Why Airlines Are Allowed to Over-Sell Seats?

tooblue on 13/04/2017 - 00:40

Have any one of you encountered these situations:

The restaurant say: Sorry we oversold your table and do you mind coming back tomorrow for your anniversary dinner?
The theater says: Sorry we oversold your seat and do you mind coming back one year later when the orchestra returns?
The stadium says: Sorry we oversold your seat and do you mind watching Broncos vs. Bulldogs next week instead of Broncos vs. Cowboys Derby?
The seller says: Sorry I oversold my house despite you already paid me in full. Do you mind waiting till I am selling again and I will give you a discount?

But why is airlines industry so special that can make overselling as their standard procedure? Of course cancellation and alteration happens all the time. But no other industries are inconveniencing customers in order to reduce the cost.

Travel

Comments

  • airal3rt on 13/04/2017 - 00:54
    +5

    What do you mean by "allowed"?

    Aviation authorities can only dictate what airlines do in domains that influence safety. Authorities cannot interfere in the business practices of an airline.

    The general public and patrons of airlines are typically unaware that overbooking occurs until it directly impacts them or the media picks up a story like the recent United Airlines fiasco.

    It's far more profitable for airlines to over-sell seats on every flight they make and then give a token gesture of "compensation" to those they kick off flights, the fact they inconvenience their passengers doesn't bother them in the slightest because they're making money from this practice. Unless people vote with their wallets and stop flying with an airline they will continue to do it.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 09:01
      +2

      Well, yes and no.

      There are many regulations and laws that airlines must abide by well beyond just the safety aspects of their business, just like many and frankly all other businesses.

      Overbooking are regulated in the sense that laws (depending on country, obviously) dictate how passengers are compensated, airlines responsibilities like transportation, accommodation, etc.

      So while overbookings aren't specifically allow or banned by law, the circumstances around them are regulated.

      • trilby on 13/04/2017 - 10:13
        -2

        The silliest regulation I heard was that they're only allowed to offer $1350 in compensation - why can't they offer more in circumstances like this? (although I don't even think they got to the $1350, heard it was $800). They could have a dutch auction at the gate, putting a bit of excitement into the whole situation.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 11:33
          +3

          Incorrect.

          Under US federal rules, if the substitute flight gets you to your final destination more than two hours later, or if the airline doesn’t make any other travel arrangements, they are required to compensate you at 400% of the fare up to $1,350.

          Under an hour, no compensation is required.
          One to two hours, it is 200% up to $675.

          United chooses to cap the compensation at $1,350, there is no law stopping them from offering them more.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 11:35

          I'm pretty sure they can offer anything they like. 400% of the fare up to $1350 is the maximum amount they have to automatically pay out for involuntary denied boarding (i.e. in this case where the passengers were told they had no choice) - though you can still get more than that if necessary if you sue.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2017 - 20:46

          @callum9999:

          400% of the fare up to $1350 is the maximum amount they have to automatically pay out for involuntary denied boarding

          Maximum - automatically???

          Don't you mean minimum?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2017 - 20:50

          They could have a dutch auction at the gate, putting a bit of excitement into the whole situation.

          Apparently some airlines conduct a blind auction for bumping at check-in.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 22:28
          -2

          @Scrooge McDuck: Well, that depends how you read the comment. I referred to it as the maximum because they don't have to pay out any more than that (though a court can later require them to - hence maximum automatically).

          You can of course flip the perspective and describe it as a minimum that the passenger should receive in that scenario. Though discussing maximum and minimum makes little sense in that case given it's effectively a fixed sum (though perhaps airlines will be more likely to exceed the legal amount now they know passengers can kick up a fuss and get global sympathy?).

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2017 - 22:34

          @callum9999:

          Well, that depends how you read the comment. I referred to it as the maximum because they don't have to pay out any more than that (though a court can later require them to - hence maximum automatically).

          400 % up to $1350 is the minimum they have to pay if they delay a passenger by more than 2 h by involuntarily bumping them. The maximum is as much as they'd like to negotiate ie unlimited.

          Minimum is the correct term.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 22:42

          @Scrooge McDuck: In that sentance it is, that's not the sentance I used though is it…

          "the maximum amount they have to automatically pay out for involuntary denied boarding" - they can pay less (with passenger agreement), they don't have to pay more. Maximum is a perfectly valid description.

          Which is blindingly obvious what I meant given I was disputing the point that they "aren't allowed to pay more than $1350"…

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2017 - 23:23
          -1

          @callum9999:

          "the maximum amount they have to automatically pay out for involuntary denied boarding" - they can pay less (with passenger agreement),

          "Involuntary denied boarding" is not "with passenger agreement". In the case of "involuntary denied boarding" they can't pay less, that's the point of the rule! ie the minimum is 400 % up to $1350.

          Maximum is a perfectly valid description.

          Nope!

          Which is blindingly obvious what I meant given I was disputing the point that they "aren't allowed to pay more than $1350"…

          It's obvious, but not when you use the opposite term to what you mean.

        • ronnknee on 14/04/2017 - 10:07

          @callum9999:

          Pretty sure you mean minimum. $1350 is the minimum required compensation. Airlines can pay more if they want. No one's stopping them.

        • callum9999 on 14/04/2017 - 10:47
          -2

          @ronnknee: I did not mean minimum and yet again I did not say they are forbidden to pay more (that would be beyond stupid…).

          I used the word maximum because that is the maximum they are automatically REQUIRED to pay in ALL denied boarding circumstances. You are both restricting my argument to situations where they are removed against their will (where it is STILL the maximum required anyway as well as being the minimum).

          Granted you may not like my use of the term "involuntary denied boarding" when passengers accept offers, but given that's the terminology that's been used with me by both British Airways and American Airlines in that situation (granted United may be different), I'm happy to use it. I've already explained twice what I meant so I'm really not interested in definition pedantry!

        • [Deactivated] on 14/04/2017 - 12:33

          @ronnknee:

          No. $1,350 is the max required by law, the airline can choose to pay more but United policy is to stick to $1,350 max.

          Let me break it down because you seem to be a little thick.

          If the flight was $100, then the 400% compensation is $400
          If the flight was $1,000 then the 400% compensation would be $4,000 BUT there is a maximum of $1,350 so the airline only has to pay $1,350.

      • dealman on 14/04/2017 - 11:00
        +3

        Ok people to have an informed discussion everyone posting here should watch this short video that explains exactly what's going on from teh airline's perspective,

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFNstNKgEDI&feature=youtu.be

        WHY AIRLINES OVER BOOK

        THanks to original comment by SOLOCODE

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4601685/redir

        IN fact this should be in the OP!!!!!

    • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 11:14
      +6

      United are absolute thugs.

      Most airlines have a system in place to prevent people from checking in if the plane is full. In the situation we can see the person has already boarded, which makes me think it is just incompetence.

      Overselling is okay in my opinion, but you need to bloody notify during check-in and not when on the plane.

      The managers should be glad that guy wasn't some Triad guy they tried to kick off.

      • Mad Max on 13/04/2017 - 11:22
        +1

        You are right and considering the person has already boarded the plane, his luggage would be already in the plane and unlikely to be retrieved and unloaded.
        So not only they leave you stranded but also without your luggage…

        • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 11:38

          They would bump people without checked luggage.
          The issue isn't that they had too many customers, it is that they wanted their staff to fly AFTER all the customers got checked in and boarded.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 01:27
    +14

    ohh no the facebook normies that only look at news.com.au with their ill informed news are slowly creeping into OzB….
    here you go, have a watch and listen:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqWksuyry5w

    the fact is, it doesnt happen very often in Australia (if at all) due to our consumer protection laws from the ACCC, so you have nothing the fear……..
    i fly for business very regularly, and i get bumped into business class, not often but enough to not worry about this whole situation even happening.

    3/4 of your situations never happen as the cost to the customer is negligable, eg a ticket to london is $1800, while dinner/theater/stadium is $100, see the difference?
    the cost if much less, plus all 3 of the venues make enough money off drinks and other add ons.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2017 - 01:44

    I think that the aviation laws give too much power to the airlines

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263…

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263…

    Basically you have to do ANYTHING they say (even if it is for business reasons), and if you resist that makes you interpretable "safety risk" which can get you kicked off the plane.

    And because of these broad powers, that makes it completely legal for them to do it, and you're automatically in the wrong if you don't comply - and then you can get prosecuted for it.

    You're their bitch and the whole industry around the world will need a shakeup after this incident to put in fair procedures for overbooking, and Cancellations

    There is hardly even incentive to cancel flights these days with the advent of non-refundable/non-transferable fares, where it actually costs you a FEE to cancel it with $0 refund… so what's the point? Better not to show up. You would think that they would at least want to gather accurate numbers for the flight.

    Overbooking does make sense for low cost airlines as long as the procedures are fair, as they make money from no-shows which drives the cost down for everyone else.

    For a premium airline/fare it wouldn't make sense… the ticket price should reflect that your place on that flight is guaranteed (unless they can lure you off it with incentives).

    Because this happened in the US, United probably "randomly" kicked off the person who paid the least so that they only have to refund them 4x that fare.

    • Diji1 on 13/04/2017 - 02:53
      -2

      Basically you have to do ANYTHING they say (even if it is for business reasons), and if you resist that makes you interpretable "safety risk" which can get you kicked off the plane.

      Yes, you have to do what they say. Like anywhere else that's private property.

    • RockyRaccoon on 13/04/2017 - 05:01
      +2

      and if you resist that makes you interpretable "safety risk" which can get you kicked off the plane.

      Exactly

      In this situation, when they had to get the passenger off the plane, and they resist they had to call in security, who work for the airport, not the airline.

      The scenario would have played out this way.

      Passenger refuses, so 2 options.

      1. Remove him like they did.
      2. Choose someone else.

      In 2 by then the whole plane knows if you resist they cant make you leave, so no one leaves. They still need the extra seat.

      We already know they were all offered $500 plus and no body accepted.

      Image also you were the second choice, how would you feel and how much of a social media stink when you complained that because the security guys were too afraid to remove a passenger etc.

      Then the media rip into, security because they cant remove people off a plane.

      In this case there are rules just the passenger didn't like them

      • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 06:50

        We already know they were all offered $500 plus

        $500 isn't an incentive for a md/gp.

        the armrest was down and the doc got stuck. it must have been painful. does the security guard still have a job?
        http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/unite…

        • RockyRaccoon on 13/04/2017 - 07:01

          $500 isn't an incentive for a md/gp.

          Absolutely Correct.

          How are they to know these details, wouldn't that then be invasion of privacy?

          Reality is like everything that things aren't simple and while social media experts like to bring things down to a simple solution, the lawyers are more interested in making it complicated.

          And hindsight makes it even more interesting

    • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 11:38

      It makes perfect sense to do that on premium airlines - hence why they all do it…

    • poboy on 13/04/2017 - 13:07
      +1

      Years ago when in the US, some return domestic flights were cheaper than a 1 way flight. So I just booked a return flight and didn't show up for the return. Very weird.

  • RockyRaccoon on 13/04/2017 - 04:46
    +5

    Stop confusing a poorly handled situation, with the general practice.
    Airlines make money when all the seats are fuil.

    Thats why they have different prices for the same seats. Its complicated and varies depending on demand and how many seats they have sold. eg yesterday a cheap flight to the US was posted for flights next week. Looks like they are desperate to fill those planes.

    With discount fares they have the restrictions like you can't cancel etc, thats how they ensure the seats are full.

    However with full fare tickets they do allow cancellations and rebooking.

    Businesses pay more for their tickets so they have the flexibility. A meeting runs overtime, etc etc.

    Just think about it. Common sense here. Lets take one example

    Business class tickets are sold more at full fare prices. Thats why you can get upgraded for free, as these tickets are the more often cancelled. But the airline just cant pluck people off the street and put them on the plane. they need to have a reserve. (in the bad old days there was "standby" fares, but these ended up an issue as too many were utilising them)

    In the US because they have formal rules about compensation, there is a whole group of passengers who book on flights at high demand times, they then volunteer for the compensation, so they fly free/heavily discounted. There are forums discussing which routes give best chance etc.

    I like other bargainers read up on these to gain insights into cheaper flying

    (I have travelled extensively and dont work or have worked for the travel industry)

    • moonphase on 13/04/2017 - 11:29

      Well, the last situation didn't seems that all happy to volunteer.

      Everyone has their own reasons but I don't think they have rights to choose the customer randomly to ensure that their staffs - whom not on the duty - could be on board for their business.

      • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 11:42
        +1

        Indeed, they didn't volunteer so United chose for them.

        It doesn't matter whether you feel they have the right to prioritise the operations of their airline above a small group of passengers. They DO have that right, and any vaguely competent airline management would make full use of that right. You think they should have just cancelled the flight the next day, inconveniencing hundreds of people instead of the 4 that were inconvenienced here?

        • moonphase on 13/04/2017 - 12:37

          No they shouldn't cancel the flight but bump the staffs of Partner Airlines' to different flights.

          The common practice is denying on board not kicking off the on boarded customer.

          Also, the compensation they had to make was somwhere up to $1350 or 400% of the fare based on US regulation not $500.

          I'm not saying the procedure of random pick the passenger is wrong here but the reason they had to do that was just ridiculous.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 15:23

          @moonphase: They offered $800 not $500 - which I've already said should have been higher anyway.

          How is the reason they had to remove people ridiculous? Your writing is quite hard to follow, maybe you want to rephrase that?

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 17:27

          @callum9999:

          They offered $800 not $500 - which I've already said should have been higher anyway.

          united should have at least comp the tickets plus accommodation, or upgrade to business class plus accommodation. that is assuming that the tickets cost more than $800.

          instead they sent bullies to strong-arm a 69 man and his wife. serves them right that ual shares are getting shorted.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 18:19
          +1

          @whooah1979: I struggle to believe a one hour flight cost more than $800 (AU$1050). If you think an overnight delay warrants a complete refund of the entire return flight to wherever he went (if he was just connecting) plus free accommodation then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

          Where was his wife strong-armed? Nor were they being bullies (in the video - I have no idea what happened out of the plane, though the fact he got away suggests they were being unduly lenient if anything) - how else do you suggest someone not allowed to be on the flight is removed? They all sing kumbayah and hope he sees sense and leaves of his own volition?

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 18:31
          +1

          @callum9999:

          If you think an overnight delay warrants a complete refund of the entire return flight to wherever he went (if he was just connecting) plus free accommodation then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc…
          Regulatory rules
          Airlines are supposed to offer some form of compensation for passengers, such as travel vouchers that can be used later but will become cash if there is no interest in the travel vouchers. In the USA, compensation can be up to $1,350. In the EU, it is a minimum of €250 for short-haul flights to €600 for long-haul trips.

          how else do you suggest someone not allowed to be on the flight is removed?

          the aviation security officers should have arrested mr dao before trying to force him off the plane. if mr dao resisted to leave after being arrested, then the officers would have cause to use force. not before.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 18:41

          @whooah1979: Do you have a point? Not only do I already know that, I've posted it on this discussion myself… You said they should "comp the ticket" because $800 is somehow derisory, implying you thought the ticket could be much higher. E.g. maybe it was a $2000 fare to Europe.

          Perhaps, I really couldn't care less about such a technicality though (unless you're suggesting that if they informed him he was under arrest he would have complied peacefully?).

        • shinichiduy on 13/04/2017 - 18:42

          @whooah1979: I read somewhere that $800 compensation has a catch that you cannot use more than $50 per booking and you have to use it within a certain period. Think of it like 16 $50 voucher and if all the vouchers expire in 1 year, you almost have to fly with them (round trip) once every month to use up your compensation.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 18:52
          +1

          @callum9999:

          You said they should "comp the ticket" because $800 is somehow derisory, implying you thought the ticket could be much higher. E.g. maybe it was a $2000 fare to Europe.

          i don't know how much their tickets cost. they were offered $800. they declined. the airline could have made a second offer that were better. a few thousand dollars could have saved them what happened next.

          (unless you're suggesting that if they informed him he was under arrest he would have complied peacefully?).

          some people tend to stand their ground when they think they have choices. many people will comply then their choices are taken away from them. arresting mr dao for refusing to leave would have been the best option.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 22:17

          @whooah1979: Indeed they could have offered more. If they knew the man was going to create such an enormous scene I'm sure they would have.

          I doubt it would have made any difference. Though given United don't decide whether to arrest them or not, are you now agreeing the violence wasn't their fault?

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 22:33

          @Bikesproshopau: No United (or any airline) don't offer their compensation in the form of $50 vouchers that must be used on separate bookings. That would be absurd…

        • trongy on 14/04/2017 - 23:45

          @Bikesproshopau:
          The $800 compensation would be cash. I have had United offer me a voucher for a steeply discounted domestic (US) flight in addition to the cash and accommodation offered for accepting a delay.

        • moonphase on 18/04/2017 - 18:46

          @callum9999: if none of them was happy with 800, they had room to change that but they didn't.

          Many other airline knows overbooking from check-in and decline on-board when you check in not after you have seated. More fun part is that reason behind wasn't due to overbooking but to put their staffs on other services.

          Let me correct the statement there as it could be read as United was correct.

          I'm not saying the "standard" procedure of random pick is wrong, which mostly happens at check-in counter.
          Even if they messed up by let all customers go and get seated, if it was because of paying customers, I would say random pick is somewhat fair, although that some may have may have reason they must take that flight. But for their own staffs? After the counter? Not for safety reason but to avoid loss due to the possible delay for other flights?

          I guess they could bump it off way bigger than 800 per person up to the level where the customer cannot resist to volunteer. As it will be cheaper than the delaying the whole other flights.

          Instead, they kicked the customer over the staffs by applying random picking the passenger. I don't even have to guess that staffs was out of the pool. I don't see any fairness in here and think it is ridiculous.

        • callum9999 on 19/04/2017 - 08:58

          @moonphase: So to summarise all that, "it's ridiculous because I say it's ridiculous"? I can't say you've convinced me…

          While an argument can be made that it's not completely justified, delaying 4 passengers to prevent the delay of an entire plane full of passengers is perfectly reasonable and rational and doesn't come remotely close to being "ridiculous".

        • moonphase on 19/04/2017 - 11:40

          @callum9999:

          I'm surprised on your comprehension here. It's ridiculous because they are kicking out the paying customer who already on board over their staffs.

          You may keep thinking that they really had to send their staffs over that plance but if that 4 staffs was really needed then why not just charter the plane? I don't think their CEO uses their commercial plane. They just wanted to go cheaper way and decide to put the case as "overbooking", which is ridiculous in the first place. Adding the staff is not "overbooking" as term "overbooking" comes from "overselling" but there was no sales at all. CEO also later admitted that it was not overbooking.

          Also, it's not legal to kick off the passenger once they are on board, as I thought so.

          Please read below:
          http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo…

          You can deny to be on board but once boarded, he has right to take that plane.

          If you don't understand why this is ridiculous, then I'll just give up.

  • Nugs on 13/04/2017 - 06:26
    +4

    Seinfeld

    car rental company says….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM

    .

  • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 06:41
    +2

    But no other industries are inconveniencing customers in order to reduce the cost.

    have you been to a gp lately?

    • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 13:56
      +1

      I know, this is a hilariously stupid comment. Find me an industry that doesn't inconvenience customers EVER to improve their profits, still looking? Let me give you a hint…

  • shaybisc on 13/04/2017 - 07:19
    +2

    It is odd. US airlines bumped 40,000 last year, not counting the volunteers. United booted 3765.

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/United…

  • solocode on 13/04/2017 - 07:25
    +3

    There's a tex-ed video on this
    https://youtu.be/ZFNstNKgEDI

    • RockyRaccoon on 13/04/2017 - 08:28
      +2

      Excellent find - explains why.

      Using their probability model, what % of ozbargainers commenting here will actually look at this and understand?

      LOL

      • trongy on 15/04/2017 - 10:18

        That video is good. Ozbargainers should understand that if overbooking was not allowed, the heavily discounted tickets that often feature on this site would not exist.

        It's worth noting that the United flight that has caused controversy was not overbooked - United have admitted this.

        United Flight Passenger Was Removed From Wasn’t Actually Overbooked

        Overbooking is being used as a scapegoat in this case.

  • Mad Max on 13/04/2017 - 10:12
    +2

    There is another forum thread on the same subjet.
    Not sure hot to link to it, but this is the best idea posted by Scrooge McDuck (this is exactly the same solution I thought when I saw the incident in the news)

    The airline should've announced ever increasing compensation for passengers to give up their seats over the intercom, like an auction where the airline is the bidder and all the passengers are sellers:
    $400… $500… $600… etc, until they had enough takers.
    That would be a fair way to handle the issue rather than punishing a few unlucky individuals at random.

    What happens if no one accepts the bids/offers?

    It should increase until they had enough takers.
    If hypothetically they had no takers at $1,000,000 they should take off and fly the plane to the nearest psychiatric facility.

    • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 11:45

      It's not really an idea, given that's exactly what they did… Granted they stopped at $800 not $1,000,000, but I think we all know that's not quite realistic! They logically should have continued till they got to $1,350 (the amount they'd be paying the 4 passengers removed against their will anyway) but you're basically just describing their current practice.

      • MITM on 13/04/2017 - 14:32
        -1

        What happens if 3 passengers accept $800, but no one else - so they continue with upping the compo, and a 4th person accepts $1350. There'd be 3 cheesed off passengers who missed out on $550.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 15:27

          I'm pretty sure with BA if you accept a lower offer than others then that's what you get. I'd guess that's the same across the industry?

          I'd be a bit annoyed in that scenario (which is likely as I'd always jump at the first offer!), but ultimately it's reasonably fair given its what they both agreed. Plus, if the offer was $1350 for everyone then maybe 5+ people would volunteer and they wouldn't get chosen at all.

  • cameldownunder on 13/04/2017 - 10:49

    "flight got cancelled because of technical reason" —> Flight is half empty, and we're going to merge you with the passenger on our next flight.
    Boarding and then being stuck in the plane for 2 hours ? —> They didn't want you to ask for drinks and later for meal vouchers
    Your bag got lost, and they ask you if you have travel insurance? —> They don't want to pay you for urgently needed stuff ( which they have to )

  • Nugs on 13/04/2017 - 11:49

    another Seinfeld one

    https://www.facebook.com/seinfeldsbestbits/videos/9953979905…

    .

  • BigTed on 13/04/2017 - 12:14
    +3

    We need a charter of rights like the EU
    http://www.airpassengerrights.eu/en/your-rights-a-summary.ht…

  • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 12:25
    -3

    A lot of people will think i am an (profanity) for saying this but that's OK - because i am already used to it :)

    Granted the practice is annoying (speaking as someone who has been it's victim) but it's entirely legal and within their rights, if you don't like it then fly on a different airline.

    Did you HEAR the guy when they tried to move him - this is BEFORE they carried him anywhere, BEFORE he got hit by an armrest or anything (before everyone jumps on me about that). He was screaming like he was being murdered - look at that footage objectively and tell me he isn't being a F&(&G entitled (profanity). His refusal resulted in all the kerfuffle, his ranting resulted in the flight being significantly delayed. Without him doing what he did none of the other stuff happens.

    I would be interested in feedback from frequent travelers on this - personally i would have been pissed at EVERYONE involved - the passenger for being such a turd and creating a massive issue (arguably because he thought he was too important to be bumped, MD or not he ISN'T unless he wants to pay for a more expensive seat), the airline for handling it so poorly (United truly suck, i hate them viciously and will refuse to travel on them after some incidents i have had with them) and then calling in security, security for being heavy handed (have you been to a US airport? minimum wage, boring job, chance to occasionally flex some power, gee i wonder why it goes horribly wrong).

    • moonphase on 13/04/2017 - 12:52
      -1

      Well we don't know know why he wanted to keep on board on that flight, do we?

      Say if one of your family member is seriously ill and about to pass, wouldn't you be so desperate?

      Until we know why he wanted that flight so much, it's too early to say about his action.

      You may seen that how the man has been dragged out but I wonder if they ever tried to convince and calm the customer down before they decide to drag him out with the force. This would be why there's no one raise voice nor stands for airline / airport.

      On the other hands, we now know the overbooking was due to sending partner airline's staffs not due to other customers and seen how they used the force. We all know that's WRONG.

      It's just that simple. (for now)

      • RockyRaccoon on 13/04/2017 - 13:14

        Nothing is just THAT simple.

        You seem to be wanting it to be, but it isn't.

        1. You keep saying choosing at random isnt fair. So what is fair? If you get no volunteers and you need people to leave the plane.
        2. Same as above, but lets say the plane has a weight issue, so needs to off load passengers again no one wants to leave. How would you suggest that is handled.

        I have been in situation 2. There were seats but the plane from LAX to SYD had to fly thru high winds on the way, so they needed to reduce weight for ability to fly the whole distance. n this case people took the offered compensation, but if they didn't then how would you have chosen.

        You are confusing the need to bump people because of who they were being bumped for. We have no idea why it was so important for the staff to be on board. But I doubt if it was for their recreation.

        • moonphase on 13/04/2017 - 14:02
          -1

          Read again, I never said that choosing random isn't fair.

          If it was general situation like overbooked on other paying customers, yeah what choice they have?

          Yes we have no idea how much shipping their partner's airline on that particular plane which was fully booked and I guess that could be answered by the airline for their excuse.

          BTW, your situation 2 is more like airline shown the generosity and gave a compensation. With their terms and condition, if the reason is due to the safety and something out of airline's control (e.g. weather), they don't have to pay you but just need to find another flight for you.

      • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 13:51
        -1

        Nothing WRONG with removing people to transit staff or passengers - it's their legal right and it's in the T&C's on your ticket that they can do it. Like i said if you don't like an airlines policies don't fly with that airline or don't buy a cheap ticket if you don't want to take the risk of being bumped that is ALWAYS THERE.

        Do you think this happened in 2 minutes? They tried for a significant period of time (some sites say 45 minutes, some say 30) to convince people to get off the flight - only THIS guy refused to go - 3 other people did get off, so what should they have done? Said sorry this guy is refusing and now being a ranting insane crazy person and screaming like a banshee so we have to pick someone else - how do you think that would go? What do you think the next person would do?

        I am not disputing that both the airline and the security handled it poorly from there, but if he got off the flight like he was legally required to then we wouldn't be discussing it.

        EVERYTHING FROM HERE IS A TANGENT THAT MAY OFFEND YOU - READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK

        Getting on your moral high horse about this is ridiculous - if it's legally allowed and the airline can make more money by doing it then their management are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do it - they have a responsibility to maximize shareholder profit END OF. If anyone really wants it to change they need to make using that sort of policy more expensive by protest, boycott, or lobbying government to change the rules.

        What are the chances this will happen? Pretty much NIL most just want to bleat about it on facebook and twitter for 5 minutes and move on! Those corporations… being all corporationy….

        • moonphase on 13/04/2017 - 14:37
          -2

          Usually, you get denied to be on board not taken off from the already on boarded plane. I'm not a legal expert so if they can transit the staff over the passengers whom already sat on the seat, that would be big surprise.

          If there was no media attention at all, we wouldn't even know that overbooking was unusual case or he got injured.

          If it was legal, then they shouldn't offer the different amount of money after time passed but straight 400% of the one way ticket price up to $1350 and go for straight random pick after asking volunteer. So I'm not even sure that asking volunteer was done in the correct way.

          Like you said, I won't fly with United with my money. This is not their first time doing stupid. Is that 30~45 minutes spent just to take off that Asian man? I would highly doubt so.

          Also you have mentioned profit of the shareholder. I wonder if they would be so happy about the share drops due to their irresponsible action. Also, Chinese seems to going for boycott United like what they are doing now with South Korea after THAAD has been placed.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 14:59

          @moonphase:
          I would suggest doing some checking, they can certainly remove you from a plane and they can certainly do it for staff or a passenger - there's no real difference.

          Of course it's legal and there are legally mandated remedies, they don't have to go straight to the 400% they can build up to it as anyone sensible would.

          Yep 30-45 minutes JUST for that guy.

          Of course - but that share drop COULD be temporary, this COULD hurt them and maybe that would make them change like i said, it's all about the bottom line.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 16:52

          @slewis69au:
          On top of that you do realize that due to the whole incident the plane didn't leave right? Due to the tool and then subsequent mishandling of said tool the flight didn't go - and nobody got to go home.

          For a rational explanation of the situation see this:
          http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-lets-be-hon…

          How about this?
          http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/new-v…

          Watch that and tell me he didn't walk right into the situation and make it worse. Let's face it he was being an Asshat. And if he's such a super important physician why was he flying all that way with no leeway for any delays on a cheap ticket? I stand by my assessment: Tool. Soon to be a rich tool when he sues and makes everything more expensive for everyone going forward, i don't get why we applaud people who sue, where do you think the MONEY comes from to pay this tool, from all of us though more expensive premiums, more expensive tickets, etc.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 17:36

          Nothing WRONG with removing people to transit staff or passengers - it's their legal right and it's in the T&C's on your ticket that they can do it.

          does the t&c state that the employees or aviation security officers are allowed to use force and/or strike the passengers to comply?

          was mr dao put under arrest and resisting before the aviation security officer decided to assault him?

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 18:20

          @whooah1979:
          Of course not. I clearly stated that they handled that poorly.

          Nobody was struck, he got hurt struggling with officers who were removing him for failing to comply with a legal order.

          My point is that he is hardly a blameless victim, he contributed to the situation.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 18:24

          @slewis69au:

          Nobody was struck, he got hurt struggling with officers who were removing him for failing to comply with a legal order.

          not according to audra d bridges who was one of the passengers that recorded the event.
          http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/10/video-s…
          Then, she said, a third security official came on the plane and threw the passenger against the armrest before dragging him out of the plane

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 18:30

          @whooah1979:
          If You're being picky about language so can I!
          That's a report from one person and still doesn't describe him being struck. He was struggling with police in an enclosed space, bouncing into something accidentally is not hard to believe or even unlikely?

          How do you know that in his struggles he didn't accidentally push himself in that direction?

          Does any of this happen if he isn't behaving like a crazed toddler?

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 19:00

          @slewis69au:

          He was struggling with police in an enclosed space, bouncing into something accidentally is not hard to believe or even unlikely?

          anything could happen in situation like this. accidentally or not.

          How do you know that in his struggles he didn't accidentally push himself in that direction?

          i don't know. i'm just quoting audra d bridges statement as reported by the courier-journal.

          Does any of this happen if he isn't behaving like a crazed toddler?

          that is one's opinion. mr dao behaviour doesn't justify the use of force as seen in the vids.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 19:05

          @whooah1979:
          Totally disagree my statement is not an opinion it's a fact.

          If he isn't resisting and screaming like a toddler then it DOES NOT HAPPEN. Watch the videos again, he starts screaming BEFORE they touch him.

          Your statement that him being forcibly removed isn't justified is definitely an opinion though.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 19:35

          @slewis69au:

          Your statement that him being forcibly removed isn't justified is definitely an opinion though.

          two different opinions. lets leave it at that.

          perhaps we can agree that mr dao will get his fair share.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 19:42

          @whooah1979:
          Yep let's leave it there.

        • moonphase on 18/04/2017 - 19:58

          @slewis69au: Research done. It was illegal by trying to process it as "Overbook"

          Read below for more:
          http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo…

        • slewis69au on 19/04/2017 - 13:09

          @moonphase:
          LOL & eyeroll - that's ONE fringe site with a reference a reddit comment. I know all the best lawyers hang out on Reddit doing analysis…

          There was no overbooking.

          They were removing passengers for operational reasons.

          If that's illegal then WOW there are a LOT of illegal passenger removals going on. Like hundreds a year, despite inexperienced keyboard warrior musings (the article, not you), i severely doubt it's illegal or that they expose themselves to that kind of risk. I repeat this happens ALL THE TIME (removal of boarded passengers for operational reasons) i have personally seen it at least 20 times and i fly to the US 1-2 times a year. Frequently flyers over there must see it a lot more.

          On the other hand i am no lawyer - so maybe nakedcapitalism has it right and the rest of the sites have it wrong and the airlines are doing something illegal (certainly not impossible, just unlikely in my opinion).

        • moonphase on 19/04/2017 - 14:56

          @slewis69au: so you mean you had been actually seated and been asked to volunteer to get out from the on boarded plane?

          What kind of operation reason was it? I bet it wasn't for the other flight services that your chosen company runs though.

          I don't fly much to US like you but go oversea from place to place 1~2 year and never seen this happening after boarding to the plane. If you seen that happen 20 times in the international line please share with me so I can avoid that line in the future.

          Like I said, I've seen some people denied to be on boarded from the counter. That's way common to me not to mention that would be much easier to handle it.

        • slewis69au on 20/04/2017 - 12:24

          @moonphase:
          In some cases not even ASKED to volunteer - just told they have to get off the flight.

          United Airlines
          American Airlines
          Delta Airlines

          ALL do this - but only on domestic flights.

          US domestic air travel SUCKS.

      • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 15:39
        +2

        We don't ALL know it was wrong. The man was trespassing and refusing a lawful order to leave the plane. Forcefully removing him was 100% right in my book.

        If a belligerent man was sitting in my living room refusing to leave, I'd certainly want the police to drag him out. Ideally it wouldn't cause him physical harm (and if evidence comes out showing more force than required is what caused the injury I'd certainly want them fired), but if you're going to grapple with security staff then that's a risk you're creating yourself.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 16:38
          +1

          EXACTLY - finally someone reasonable. Nobody is saying the other handling of the situation was perfect (or even good for that matter) but they guy was being a tool.

          I have been negged as expected :)

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 17:03
          +2

          @slewis69au: I've now finally managed to watch the video - the man is a complete lunatic. There's no way I'd want to be treated by that man…

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 17:16

          @callum9999: Thank you!

          It's all coming out now - before his "performance" the tool called his Lawyer! Also the tool is a convicted drug dealer and felon who has lost his licence multiple times and is only allowed to work 1 day a week under supervision.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 17:44

          The man was trespassing and refusing a lawful order to leave the plane.

          mr dao may have allegedly trespassed. was he arrested by the aviation security officer before he was hit and dragged down the aisle?

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 17:58
          +1

          @slewis69au:

          It's all coming out now - before his "performance" the tool called his Lawyer! Also the tool is a convicted drug dealer and felon who has lost his licence multiple times and is only allowed to work 1 day a week under supervision

          none of this is relevant to what happen to mr dao on uef3411.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc…

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 18:12

          @whooah1979: If the video showed him being hit then I'd be more concerned. While I'm unaware what the exact legal definition of trespass is in the US, I think we both know full well what I mean by that if it doesn't technically meet it!

          Not that I necessarily agree with the "performance" bit - he could be mentally ill or just an idiot.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 18:21

          @callum9999:

          If the video showed him being hit then I'd be more concerned.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc…
          Dao suffered injuries to his head and mouth when his face was slammed into the armrest by a police officer[2]

          http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/10/video-s…
          Then, she said, a third security official came on the plane and threw the passenger against the armrest before dragging him out of the plane

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 18:22
          +2

          @whooah1979:
          It smells a lot like he was deliberately causing trouble in the hopes of being able to Sue. His previous behaviour speaks to his character and is relevant to his creditibility.

        • callum9999 on 13/04/2017 - 18:30
          +1

          @whooah1979: Those injuries can easily be sustained by someone being forcibly removed from a seat while resisting. Excuse me for not taking Wikipedia or random witnesses among a group of hysterical passengers as gospel.

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 18:32
          +1

          @whooah1979:
          He wasn't hit and he isn't required to be arrested before being removed.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2017 - 18:41

          @slewis69au:

          He wasn't hit and he isn't required to be arrested before being removed.

          these aviation security officers has the power to arrest and detain. the officer in the vids didn't do any of those things.
          https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?jo…
          Arrests and detains individuals found violating or suspected of violating city, state and federal laws, restraining individuals using handcuffs or other restraining devices

        • slewis69au on 13/04/2017 - 18:45

          @whooah1979:
          Randomly quoting laws regardless of their applicability and ignoring all the other factors doesn't prove anything.

          He failed to comply with a legal order, why do you think he has to be arrested to be moved?

          Why aren't you answering any other questions?

        • BartholemewH on 14/04/2017 - 00:16
          +1

          @slewis69au:
          100% People whose previous actions speak to being of poor character are generally of poor character.

        • HangryCakeStore on 15/04/2017 - 00:02

          @slewis69au: don't know what you're on about, comply or not, nobody should be made to leave the plane they boarded already for no reason. Also earlier what was the relevance of bringing up this drug history? u dont even know if its true..

        • slewis69au on 16/04/2017 - 08:26

          @shadOzer:
          The drug part was wrong, i shouldn't have done that but you couldn't be more wrong - they offload boarded passengers all the time and they are within their rights to do so. Whether it's morally right or not? That's a different conversation but the Noob rage on the internet about taking someone off a plane is HILARIOUS to anyone who has flown domestic in the US.

        • moonphase on 19/04/2017 - 15:05

          The man was not trespassing at all. He bought ticket, checked-in and on-boarded to the plane. That's not trespassing at all.

          What you saying is like you are the host of AirBnB and suddenly you realized that your cousin need room so you boot off the person whom already arrived and unpacked to the room saying that you are trespassing so leave.

          If you watched the second video that was taken from back of the guy, no way that he "was" belligerent. It seems to me that he was panicked rather than been lunatic after got injured and dragged away.

      • jackary on 14/04/2017 - 01:16

        Edit: don't mind me - I've pretty much replicated an earlier comment!

  • -.- on 13/04/2017 - 13:10
    +4

    Logic is this:

    % of people are no shows -> over-selling seats -> fuller planes -> (theoretically) lower seat prices

    • MITM on 13/04/2017 - 14:38

      Not with Air Asia.
      No shows = empty seats but airline retains moneys paid.
      (Airport taxes are refunded, but claims must be made AFTER the departure date)
      … and still lower seat prices.

      • moonphase on 18/04/2017 - 18:53

        Air Asia earn money more from corporate by renting their planes rather than commercial flights.

        It was quite interesting model.

  • LowCostTraveller on 13/04/2017 - 17:06
    +2

    Have any one of you encountered these situations:

    The stadium says: Sorry we oversold your seat ?

    Actually yes in Australia some venues do indeed sell more tickets than capacity. Reason being that for games where Members get in with General Admission that the club/stadium will speculate that not all members will arrive for any given game and so will sell tickets for walk ups and online for in access of Cpacity - Members. This has meant that for some games that Members with paid admission who arrive late are locked out.

    The fine print also does say that entry is not guaranteed.

  • nobarginsarehere on 13/04/2017 - 19:42
    +1

    Wendover explains it very well in this video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqWksuyry5w

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join