Do they tell you when you purchase your ticket that they’re already overbooked so you can make an informed decision whether to make the purchase or try a different flight? If not then they aren’t being explicitly detailed.
Again, the problem of people missing flights could be easily solved by making it clear at the time of purchase that tickets #X+1 and up (where X is the number of seats on the plane) are standby seats and that tickets 1-X get their seats first. The fact that over 3,000 people were forced off of flights last year clearly demonstrates that the policy does not work out for everyone.
Typically, even non-refundable tickets may be re-booked for a fee up until the moment of departure. I’m sure this varies with airlines. But the point is that you can re-book late enough that they’re not filling that seat unless they already oversold the flight.
You can effectively do this by becoming a member of the airline’s frequent flyer club and/or buying a higher-class fare, because on many (most?) airlines that affects where you stand in the queue of people who might get the boot.
No, I offered at least one specific “market fix” (that airlines continue to raise the compensation offer until enough passengers agree). I’m also suggesting that the policy and practice (and maybe laws) should be changed, and this incident highlighted problems. I’m also criticizing those personally involved for not putting more effort into finding a peaceful way to resolve it (and for the major screw up of boarding everyone before it was resolved). “Just following orders”, or “just following the law”, isn’t always enough of a moral defense, and I don’t think it’s satisfactory in this instance.
“Corporate violence” is an interesting way to frame the argument. What should be done with a person who repeatedly refuses to leave? And then after being physically removed from the plane, runs back on it again?
Maybe not. This is the rule"* If a flight is oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority."
*
Note it repeatedly says denied boarding not “deplaned”.
They fucked up by letting too many passengers get on in the first place.
I’ve never had to do that so that’s news to me! Lately I’ve only flown Southwest for work and there was usually tiered pricing for the options you mentioned. The lowest fare was always the, no choice or changes, no cancellations or refunds. That’s the one I get for work since if I miss that…it’s just me. When I go on family vacations I tend to get the insurance.
My WAG is it sets an expensive precedent, and they wish to not let those numbers get out of control. It’s a risk analysis the least they can pay out vs the most they can get to voluntarily leave, with the loss of goodwill for those removed involuntarily and by force. The cost of that last one, due to cell cameras and social media seems to have gone up quite a bit.
I applaud the airline’s proactive efforts in support of passenger safety!
*(To paraphrase the old joke about how to avoid a risk of there being a bomb on your flight)*How best might an airline ensure that unknown terrorists will not attack their passengers? Provide your own terrorists to attack them first!
Very possibly… but IMO, they shouldn’t have the option of relying on law enforcement just to resolve what is, essentially, a contract dispute (especially if, as some posters have suggested, the airline might have violated the contract).
i dont think they are legally (ianal) required to give you any of your money back, but it’s been my experience that they almost always do rebook you on another flight for a nominal (sometimes zero) fee. especially if you do it at the airport.
and there are many times that passengers miss connecting flights.
Maybe you should try hearing what I’m writing instead of whatever it is you are translating it into?
Because I have already agreed with you that once we’re at the point where they’re asking the passenger to leave, whether he wants to or not, he’s got to get up and leave, and he was wrong to fight it.
What I’m pointing out is that starting at that point is basically exonerating United for their total fuckup that got them to the point of saying, “you, you, you, and you - off the plane.”
Oh, gimme a break. Are you suggesting that a limo couldn’t have been hired to drive four people from O’Hare to Louisville? Are you suggesting that the prospect of finding a private plane and pilot to fly them there was remote?
Because in a civilized society, when I’m the one who fucks up and creates a problematic situation, the burden’s on me to try to resolve it if I can. Certainly United had the legal right to force passengers off that plane to fly its own crew down to Louisville, but the airline’s supposed to plan so that that doesn’t happen. And if it does, the airline should be going the extra mile to keep it from messing up the plans of its paying customers.
Maybe you don’t believe that old-fashioned notions like ‘personal responsibility’ apply to corporate persons as well as the flesh-and-blood kind. There’s a lot of that going around these days. If so, then we have a fundamental philosophical difference here that can’t be resolved by logic or argument.
I predict that Chuck Schumer will be proposing legislation to amend the passenger’s bill of rights to include not being bloodied and dragged off the airplane once you’ve boarded just to make way for an airline employee that needs to get to work the following day.
I tend to agree with this, but i believe that the amount of compensation legally mandated for involuntary bumping should be considerably higher than it is now.
As people have already pointed out, involuntary bumping is an incredibly rare thing, when taken as a percentage of all flights and all passengers. But when it does occur, it can have disproportionately severe consequences for the people who are bumped. Increasing the required compensation would have very little effect on the airlines’ finances, and would make the system more just and fair for the people who are bumped.
For me, it would depend. If i’m going TO a holiday or work destination, and time is a factor, i would probably reject $800. But if i’m flying home, and have no particular plans for the next couple of days (which is often the case when i’m returning from vacation), i could see myself taking the offer.
Again, i tend to agree, and i think that United should have kept increasing their offer until the market decided. And this is why i would support raising the legally-required compensation for involuntary bumping.
I’m almost certain that the reason United stopped at $800 is that the law allowed them to bump someone without paying more than that. If the law mandated, say, a $2500 or $5000 cash payout to someone bumped involuntarily, then the airline would have offered $1200, and then $1600, and probably could have found someone to take the money. But they have no incentive to do that when they’re protected by the law from higher payouts.
Or maybe don’t have a legally-mandated payout at all. Instead, make involuntary bumping illegal, and require airlines to keep raising their compensation offers until the requisite number of passengers accept the offer. That way, airlines truly can use market forces to determine how they should balance overbooking and the “auction” system of bumping.
If my kid gets sick, I’ll eat the ticket if need be. Shit happens.
If that sort of information can be communicated to the airline and they choose to believe the guy and give him a break, that’s good customer service. If another flight is underbooked it doesn’t really cost them anything, either. But such a favor should not be expected, and to systematically build it in in such a way that you guarantee overbooks will happen is frankly stupid.
I’ve been avoiding United because of their screwed up terminal at LGA, but this just will make me more sure to miss them.
That said, for a domestic flight where I could actually still arrive on the same day, $800 would have bumped me. Probably would take a few hundred more for overnight.
Oh, and has to be cash or to a zero fee debit card.
When is the proper time to change the rules that both sides have agreed upon?
Before a contract is signed, after the action is over and before the next contract is signed, or during a temper tantrum because threatening to cause a scene is how things get done now?
while i agree that the overbooking procedures of airlines are very user unfriendly, it’s nowhere near fraud or even an unworkable system. united, alone flew 143,000,000 passengers in 2016; 3,000 is a statistically insignificant number.
