Airlines 'to face fines' for overbooking

[LTN man]

From the BBC

Airlines that overbook flights could face heavy fines under laws being drawn up by the European Commission, a German magazine has said.
The EC's draft bill would force airlines to pay fines of at least 750 euros for every booked passenger ejected, or "bumped", from a flight, weekly title Focus said.

For journeys longer than 3,500km (2,175 miles), carriers would have to pay ejected passengers 1,500 euros (£928).

For low-fare tickets, a penalty of 375 euros would be introduced, Focus said.

The measure has been drawn up to clampdown on airlines which repeatedly overbook, maximising profits but risking disappointing passengers.

EU data shows that about 250,000 passengers were "bumped" in 1999, the magazine says.

[tired]

Yeah? And are the 15 -20% of pax who no-show going to be fined as well?

[Squealing Pig]

Ticket prices going up then !....... watch this space.

[SniperPilot]

tired, to noshow is a priviledge of paying full fare. If 250,000 pax are being bumped per year in Europe, then the Airlines are pushing overbooking too far.

[simbad3000]

Interesting idea Tired. How about fines for passengers who don't eat all of their in-flght meal as well? And you've got to fine those ones than don't watch the movie. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[LRRP]

simbad3000 if you did that you would have to pay compensation when the pilot interupts the movie just as it gets to the good bit just to tell the pax something they really do not need to know.

[innuendo]

The hotel industry want a credit card number to hold a room and of course if you fail to show you may be charged. My dentist has a "no-show" fee if I do not cancel in suitable time. Why should an unjustified no show have no cost for the spoiled goods,IE empty seat on departed aircraft. Overbooking is simple self defence these days.

[pulse1]

As long as the ridiculous pricing structure encourages people like me to buy TWO return tickets 50% cheaper than one, there will be a high proportion of empty seats. I guess that I have not used about 30% of my flight tickets in the last year. I have been aware that my flights have been overbooked about 20% of the time. i.e. I have been offered hotel accomodation and taxis as an incentive to delay my flight until the next morning. This is mainly for medium distance flights in Europe.

[tired]

simbad, that was a ridiculous post. Innuendo's post says it all - you can't make money from an empty seat once the aircraft has departed.

For family reasons I do a fair amount of Staff Travel on a long haul route ex LHR on which there are 3 airlines operating. (No names, no pack drill. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ) The no show rate on this route on all 3 airlines is regularly in excess of 10% - bearing in mind that I'm on an ID90 standby ticket and only get a seat if all paying pax have been accommodated, I have never yet failed to get on, even when the aeroplane has been overbooked by 10% (and more at peak season). Besides the economics of it for the airline, it's just plain damn bad manners to book something and then not turn up. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[Young Paul]

I think the idea of a legally imposed level of compensation is unreasonable. There are already some people who apparently make a living from booking on flights they know will be overbooked, and then collecting the Denied Boarding Compensation. For the most part, DBC in good airlines is at a sensible level, which takes the sting out of "not getting on."

However, there is room for airlines to be a bit more sensible about overbooking. There are times when it's a pretty safe bet that everyone will show up, or when the capacity is likely to drop because of smaller aircraft.

250,000 pax denied boarding during a whole year across Europe doesn't sound like very many to me. What is that in percentage terms? 0.1%, maybe? So on average, it affects people one flight in 1000? Hardly the end of life as we know it.

[Few Cloudy]

Ha! So easyJet are doing something right after all - no tickets and if you don't show up, you pay anyway. easy easy

[Avman]

To fine airlines for over booking sounds like yet another Federal European Stealth Tax to me. Why should full fare paying passengers have the right to no-show? This new proposed penalty imposed on the scheduled airlines could, in theory, lead to near empty aeroplanes flying at peak times. That's all the industry needs now!

[radeng]

A problem with 'fining' no shows is the difficulty if you are interlining at a connecting airport, and you no show because of delay or cancellation on a prior leg of the journey? Quite possibly on a different carrier. I'd be extremely annoyed if that happened to me.

I've also ended up as a 'no show' because of errors in dealing with cancelled flights - they gave me a ticket for a flight after some cancellations, and the sent me on an earlier one, so I 'no showed' for the second one. That completely screwed things up on the return!

[FO Walrus]

I have to agree with Pulse1.

Recently, I needed to fly to Dublin on business with 1 days notice. BA wanted approx £400 return. (I could fly to Australia for that). By booking two return flights at approx £90 each I saved over £200. This has probably got a lot to do with the Saturday night away rule, why they have this is completely beyond me. So my comment to any airline is, until you change this stupid rule and have these outrageous fares, then people are going to find a way around the system and I would suspect that 90% of no shows could be explained by this.

As for fining airlines for bumping passengers, you bet, the question is, is 1500 Euro's enough? It would serve any airline right for trying to charge £400 for a 45 minute flight.

The problem is with the airlines and IATA not the passengers.

[J-Class]

Let's try to be clear here on the subject of no-shows. Sniperpilot is absolutely correct - those passengers who have shelled out for unrestricted tickets are paying for the option to become a no-show. In a world where the price difference between a restricted and unrestricted ticket can be a thousand percent, one can hardly blame premium passengers for occasionally exercising this option.

For everybody else (and for the average intercontinental flight, that means the majority of passengers) becoming a no-show means throwing the cost of the ticket away. It's true that airlines are usually understanding about interlining problems, but frankly I don't care if they are or not: my travel insurance would cover my missing a flight due to such a fault.

[innuendo]

posted 07 January 2002 19:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try to be clear here on the subject of no-shows. Sniperpilot is absolutely correct - those passengers who have shelled out for unrestricted tickets are paying for the option to become a no-show.

Where do find that option spelled out? As I said before, hotels, dentists, cruise ship deposits, all have some sort of fee. The service provided is not without cost. You don't get back the price of your ticket if you don't show at the opera/rock concert.
A lost full fare seat is a large loss and is not recoverable. An unjustified "No-Show" is not frivolous to the airline.
No-Shows cost, and given that nothing is free at the end of the day, the cost will eventually come from somewhere. IE The other poor bu#ger. Whether we like it or not, the yield management bean counters have a pretty good handle these days on overbooking and it is simply a defensive reaction to the problem.
At the same time I have to agree that where the pricing structure is as assinine as to see two returns cost less than one, it is their own doing.

[J-Class]

Where do you find that [no-show] option spelled out? Look on the face of your ticket next time you fly. Or rather, if you are on an unrestricted fare, look at what it doesn't say.

A full fare unrestricted ticket is just that - no restrictions on it. It can be changed, refunded in whole or in part or endorsed over to another carrier. Passengers may change their reservations gratis.

All other forms of ticket have various forms of restrictions - "no change of reservation" "non-endorsable" "non-refundable" and so on. Some airlines - for example Virgin Atlantic I know used to do this - allow passengers on certain mid-range, non-full fare tickets the option of changing reservation for a cost (used to be £50, probably more now). This option typically doesn't apply to the cheapest seat which are absolutely "use 'em or lose 'em".

Thus the airlines are quite aware that they are pricing the option to change reservations as part of their unrestricted fare - indeed, the ability ot change reservations is the primary characteristic of the unrestricted ticket. The airlines choose to offer such tickets because it is profitable for them to do so (hugely so when the price differentials between fare types is so high). That the EU is attempting to force carriers to do a better job when passengers exercise the option they have bought seems a reasonable thing to me.

[innuendo]

Perhaps we are not talking about the same perception of "NO-Show".
If you let the airline know or change your reservation, as an unrestricted ticket allows, (you most certainly have paid for that) that is not really no show. If you simply allow the seat to go empty with no notice to the carrier and feel that is your right because of what you paid then I do not agree. It has a cost to the industry that is eventually seen in the ticket price to everyone.

[christep]

To further complicate the issue some airlines bump people in favour of top frequent flyers as well.

I recall turning up at 18:15 for the 20:00 TPE-HKG flight and realising I could make the 19:00 flight. However, on reaching the check-in I saw a group of slightly irate passengers who were obviously not being promised a seat on the 19:00 despite having reservations. Nevertheless, I wandered up to first-class check-in with my Diamond card and my 20:00 reservation, and politely enquired if there might be any possibility of a seat on the 19:00.

"Of course, sir, no problem."

I actually felt a little guilty for a millisecond or two. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

This was all with a somewhat restricted CX-only economy ticket by the way, so it's not just the cost of the individual ticket that counts, but how much you spend with them over time.

From CX's point of view I guess it worked - this sort of thing means I sometimes go quite out of my way to take them rather than the competition.

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: HKGpax ]</p>

[KATLPAX]

“You don't get back the price of your ticket if you don't show at the opera/rock concert.”

But you do get back the price of any other consumer good if returned somewhat promptly, from a toaster, a book to a Television, and I am able to get a refund for unused movie tickets provided I return them in advance. If you as a consumer don’t want it, you have the option of returning it without penalty. The airline industry finds it very lucrative to penalize the customer for changes by charging $100 per change, not allowing a refund if you can’t use the ticket, not guaranteeing the security of luggage then complaining about carry-ons, compensation for a lost bag barely covers a few suits and shoes.

In the US if you don’t show for a flight you lose that ticket and rightly so. But if you call ahead and try to make other arrangements you end up with huge costs. I think the airlines can create restrictions to cover costs but currently they are out of hand. Overbooking is a huge problem. Customer no-service is the norm. On top of it, many of these airlines want a bailout by the government! Start treating the flying public with some fairness first. No sympathies here.

[innuendo]

Quite correct, if you return the toaster or television set in acceptable condition, you get a refund. Return your tickets early enough, likewise a refund. If the flight leaves with a seat empty that could have been filled how do you return that? The goods are gone - non returnable.
At the end of the day it costs SOMEONE money and the costs somehow will make their way through the system one way or the other. Overbooking or built in to the ticket price, who knows but nothing is free.

[Max Flyup]

"those passengers who have shelled out for unrestricted tickets are paying for the option to become a no-show. "

So let me get this right - an unrestricted ticket should allow me to make a booking, change my mind, NOT INFORM THE AIRLINE I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND, and then get a later flight.

As they say - 'Yeah, right!'

[freddy]

That is absolutely correct Max. The airlines would not do it if it was not profitable. That is precisely the privilege you are paying for and the fact that a percentage of fully flexible ticket holders will not show up is expected.

It is what we lowly sub-load ticket holders on standby pray for.

[KATLPAX]

"Return your tickets early enough, likewise a refund. If the flight leaves with a seat empty that could have been filled how do you return that? The goods are gone - non returnable."

Here in the US, you cannot return your tickets early or late, once purchased they are yours unless you change them for $100 plus any increase in fare. If I don't fill that seat, I certainly will fill another on that carrier in a day or two and probably will fly much more if I know I won't get clobbered for a change or if I can use that ticket for a future flight. In other words the airline still gets my business and a loyal one at that. As of now, they screw you to the wall if you decide you need to have a little flexibility with your travel plans. This certainly does not happen with my car rental from Hertz.

[M.Mouse]

It is plainly apparent from the differing viewpoints on this subject that what we all have at the moment is a mess that benefits few and penalises many.

Hopefully the prospect of the ever meddlesome bureaucrats of the USE entering the fray with their normal jackboot policies might galvanise the airline industry to take some action to put its house in order.

It won't be before time.

[captainowie]

As I don't fly regularly on commercial carriers, I am not sure on this, but I wouldn't think that a no-show would get any sort of refund on their ticket if they simply did not show up for their flight. I mean, if the seat is paid for, surely it does not matter if there's a bum in it or not!

If I book and pay for a seat on a particular flight, and I don't front up at the airport at the right time, then surely my ticket is forefeit (sp?) and I don't have a right to a refund?!? If that's not the case, then I can understand the airlines wanting to charge a "No-show" fee.

Just my two cents worth......

[radeng]

Can someone tell me what happens if I'm booked on a connecting flight on a different carrier, and I miss it because of lateness on part of the first carrier? Does the first carrier tell the second, thus warning them the seat will be empty? Or is it something that might or might not happen, depending?

[SLF3]

First point: If I buy a non-endorsable, non-refundandable, non-transferable ticket I have bought a seat on that flight. Is there any other industry that can say when I turn up 'Sorry sir, someone just offered to pay more so your out'? If anyone gets bounced it should be the guy who booked last on a flexible ticket!

Second point: Have you ever tried calling a major airline to tell them you are not going to use a ticket (any kind of ticket)? They are disinterested to the point of rudeness!

Third point: If you charge more for a one way ticket than a return you should not really be surprised if people travelling one way only use half the ticket. Why do the major carriers not sell discounted one way tickets?

Fourth point: Everybody who travels a lot knows that certain flights are routinely overbooked to the point where it a statistical certainty that not everyone is going to get on. Airlines should pay a price for bumping people to discourage this.

The reason that no frills carriers are attractive is that for economy class passengers 'full service' airlines are now so squalid that there is no incentive to use them. If your strategy to compete with a lower cost competitor is to reduce your service levels to his but charge more than he does there can be only one possible outcome. The way the industry treats overbooking is a measure of the total contempt with which it views it's customers. They have noticed!

[ditchy]

I don't know what you've all got your knickers in a twist for. chances are i go standby. less overbooking means more chance of getting on. good news as far as i'm concerned. bring it on...

[mainfrog2]

Those of you who buy a ticket which allows you to not show with no penalty and say you will use it at a latter date, aren't you paying rather a lot for what amounts to a glorified standby ticket, because if you turn up at a later date and there are no no-shows then your hardly likely to get on the flight are you.

[freddy]

...no, because you re-book for a later date. Is this subject really that difficult to understand???

[Covenant]

The comparison with the hotel industry does not hold water. Hotels do not ask you to pay for your hotel room beore you arrive. If Airlines allowed you to "book" a flight over the phone without paying for it, then I would certainly agree that they had a right to get your credit card details and charge you for not showing up or cancelling too late.

As it is though, it seems to me that if you don't show up (unless it be because of a connection problem), you are simply throwing away a ticket that you have already paid for. For the vast majority of tickets, airlines do not offer refund policies for "no-shows", so most of the time, the airline is just doubling up its profits by overbooking and putting another fare-paying pax in your seat.

I do agree that some overbooking is justifiable and makes pefect economic sense. I also think that the rate of overbooking is getting too high and something needs to be done. However, I don't agree with the typically interventionist/socialist EU attitude that everything should be regulated by central government.

You should let the market forces do their work. If people get fed up with an airline and take their business elsewhere because they keep getting bumped, then maybe the airline will wake up and reduce overbooking a little.

[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: Covenant ]

[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: Covenant ]</p>

[innuendo]

"The comparison with the hotel industry does not hold water. Hotels do not ask you to pay for your hotel room beore you arrive."

Well, many hotels require a credit card number to hold a positive room reservation and the charge will go through, unless you can give reasonable notice of not turning up.

I wonder how many volumes of regulations this proposed government initiative will produce.

[skydriller]

I have only once seen overbooking on a flight, the airline concerned made an announcement that they needed 2 or 3 passengers to come foreward to fly a different route to the destination, which would get them there about 4-5 hours later, in return the airline offered each volunteer a couple of free return tickets to be used at a later date – problem solved.

Someone asked why so many passengers do not turn up for flights? The nature of my job is such that I travel at short notice and dont know how long I will be required at my destination. As a result I have about a dozen unused and mostly useless return portions of tickets my company has bought for me over the last year. The reason for this is that it is cheaper for my company to buy two fixed return tickets than one flexible return ticket, let alone a one way ticket when they are unsure of my next destination....
When I have had return tickets which are changable I have tried ringing to say that I will not be on a flight, no one wants to know unless you know what date you are returning, and usually if you change the return date more than once you are heavily charged.


SD

[flypastpastfast]

Bumping passengers is quite ok, as long as no one does it to me!

Isn't that what many people here are really trying to say??