the earlier flights available in middle seat. No thanks I'll go later but they did find aisle seat down the back which is still not very comfortable.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How do they do that?

Two ways. Firstly, selling the same seat twice, they can carry the higher of the two fares paid. Secondly, when downgrading a bumped passenger, Qantas calculates the new fare based on the full last-minute walk up fare, meaning any refund - by their calculation - is minimal.

A good example of this was EmilyP's case, downgraded by QF at LAX from business to economy. Although the passengers in that case had paid the equivalent one way fare of ~$3750 (calculated as half of the return), they were initially offered $700 refund, later rising to $1250 including points and a 'goodwill' gesture after much discussion on AFF. That's for an economy seat QF was selling for less than $500 one way to anyone else who had bought the seat in advance. Profit to the airline in this case of $2500 plus any additional (higher) fare paid by the passenger QF accommodated in business class who bumped EmilyP's parent.

EU261 gets around this by mandating a 75% refund of the ticket in the case of a downgrade.

 

[jb747]

Two ways. Firstly, selling the same seat twice, they can carry the higher of the two fares paid. Secondly, when downgrading a bumped passenger, Qantas calculates the new fare based on the full last-minute walk up fare, meaning any refund - by their calculation - is minimal.

The entire point of the oversells is to offset the no shows. In the USA in particular, that's quite a number. But, even here, that busy business person who doesn't know what flight he wants, books multiple and simply gets refunds for those he doesn't make. I guess that could be fixed by not refunding no shows or late cancellations. It would be my preferred method.

A good example of this was EmilyP's case, downgraded by QF at LAX from business to economy. Although the passengers in that case had paid the equivalent one way fare of ~$3750 (calculated as half of the return), they were initially offered $700 refund, later rising to $1250 including points and a 'goodwill' gesture after much discussion on AFF. That's for an economy seat QF was selling for less than $500 one way to anyone else who had bought the seat in advance. Profit to the airline in this case of $2500 plus any additional (higher) fare paid by the passenger QF accommodated in business class who bumped EmilyP's parent.

EU261 gets around this by mandating a 75% refund of the ticket in the case of a downgrade.

Whilst I disagree with you about EU261 in general, I do think it reasonable to mandate some level of refund in these cases. 75% is possibly excessive, but it should be easy enough to work out the real difference in pricing - without it being fiddled to anyones advantage.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The entire point of the oversells is to offset the no shows. In the USA in particular, that's quite a number. But, even here, that busy business person who doesn't know what flight he wants, books multiple and simply gets refunds for those he doesn't make. I guess that could be fixed by not refunding no shows or late cancellations. It would be my preferred method.



Whilst I disagree with you about EU261 in general, I do think it reasonable to mandate some level of refund in these cases. 75% is possibly excessive, but it should be easy enough to work out the real difference in pricing - without it being fiddled to anyones advantage.

Agree that while overselling might, in part, be to off-set no-shows, the issue of airlines actually profiting from it is separate. And we know airlines have all sorts of internal guidelines for choosing which passenger they will take, with status and 'fare paid' being a couple of those. Overselling might be more acceptable if it was based on equality... first in, first served. That way fare and status wouldn't make a difference and the chance for the airline to profit would be based on passenger action (who turns up early) compared to airline choice (we'll take the highest fare paid).

The 75% is to get around the airlines coming up with their own guidelines which don't reflect reality. However the 75% can actually work in favour of the airline even then... in EmilyP's case it would have seen a refund of $2812 (based on the one way fare which seems to be the way the EU courts are calculating it now) - still well below the full refund compared to the cheapest economy fare of around $500 (for a refund of $3250).

 

[Buzzard]

Yes, fabulous post RichardMel

 

[PLANT]

Actually the cheapest business class and economy is 10% of the full fare public pay..... So that is the base for working out refunds......shhhhhh

 

[m4mir]

Just to add my two cents worth when it comes to offloading.

I had a recent experience with Cathay Pacific where at check-in at Airport Express in Hong Kong central, I was told they couldn't check me in due to over booking, and would I like to take a later flight. When I explained that I couldn't be delayed due to immovable commitments in Sydney( Medical reasons), I was told I would have to proceed to the airport with my luggage and "try my luck"!! I will add that I had tried to check in online the previous night but was given a message that I needed to check in in person.

Upon arrival at the airport, I was told I would have to wait till 20 mins before departure before they could confirm whether I could get on the flight. Again I impressed upon the staff the urgent need to arrive in Sydney, but also politely enquired as to what basis I had been selected as a potential for off loading when I was a Silver FF and had paid an extremely high fare ( had purchased the ticket at the last minute). They were completely dismissive of me.

I was eventually given a boarding pass ( 20 mins before departure), again with no explanation , nor apology. A comment was made though by the Cathay airline rep who needed to escort me through immigration that he could not understand the issue at all as I was a high fare paying passenger and had airline status.

Despite making the flight, it was unnecessarily stressful up to that point, I was left with a lasting poor impression of Cathay and am unlikely to fly with them again.

I understand all the reasons for overbooking flights, but passengers need to be treated with some basic respect and not be at the mercy of some random ( so it appeared) offloading selection process.

 

[Kangol]

As a WP if I wasn't offered a free upgrade I'd request they offload someone else. Though one would think they wouldn't ask a WP to get off in such a situation.

Don't think that a WP would be high enough in the pecking order. I know of (not me) some WPs who have had confirmed F tickets, downgraded and offloaded. If that ever happened to me, I'd be fuming.
Yes, you read correctly. A WP in a confirmed F seat had the lowest priority of 14 pax.

 

[Kangol]

A good example of this was EmilyP's case, downgraded by QF at LAX from business to economy. Although the passengers in that case had paid the equivalent one way fare of ~$3750 (calculated as half of the return), they were initially offered $700 refund, later rising to $1250 including points and a 'goodwill' gesture after much discussion on AFF.

Were those compensation details ever made public? Total refund of $1250 per passenger?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Were those compensation details ever made public? Total refund of $1250 per passenger?

That was the last offer that was made public by EmilyP, which IIRC was a combination of a travel voucher and some miles. There may have been a further offer after that as EmilyP's parents were looking for some consumer affairs advice, but we weren't informed.