Well that United Airlines thing has pissed me off...

Nikko

Yep, as has already been said, this is a very common practise everywhere. I used to work for a relatively small (low cost) airline, and saw this happen many many times, more times than I can remember. The difference though, was that this was all done before people got on the plane. The airline knew how many seats they had, and how many they needed (including the need for crew seats). I saw plenty of pissed off customers at the check-in area, but I never saw, or heard of a passenger refusing to get off of a plane and then get assaulted. UA need to be made an example of here.

Heartfeltdawn

Sesh said:

Even Hitler didn't drag people off planes.

He did drag a few onto trains though. 

stickyfiddle

Thing is this isn't even an overbooking issue; it's the UA wanted to send its own people to another airport to crew another flight that didn't have its regular crew for some unknown reason (illness or lateness of another flight most likely). I've been bumped a handful of times and it's not usually a big deal as long as it happens the moment you reach the airport and not after you've spent 2 hours going through security queues only to be told to go home.

To me it seems quite simple - whenever an airline wants to kick you off a plane you've already boarded they should have to do run auction and increase the compensation until they have enough volunteers. I've had plenty of flights where I wouldn't move for less than $1000 but some where I'd take a half day delay and $200 cash quite happily.  

Nitefly

olafgarten said:

http://www.thingsinsquares.com/tale/united-airlines-passenger-removal-procedural-guidelines/

LOL the comments are funnier than the original article!

RocknRollDave

I don't understand why they need to overbook anyway - Surely if you miss a flight, you don't get your money back, you just forfeit your money and end up paying for another flight? Isn't this just profiteering, i.e. selling a few seats twice in the hope that some people won't turn up and the airline  can pocket double the cash?

stickyfiddle

RocknRollDave said:

I don't understand why they need to overbook anyway - Surely if you miss a flight, you don't get your money back, you just forfeit your money and end up paying for another flight? Isn't this just profiteering, i.e. selling a few seats twice in the hope that some people won't turn up and the airline  can pocket double the cash?

It's exactly this, but they get away with it because a lot of people (particularly travelling for business) do miss flights. 

The real issue for airlines is that none of them make any money, which will always lead *one* guy to overbook and undercut the competition, which means everyone then starts overbooking and you're back to square one, except with consumers saving $5 on a ticket but some of them getting bumped. 

It's not actually a big deal for frequent flyers, but doing it after you've got on the plane is seriously not on.

stimpsonslostson

stickyfiddle said:

RocknRollDave said:

I don't understand why they need to overbook anyway - Surely if you miss a flight, you don't get your money back, you just forfeit your money and end up paying for another flight? Isn't this just profiteering, i.e. selling a few seats twice in the hope that some people won't turn up and the airline  can pocket double the cash?

It's exactly this, but they get away with it because a lot of people (particularly travelling for business) do miss flights. 

The real issue for airlines is that none of them make any money, which will always lead *one* guy to overbook and undercut the competition, which means everyone then starts overbooking and you're back to square one, except with consumers saving $5 on a ticket but some of them getting bumped. 

It's not actually a big deal for frequent flyers, but doing it after you've got on the plane is seriously not on.

Yup. My dad used to fly a LOT for business & his company would routinely book him tickets on two return flights in the (often vain) hope that he'd be able to make the earlier one and get to a meeting upon his return. 

boogieman

I don't understand the principle either. They've had the money upfront for the seat. If the airline is then having to fork out more money to compensate people that they're bumping, isn't that leaving them out of pocket? 

Nikko

Yep, they pretty much bank on a certain percentage of customers not showing up/missing the flight. Purely a financial exercise. Some they win, some they lose.

randella

boogieman said:

I don't understand the principle either. They've had the money upfront for the seat. If the airline is then having to fork out more money to compensate people that they're bumping, isn't that leaving them out of pocket? 

As far as I understand it, they're playing the percentages.  If they have to pay out £500 to keep one person sweet for every three people who don't turn up for their £200 flights, they're still £100 in the black.

It's gouging, pure and simple, but they're all at it.

It's the cut-throat-margin business model hard at work again.  Race to the bottom on prices to get the punters in, and then realise your company's going to go bust unless you 'find' some profit elsewhere.  See also: insurance companies and the spurious 'add-ons' you get rinsed for at renewal time.

boogieman

randella said:

boogieman said:

I don't understand the principle either. They've had the money upfront for the seat. If the airline is then having to fork out more money to compensate people that they're bumping, isn't that leaving them out of pocket? 

As far as I understand it, they're playing the percentages.  If they have to pay out £500 to keep one person sweet for every three people who don't turn up for their £200 flights, they're still £100 in the black.

It's gouging, pure and simple, but they're all at it.

I can see that just about works, although it seems a bit shortsighted. In the case the other day though presumably the staff weren't paying for the seats, so they've pissed passengers off AND lost money. 

benmurray85

Serious question. What I don't understand is why was it that guy in particular? Out of a plane full of people, assuming they won't remove anyone travelling in a group so that weens all those out. So maybe at the very least a third of the commuters would have been solo travellers? Why just that one guy? 

randella

boogieman said:

randella said:

boogieman said:

I don't understand the principle either. They've had the money upfront for the seat. If the airline is then having to fork out more money to compensate people that they're bumping, isn't that leaving them out of pocket? 

As far as I understand it, they're playing the percentages.  If they have to pay out £500 to keep one person sweet for every three people who don't turn up for their £200 flights, they're still £100 in the black.

It's gouging, pure and simple, but they're all at it.

I can see that just about works, although it seems a bit shortsighted. In the case the other day though presumably the staff weren't paying for the seats, so they've pissed passengers off AND lost money. 

Yep.  I think pretty much 100% of the outrage with this particular case is that they handled it so appallingly.  They all overbook, and most people know they overbook, which is where the sweeteners come in.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that gate staff have a software-based 'ready reckoner' onscreen telling them exactly how much cash they can offer a bumped passenger without hitting the bottom line too hard.  Here though, exactly none of this happened and they were filmed dragging a 69-year-old man with blood on his face.  Bit of a departure (no pun intended) from accepted practice.

LoFi

Point of order - the flight wasn't oversold/overbooked - it was fully booked. This isn't being picky; my understanding is that this changes the legal position.

randella

LoFi said:

Point of order - the flight wasn't oversold/overbooked - it was fully booked. This isn't being picky; my understanding is that this changes the legal position.

@LoFi ;

Interesting point - whilst it's functionally the same (they needed more seats than they had) - you're right, it's probably a whole different page in the rule book.

I did read yesterday that the airline's T's and C's weigh in at 47,000 words, so rather someone else than me trying to suss the differences!

Nikko

Either way, they still must have known prior to boarding that they would need 4 seats to accommodate their outbound crew, yet they still allowed the situation to play out the way it did.

randella

Nikko said:

Either way, they still must have known prior to boarding that they would need 4 seats to accommodate their outbound crew, yet they still allowed the situation to play out the way it did.

Yep, that's what @boogieman and me were getting at.  Utter shambles.  Apparently their share price tanked yesterday off the back of it.

randella

Anyway, it's lunch and I'm off to get me hair cut - let's hope they're not fully-or-over-booked, my barber looks a bit handy and he's usually armed with something sharp

fretmeister

Bunch of amateurs

None of you lot have even started to read the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions (Treaties)on air travel, the rights of passengers, the limitations on damages paid etc.

All has to be read in conjunction with the T&C of the ticket purchase and the local laws and local interpretation of the treaties too.

I've done some basic airline stuff and it's always a frigging nightmare.

VimFuego

fretmeister said:

Bunch of amateurs

None of you lot have even started to read the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions (Treaties)on air travel, the rights of passengers, the limitations on damages paid etc.

All has to be read in conjunction with the T&C of the ticket purchase and the local laws and local interpretation of the treaties too.

I've done some basic airline stuff and it's always a frigging nightmare.

my issue with this isnt that he was asked to leave the plane, it was the manner in which a not young man was manhandled by the heavily armed police.