Flight overbooking

[BNEA320]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

I am travelling to Asia and Europe on separate holidays in the next few months. I am travelling business class and I have a web of hotels, tours, trains and internal flights booked.

I have some protection via travel insurance, but. my reaction to the practice of overbooking is unprintable.

It would be far better in my opinion to stop overbooking and instead enforce financial penalties (i.e. no refund) for no shows, require people to take out travel insurance and let the insurance companies deal with the matter.

I note in passing that the ACCC is already investigating airlines for the practice of charging allegedly ridiculous fees for changing flights, etc. that bear no relationship to the cost (if any) of the change.

To put that another way, inflexible fares sometimes allow an airline to profit by charging twice for the same seat on the same flight. Overbooking is unnecessary..

Most tickets sold these days are non-refundable & it's up to the individual airline, whether it will allow no shows on nonref tix to go subload on a later flight.


There's an urban myth about an Australian family flying from CTS to NRT to connect with a JQ flight home. The CTS/NRT leg was late. When they finally got to the JQ gate, their seats had been given away & when the family asked could they get on the next flight, the next day, the JQ staff said sure. Just pay the equivalent of AUD$7500.


If airlines didn't charge a decent fee to change flights, some pax would do it all the time. As most Australians want to do this by phone to an Australian call centre, who has to pay Australian wages/conditions, the costs would be high.


Overbooking is absolutely necessary for the survival of many airlines, especially now the OZ real estate market has completely collapsed esp in SYD/MEL & the recession we had to have is upon us + we now have WW3 likely in Korea, which will do wonders for airline load factors. Here there are some very cheap fares via S Korea at present.

[BNEA320]

Originally Posted by ExSp33db1rd

So why - when I turn up early and request to be seated on the "just about to depart earlier aircraft with empty seats" do they charge me a fortune - quote Re-Booking fee" - to take one of the empty seats and give them the chance to sell my later seat again ?

I sit around and wait, stuff 'em.

because then eg. everyone would book the 2100 SYD/MEL flight, as is much cheaper than the 1800 flight & then expect to be put on the 1800 flight, if they turn up early, which now has a few empty seats.


However, if you are a real heavy frequent flyer with that airline, of course you can get on an earlier flight, OR, as can often be done, if you're a QF Club member booked on a later flight, you can keep asking nicely to be put on an earlier flight & they can only say no, sorry, but have seen it, many times, where people get put on earlier flight.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by mikewil

Are you suggesting that Virgin Australia isn't a "real airline"?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe Air NZ give disrupted pax to QF in preference to going 17 rounds with 10 different people at VA because of their chronic aversion to and total misconception of what an FIM is, they don't conform to many international or basic airline industry standards and want cooperation from other airlines but they don't want to use established mechanisms for dealing with those airlines (see the NZ example above) and they demonstrate constantly through the long line of corporate cockups (millions spent on lounges and cabins and no profit after 7 years, bought other airlines then sold off their aircraft, the abortive and totally laughable escapade into DPS with TT now abandoned because of a case of simply not crossing i's and dotting t's it would seem (something that another airline would unlikely fall into), selling the E190s and now using another operator to fill the gap because, gee, they didn't plan beyond the end of their collective noses... yes, for all these reasons, they are not a real airline but rather an elaborate facade with very little substance below the surface... just get disrupted on them as a customer as opposed to QF in this country and you'll soon see how customer focused they are when you go hours because they can't make a decision and take time to even issue a measly meal voucher because they have to get 'approval' from someone in BNE who controls the vouchers which are issued from the system.

[TT738]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe Air NZ give disrupted pax to QF in preference to going 17 rounds with 10 different people at VA because of their chronic aversion to and total misconception of what an FIM is, they don't conform to many international or basic airline industry standards and want cooperation from other airlines but they don't want to use established mechanisms for dealing with those airlines (see the NZ example above) and they demonstrate constantly through the long line of corporate cockups (millions spent on lounges and cabins and no profit after 7 years, bought other airlines then sold off their aircraft, the abortive and totally laughable escapade into DPS with TT now abandoned because of a case of simply not crossing i's and dotting t's it would seem (something that another airline would unlikely fall into), selling the E190s and now using another operator to fill the gap because, gee, they didn't plan beyond the end of their collective noses... yes, for all these reasons, they are not a real airline but rather an elaborate facade with very little substance below the surface... just get disrupted on them as a customer as opposed to QF in this country and you'll soon see how customer focused they are when you go hours because they can't make a decision and take time to even issue a measly meal voucher because they have to get 'approval' from someone in BNE who controls the vouchers which are issued from the system.

Yes the bureaucracy at VA now seems worse than at QF if thats possible.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by TT738

Yes the bureaucracy at VA now seems worse than at QF if thats possible.

Actually, I think there's no comparison. QF is an established and profitably airline and VA is, I don't know what VA is, a sheltered workshop or something. Impression is many don't know what they're doing and those that do are ignored. I don't think bureaucracy is the right word. One company will sack people the other never does. Sorry, I know people have different perspectives but give me QF any day.

[TCTC]

Can anyone point me to a source of information which shows by how much airlines overbook? From an article, in the Guardian newspaper, it seems that it is information which the airlines keep very much to themselves!

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by TCTC

Can anyone point me to a source of information which shows by how much airlines overbook? From an article, in the Guardian newspaper, it seems that it is information which the airlines keep very much to themselves!

No, it's not a secret, it's just a question without an answer. Most of the decent airlines (and I include QF in that regardless of what others think as they have invested millions in very smart software and they combine it with people who have years of experience.
The reason it can't be answered is because there is a variance across all locations because it is based on no-show rates.
How it was explained to me many years ago was that, for example, when QF was operating to POM, people generally want to get the hell out of there so no-show rate is virtually nothing so (and I'm just surmising here) it would be say, one or two pax, maximum. I believe the software and the human element also take into consideration availability of alternatives. You might say London for example has a higher no-show rate because of later than normal in bound connections mis-connecting, etc. So, so many local variances come into it that it isn't possible to pin down. I believe a few years ago VA were just starting to do it and without the background info they just dipped their toe in the water so to speak. I do believe the airlines in this region genuinely (whether they based it on hard historic data and human intuition/experience like QF or just a guess like others) don't overbook to deny boarding but just to maximize the load to, hopefully, 100%.
You see, it varies by day of the week and on some routes by time of day so it can't be quantified unless the question is, for example, how much do you overbook in each class (usually First never because there's nowhere to go, Business if First is present and has seats), on a Tuesday from MEL to SYD at noon. That's why they don't share it because to quote even an average across all routes would be meaningless. They're not being evasive.

[AEROMEDIC]

I was travelling from Sydney to Hobart recently on QF. As I was returning from a cruise around NZ, I did not check in online (which is something I am loathe to do anyway because it I am doing the airline a favour for free). I was a couple of hours early at the terminal.
My ticket was via MEL and a flight to HBA a few hours later, which was OK, but on using the kiosk, I was asked if I would take an earlier flight.
Never happened before and no fee too. Seems to say that Qantas finally realizes the practicalities of doing this.
Still had to wait for the Hobart leg, but safely in the Qantas Club, not a problem.
So, no issues on this occasion. It seems today airlines CAN be sensible if they try.
This used to be a standard practice decades ago.

[Derfred]

To my knowledge this has always been standard practice in QF. Although they may reserve the offers to the more frequent flyers (or those with flexible tickets) depending upon the number of seats available on the earlier flight. That would appear to be a purely sensible commercial protocol. Furthermore, if they know a later flight is likely to be delayed or cancelled, they will "flow forward" as many passengers as they can to minimise disruption.

But buying a bargain-basement non-flexible ticket and then turning up early at the airport and "asking" for an earlier flight and then getting upset when they ask for the flight-change fee that was clearly accepted in the terms of the cheap ticket is a bit rich.

[Chris2303]

QF do it quite often in bad weather situations that may possibly result in cancellations or severe delays.

It's called "flow forward".

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Chris2303

QF do it quite often in bad weather situations that may possibly result in cancellations or severe delays.

It's called "flow forward".

They also do it and it is part of the planning for, oversales. They know later flights will be heavier (e.g. approaching 5/6pm on Friday) so they oversell those flights and when the punters turn up they offer them the next flight instead so by the time they get to the 5/6 period, just about all the oversales are cleared and the previous 5-6 flights went out full.

Yes, it is called flow forward. I also mentioned that term on an earlier post.

Ansett did exactly the same thing but they called the pax 'jumpers' because they 'jumped' to an earlier flight.

[david1300]

Originally Posted by ExSp33db1rd

So why - when I turn up early and request to be seated on the "just about to depart earlier aircraft with empty seats" do they charge me a fortune - quote Re-Booking fee" - to take one of the empty seats and give them the chance to sell my later seat again ?

I sit around and wait, stuff 'em.

I've had the opposite, and a pleasant experience flying out of AKL to YVR via LAX. Finished business in AKL early and got to the airport in time to politely ask if there was a possibility of being put on an earlier flight. They said yes very quickly (no cost, even though our tickets were the cheapest we could get) but advised that the connection to YVR would not change, so we would wait at LAX instead of AKL. We were quite happy with the process.

[BNEA320]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

Actually, I think there's no comparison. QF is an established and profitably airline and VA is, I don't know what VA is, a sheltered workshop or something. Impression is many don't know what they're doing and those that do are ignored. I don't think bureaucracy is the right word. One company will sack people the other never does. Sorry, I know people have different perspectives but give me QF any day.

interesting or creative accounting at QF. From record loss to profit in a year. Very dodgy.

[BNEA320]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

They also do it and it is part of the planning for, oversales. They know later flights will be heavier (e.g. approaching 5/6pm on Friday) so they oversell those flights and when the punters turn up they offer them the next flight instead so by the time they get to the 5/6 period, just about all the oversales are cleared and the previous 5-6 flights went out full.

Yes, it is called flow forward. I also mentioned that term on an earlier post.

Ansett did exactly the same thing but they called the pax 'jumpers' because they 'jumped' to an earlier flight.

with business class sales falling, with masses of people trying to upgrade, all airlines should overbook economy.

eg. if an aircraft has 400 seats (50C & 350Y) & if very few booking business, they should take 400+ economy bookings & then 50 or so people will have to be upgraded. Rather than upgrade someone for nothing, they should offer upgrades at check in for cash, then if they don't get enough takers, then then upgrade their best frequent flyers FOC. Flew Scoot OOL/SIN for $88 one way & they were even offering upgrades to their bus class, even when we were seated in economy. Nothing like last minute revenue. With the massive recession we had to have, some of the less switched on airlines won't survive.

[Octane]

Garuda in Melbourne used to have a hand written sign at check in offering business class upgrades to Bali for $150. I did it occasionally, don't know if they still do it (my taxi fare was $90 odd so it seemed a good deal). Only a 6 hour flight though..

[cattletruck]

20 years ago I got off the Piccadilly line at Heathrow Airport 15 minutes before my departure back to Oz. I can still remember the face drop of the poor 'ol sod waiting in the holding lounge as I boarded the plane 2 minutes before they closed the door.

I've since returned the favour by missing other international flights through ultimately faults of my own making.

However, once on the way to the airport for an international flight with family, our taxi driver swerved suddenly and avoided hitting the car in front of us on the freeway. The taxi behind us which was most likely going to the same destination didn't fair so well and collected the stationary car. Stuff happens, it's not a perfect world.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by BNEA320

with business class sales falling, with masses of people trying to upgrade, all airlines should overbook economy.

eg. if an aircraft has 400 seats (50C & 350Y) & if very few booking business, they should take 400+ economy bookings & then 50 or so people will have to be upgraded. Rather than upgrade someone for nothing, they should offer upgrades at check in for cash, then if they don't get enough takers, then then upgrade their best frequent flyers FOC. Flew Scoot OOL/SIN for $88 one way & they were even offering upgrades to their bus class, even when we were seated in economy. Nothing like last minute revenue. With the massive recession we had to have, some of the less switched on airlines won't survive.

I think you'll find this is old news and Qantas and others, such as Air NZ have been doing this for years... offering cheap upgrades (e.g. Air NZ when flying SYD-LAX used to do it for $500 one way - any Economy fare to Business) in order to reduce an oversale. I'd say it's a matter of GA just catching on... The airlines don't advertise it for obvious reasons and with QF, as with NZ out of SYD, it is usually only offered outside main base/country of origin.

[ranmar850]

Honestly, my attitude is let the great unwashed stay home, put fares back to where they should be and bring back the services lost.

Apart from the repugnant elitism obvious in that post, you do realise that half of you would be unemployed if the "great unwashed" just stayed home, as befits their lowly status, and we went back to only ladies and gentlemen flying?

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by ranmar850

Apart from the repugnant elitism obvious in that post, you do realise that half of you would be unemployed if the "great unwashed" just stayed home, as befits their lowly status, and we went back to only ladies and gentlemen flying?

Well, anyone that's spent time at somewhere like Avalon Airport and seen the totally unacceptable and disgusting way people doing their jobs are treated by an element of these so-called 'unwashed', would beg to differ.

It is not elitist to expect a reasonable level of civil behavior from people, not all, but many, who cannot take responsibility for turning up too late, bringing too much baggage, not reading their itinerary or listening to the conditions and rather than take some responsibility they lash out and threaten violence and use the most lowly and abusive language... the sort of language that would clear the front bar at Young and Jackson's in it's heyday.

Some people are truly at the shallow end of the gene pool and have no concept how to conduct themselves in public. Airport staff shouldn't have to be at risk of violence or abuse for doing their jobs. I have personally witnessed some years back Police having to be called to a small airport to sort out a number of disgusting individuals on numerous occasions.

Many ports like AVV (not sure if it's changed) have no Federal Police presence and no security other than the people scanning baggage, etc. I'm happy to be corrected and will be happy to know if that's changed because if you combine strict rules about baggage and flight close times with extremely low fares, you attract a number of people who don't know how to conduct themselves in public and the result is significant levels of stress and virtually no back up other than Police sometimes 30 mins away to fall back on.

I can only say that from observations, the eventual arrival of Police in these situations supports the old adage "You get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word"

Let's face it, one airline in particular when it launched deliberately pitched it's product at such people by featuring a comedian characterized as uneducated and daggy. Let these airlines appeal to that market but restore the services to the premium carriers and raise the prices slightly. Many people will pay a marginal amount extra to avoid being stranded due to delays that are tenuously blamed on weather and the like.

Having said that, from a domestic point of view at least, why people complain about Qantas I will never know. They have introduced technology way ahead of their competition, electronic bag tags and kiosks/bag drops that actually work (not require the customer to tag their own bags then line up to show their boarding pass to deposit them like another airline - why bother doing the self check in in the first place???) and baggage systems that pretty much ensure bags will be loaded correctly.

On top of that both the Qantas and Virgin inflight product domestically is so far in advance of the rest of the world's domestic standards it's in its own universe.

[BNEA320]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

I think you'll find this is old news and Qantas and others, such as Air NZ have been doing this for years... offering cheap upgrades (e.g. Air NZ when flying SYD-LAX used to do it for $500 one way - any Economy fare to Business) in order to reduce an oversale. I'd say it's a matter of GA just catching on... The airlines don't advertise it for obvious reasons and with QF, as with NZ out of SYD, it is usually only offered outside main base/country of origin.

but it is advertised & it is available in main bases !!!

Speaking of SYD/LAX some airlines have just dropped their pants & bent over. $1199 return to U.S. west coast departing Xmas Day, $100 to $200 more departing later in December. Thought it was the only time of year some airlines made any money. Obviously forward bookings are awful.

Some airlines surely won't survive this massive recession. Plenty of real estate developers/builders/speculators going under, so they won't be travelling anywhere, anytime soon.