Flight overbooking
Thread Starter
Flight overbooking
Can someone explain why if a flight is overbooked and volunteers are asked to leave that flight for a monetary gain why it is so important?I mean are there people waiting at check in who "just"have to be on that flight?I have just read an article where"Delta "are increasing the amount of inducement?!!!Surely the airline is the loser here?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines have statistics for "no shows" on all their flights, even allowing for the specific route, day of the week and time of departure. So rather than sell the capacity of the aircraft, they apply these "no show" numbers to the capacity of the aircraft hoping that it will depart with no empty seats. When the procedure works they are making extra money with a full aircraft, however it doesn't always work.
Passengers who get stuck in traffic, or are unable to travel due to injury/bereavement/illness etc have come to expect the right to a refund, or at least to be able to transfer to a different flight (varies with class of ticket). So the airline don't know whether they actually will have a full load of fare-paying passengers until just before closing the gate. The continual competitive pressure to reduce prices means hat flights are costed to break even on ever-higher levels of occupancy, so a few no-shows who then use their tickets on a later flight can result in a loss-making flight.
The airlines (like hotels) have tended to address this by deliberately over-selling flights on the assumption that some passengers won't turn up. Most of the time they get their sums right and it works, but sometimes it doesn't. You then have multiple people who all have what they see as a legitimate right to a seat. The airlines have a "priority" system which allows them to decide whose right is superior - types of ticket, frequent-flyer status, check-in times, lone or group bookings etc can all be a part of this, but if enopugh passengers have a "guaranteed reserved seat" or similar then they will end up in the auction to sell the deferment to the lowest bidder. If they get no bidders then (in many countries) there are legal provisions for compelling people to stand aside before boarding. If they do this before boarding then people will generally grumble, but comply. If they try to do it after boarding they have no legal basis and they find themselves splashed across social media and facing huge lawsuits.
There are alternatives:
1. They could put the prices up such that a flight with a 10% no-show still makes enough money to not need to fill the seats, and then over-selling would be unjustifiable and could be outlawed.
2. They could make all tickets non-refundable and non-transferable - you bought that seat and if you don't get to the airport on time then that's just tough. You could then (also) make over-selling illegal. It would mean the end of "flexible tickets" as we currently know them, and I could see a procession of injured/bereaved "victims" replacing the bumped passengers on social media, but as a system it would work.
3. You could enforce a strict legal "first come gets on the plane" physical check-in system, but that might be seen as discriminatory agianst those who use public transport that went on strike, or those who got stuck a mile away for an hour because of a crash on the motorway or a group of plainly stupid protestors.
Of course none of this applies to the UA incident at Chicago. That was just the airline forgetting that it had no legal right to deman boarded passengers give up their seats to dead-heading aircrew. That was just a mistake, and I suspect it's one that will cost them dearly.
So they just to to learn to make fewer mistakes...
PDR
The airlines (like hotels) have tended to address this by deliberately over-selling flights on the assumption that some passengers won't turn up. Most of the time they get their sums right and it works, but sometimes it doesn't. You then have multiple people who all have what they see as a legitimate right to a seat. The airlines have a "priority" system which allows them to decide whose right is superior - types of ticket, frequent-flyer status, check-in times, lone or group bookings etc can all be a part of this, but if enopugh passengers have a "guaranteed reserved seat" or similar then they will end up in the auction to sell the deferment to the lowest bidder. If they get no bidders then (in many countries) there are legal provisions for compelling people to stand aside before boarding. If they do this before boarding then people will generally grumble, but comply. If they try to do it after boarding they have no legal basis and they find themselves splashed across social media and facing huge lawsuits.
There are alternatives:
1. They could put the prices up such that a flight with a 10% no-show still makes enough money to not need to fill the seats, and then over-selling would be unjustifiable and could be outlawed.
2. They could make all tickets non-refundable and non-transferable - you bought that seat and if you don't get to the airport on time then that's just tough. You could then (also) make over-selling illegal. It would mean the end of "flexible tickets" as we currently know them, and I could see a procession of injured/bereaved "victims" replacing the bumped passengers on social media, but as a system it would work.
3. You could enforce a strict legal "first come gets on the plane" physical check-in system, but that might be seen as discriminatory agianst those who use public transport that went on strike, or those who got stuck a mile away for an hour because of a crash on the motorway or a group of plainly stupid protestors.
Of course none of this applies to the UA incident at Chicago. That was just the airline forgetting that it had no legal right to deman boarded passengers give up their seats to dead-heading aircrew. That was just a mistake, and I suspect it's one that will cost them dearly.
So they just to to learn to make fewer mistakes...
PDR
Can someone explain why if a flight is overbooked and volunteers are asked to leave that flight for a monetary gain why it is so important?I mean are there people waiting at check in who "just"have to be on that flight?I have just read an article where"Delta "are increasing the amount of inducement?!!!Surely the airline is the loser here?
An airline seat however is highly perishable. Once the doors close and the aircraft departs the opportunity to sell the empty seats has gone forever.
So, governments have tolerated the practice as it is designed to ensure that the aircraft departs full or as close to full as possible.
The generally good airlines use fairly sophisticated software to predict based on previous results and time of year, even day of week/month how many people are likely to not turn up... they also factor in special events and ameliorate the sales profile/inventory during those periods. I believe QF only oversell to maximise load, they don't do it over the top like a lot of carriers do but their software is extremely sophisticated so it's pretty rare that it doesn't pan out.
As I say, governments around the world allow the practice as long as there is a compensatory payment scheme in place.
My experience is that if you manage the process well and seek volunteers it's almost unheard of to have someone left behind who didn't want to stay behind.
As the industry has got more and more competitive and the margins get thinner and thinner on most routes, the public also demands lower fares so it's almost impossible to meet the target without doing something like overselling to make sure the maximum yield is drawn from the aircraft.
It does work very well for the airlines... the basis of the rule is that you pay nothing if you get the pax to their destination within 4 hours of the originally scheduled time if it's involuntary denied boarding. But airlines have expanded that to include much more generous compensation, fact being so what if they pay out $500 each to backpackers who were happy to go on a later flight, have a hotel room overnight and 3 meals plus a guaranteed seat the next day... when you add up that cost, it is a fraction of what the airline makes by filling the aircraft.
Passengers who get stuck in traffic, or are unable to travel due to injury/bereavement/illness etc have come to expect the right to a refund, or at least to be able to transfer to a different flight (varies with class of ticket). So the airline don't know whether they actually will have a full load of fare-paying passengers until just before closing the gate. The continual competitive pressure to reduce prices means hat flights are costed to break even on ever-higher levels of occupancy, so a few no-shows who then use their tickets on a later flight can result in a loss-making flight.
The airlines (like hotels) have tended to address this by deliberately over-selling flights on the assumption that some passengers won't turn up. Most of the time they get their sums right and it works, but sometimes it doesn't. You then have multiple people who all have what they see as a legitimate right to a seat. The airlines have a "priority" system which allows them to decide whose right is superior - types of ticket, frequent-flyer status, check-in times, lone or group bookings etc can all be a part of this, but if enopugh passengers have a "guaranteed reserved seat" or similar then they will end up in the auction to sell the deferment to the lowest bidder. If they get no bidders then (in many countries) there are legal provisions for compelling people to stand aside before boarding. If they do this before boarding then people will generally grumble, but comply. If they try to do it after boarding they have no legal basis and they find themselves splashed across social media and facing huge lawsuits.
There are alternatives:
1. They could put the prices up such that a flight with a 10% no-show still makes enough money to not need to fill the seats, and then over-selling would be unjustifiable and could be outlawed.
2. They could make all tickets non-refundable and non-transferable - you bought that seat and if you don't get to the airport on time then that's just tough. You could then (also) make over-selling illegal. It would mean the end of "flexible tickets" as we currently know them, and I could see a procession of injured/bereaved "victims" replacing the bumped passengers on social media, but as a system it would work.
3. You could enforce a strict legal "first come gets on the plane" physical check-in system, but that might be seen as discriminatory agianst those who use public transport that went on strike, or those who got stuck a mile away for an hour because of a crash on the motorway or a group of plainly stupid protestors.
Of course none of this applies to the UA incident at Chicago. That was just the airline forgetting that it had no legal right to deman boarded passengers give up their seats to dead-heading aircrew. That was just a mistake, and I suspect it's one that will cost them dearly.
So they just to to learn to make fewer mistakes...
PDR
The airlines (like hotels) have tended to address this by deliberately over-selling flights on the assumption that some passengers won't turn up. Most of the time they get their sums right and it works, but sometimes it doesn't. You then have multiple people who all have what they see as a legitimate right to a seat. The airlines have a "priority" system which allows them to decide whose right is superior - types of ticket, frequent-flyer status, check-in times, lone or group bookings etc can all be a part of this, but if enopugh passengers have a "guaranteed reserved seat" or similar then they will end up in the auction to sell the deferment to the lowest bidder. If they get no bidders then (in many countries) there are legal provisions for compelling people to stand aside before boarding. If they do this before boarding then people will generally grumble, but comply. If they try to do it after boarding they have no legal basis and they find themselves splashed across social media and facing huge lawsuits.
There are alternatives:
1. They could put the prices up such that a flight with a 10% no-show still makes enough money to not need to fill the seats, and then over-selling would be unjustifiable and could be outlawed.
2. They could make all tickets non-refundable and non-transferable - you bought that seat and if you don't get to the airport on time then that's just tough. You could then (also) make over-selling illegal. It would mean the end of "flexible tickets" as we currently know them, and I could see a procession of injured/bereaved "victims" replacing the bumped passengers on social media, but as a system it would work.
3. You could enforce a strict legal "first come gets on the plane" physical check-in system, but that might be seen as discriminatory agianst those who use public transport that went on strike, or those who got stuck a mile away for an hour because of a crash on the motorway or a group of plainly stupid protestors.
Of course none of this applies to the UA incident at Chicago. That was just the airline forgetting that it had no legal right to deman boarded passengers give up their seats to dead-heading aircrew. That was just a mistake, and I suspect it's one that will cost them dearly.
So they just to to learn to make fewer mistakes...
PDR
The system basically does all that for the pax - I believe some of the systems are so sophisticated now like QF that they provide lists of flights, etc. if a flight is delayed and one click will re-accommodate pax plus messsage the baggage system to unload and re-load their bags, etc. so I wouldn't be surprised if it also highlights pax who have previously accepted voluntary re-accommodation.
The people that miss out are those that turn up later when the seats are starting to disappear (and there's no case for discrimination, the airline is not responsible for how people choose to get to the airport, just as they are not responsible for calling them to get out of bed and get ready on time to get to the airport) from the seat plan as the gap closes between seats freely available minus protected seats for pax not yet checked in but with protected status (if no seat is associated it will just protect 'a' seat in the class of travel). When this happens, if volunteers have been sought and their boarding passes held, the airline will start offloading them to standby and giving their seat to the pax remaining or will just ask them to wait if they don't want to lose the specific seats of the pax who've kindly volunteered. Normally it's pretty smooth and of course on many occasions there is room in P and J (or J and W), as applicable and pax will be upgraded on check in.
As for the airline having aright to request that someone disembark. Actually, they do have that right, it is amply covered by the carrier's legal rights BUT they do not have a right to physically abuse a passenger who refuses. Most airlines including UA have a policy to increase compensation until the pax agrees as the cost of the crew not flying (especially if it's a last minute thing after boarding has been completed - and believe me that DOES happen more often than you'd think) is hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of pax inconvenienced then it's just logical to offer say $2000 instead of $800 because you're going to save maybe $50000 or $100000 by doing so.
Fortunately, in the majority of circumstances, the notification is in sufficient time. Besides, there are myriad other ways this can happen... aircraft change en-route... for example. I had a situation once where an aircraft arrived from AKL and the engineer noted a slide was inoperative so 30-40 pax had to be offloaded once boarded, randomly (the pax sitting near the affected slide) and placed on the next service the an engineer had to be placed on the aircraft to repair at the outport. It's not exactly the same but it's splitting hairs when talking about operational requirements.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 19th Apr 2017 at 13:18. Reason: add
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..
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..
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..
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..
Once the doors close and the aircraft departs the opportunity to sell the empty seats has gone forever.
I sit around and wait, stuff 'em.
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 sit around and wait, stuff 'em.
It really is no different and there is no difference to any other business yet people expect airlines to run according to some other sort of rules.
The answer to your question is that they already have your money so putting you in that empty seat is no financial advantage... besides, if it's not too late to put you in it then it's not too late for someone to come rushing through the door at the very last second to be able to be charged the full fare.
I'm no fan of the race to the bottom, I contend that the ones who charge $29 are not real airlines to begin with and in the case of Australia, one of the majors has been built on that foundation and the older of the two airlines while trying to maintain some semblence of airline standards has to do something to keep the bottom line fed.
If you think that older airline is not that great then I suggest you compare being caught in a disruption with then compared to the competitor. I can tell you as a one time customer of both that the newer of the two has ZERO idea, can't make a decision, doesn't have the economies of scale to recover and pax even have to line up and wait for someone in Brisbane to decide whether they can have a meal voucher or not.
If you go into a car dealer and he has one of a particular model left which is more expensive than the car you were going to purchase, why should he/she give it to you for a discount price when they can sell it to the next person for the full whack??? Why is it just business when it's a car dealer or anyone else but a mortal sin when it's an airline.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
I remember years ago a huge percentage of suits would book both QF and United from LA to Sydney and decide which one to use at the last minute. You cannot expect airlines to continually go with 20% or more empty seats because of this and still allow you to change flights willy nilly.
I agree with financial penalties for all sorts of things, how about charging late pax for delays when they get lost in the shopping centre between checkin and the aircraft? ($1000 a minute might get their attention)
I can increasingly see the attraction of freight!
.......they already have your money so putting you in that empty seat is no financial advantage...
The excuse given was the "manpower" involved in changing the ticket. Bollocks, if I had requested an earlier flight before departing from my original destination than I would agree, but if my previous flight arrives early, and I have the chance to make an earlier connection, why not, I had no baggage, held a boarding card issued by the previous station - yes, the "wrong" flight number might have had to be re-issued - and was at the communal departure/arrival hall, just enter by one door and depart from the adjacent one. Easy ? No !
I wonder how many seats are going empty on united now because of the backlash. Problem with smartarses with smart ideas is they are usually lacking the smart bit. Oversell an aeroplane and then inconvenience (or beat up) pax in order to repair your self inflicted f__kup? Give that man a bonus!!
but .... they then have a better opportunity to sell my later seat to someone else, which would be a financial adv. maybe, nothing lost in getting rid of me earlier.
The excuse given was the "manpower" involved in changing the ticket. Bollocks, if I had requested an earlier flight before departing from my original destination than I would agree, but if my previous flight arrives early, and I have the chance to make an earlier connection, why not, I had no baggage, held a boarding card issued by the previous station - yes, the "wrong" flight number might have had to be re-issued - and was at the communal departure/arrival hall, just enter by one door and depart from the adjacent one. Easy ? No !
The excuse given was the "manpower" involved in changing the ticket. Bollocks, if I had requested an earlier flight before departing from my original destination than I would agree, but if my previous flight arrives early, and I have the chance to make an earlier connection, why not, I had no baggage, held a boarding card issued by the previous station - yes, the "wrong" flight number might have had to be re-issued - and was at the communal departure/arrival hall, just enter by one door and depart from the adjacent one. Easy ? No !
In terms of the actual entry to issue a new BP, granted, bollocks, but if you had baggage, while the system knows where your bag is and it will not allow release of the flight you were on until your bag is removed, if you are, from the flight, someone still has to stop what they are doing and go to that flight which is departing later, go through the container - perhaps unload the whole thing, scan your tags to registered them as having been offloaded the take them to the lateral for the 'to' flight and scan it and load it.
That is likely what they are referring to with the manpower aspect... it's not totally known how long that will take so there is an element of truth in the manpower argument. When it's done though flow-forward (Ansett used to call them 'jumpers') it is done before bags are accepted, etc. so the check in transaction is still happening as it would but for a different flight.
There is more to it than just waving a wand and it all happens... as automation increases perhaps that will be the case but not at the moment.
I wonder how many seats are going empty on united now because of the backlash. Problem with smartarses with smart ideas is they are usually lacking the smart bit. Oversell an aeroplane and then inconvenience (or beat up) pax in order to repair your self inflicted f__kup? Give that man a bonus!!
It was nothing to do with an oversale but your point is taken. No problem finding a seat for paxing crew now I suspect.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 20th Apr 2017 at 02:30. Reason: sp
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 sit around and wait, stuff 'em.
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 sit around and wait, stuff 'em.
With Virgin Australia I was travelling on a business class ticket (admittedly bought with Velocity points) from Melbourne to Adelaide and arrived at the airport 3 hours early and asked if they could transfer me to the flight that was an hour before my scheduled one.
Despite all business class seats on that aircraft being empty, they still wouldn't transfer me to it without wanting to charge a large flight change fee. I politely declined and spent the next 3 hours indulging in the free food and liquor in the lounge (obviously included in my business class ticket). Would've been cheaper for them to allow me on the earlier flight....
My understanding is that there are certain classes of ticket that allow free changes of flight and others (cheaper ones) that do not. Obviously the airline will not let you change flights for free on the cheaper ticket as then there is no incentive to purchase the higher ticket class.
While there is no cost to the airline on the day to allow you onto the earlier flight, they will damage their ability to charge you (or anyone else) more for a higher ticket class in future. Why would you pay for something if you can get it for free.
While there is no cost to the airline on the day to allow you onto the earlier flight, they will damage their ability to charge you (or anyone else) more for a higher ticket class in future. Why would you pay for something if you can get it for free.
With Virgin Australia I was travelling on a business class ticket (admittedly bought with Velocity points) from Melbourne to Adelaide and arrived at the airport 3 hours early and asked if they could transfer me to the flight that was an hour before my scheduled one.
Despite all business class seats on that aircraft being empty, they still wouldn't transfer me to it without wanting to charge a large flight change fee. I politely declined and spent the next 3 hours indulging in the free food and liquor in the lounge (obviously included in my business class ticket). Would've been cheaper for them to allow me on the earlier flight....
Despite all business class seats on that aircraft being empty, they still wouldn't transfer me to it without wanting to charge a large flight change fee. I politely declined and spent the next 3 hours indulging in the free food and liquor in the lounge (obviously included in my business class ticket). Would've been cheaper for them to allow me on the earlier flight....
My understanding is that there are certain classes of ticket that allow free changes of flight and others (cheaper ones) that do not. Obviously the airline will not let you change flights for free on the cheaper ticket as then there is no incentive to purchase the higher ticket class.
While there is no cost to the airline on the day to allow you onto the earlier flight, they will damage their ability to charge you (or anyone else) more for a higher ticket class in future. Why would you pay for something if you can get it for free.
While there is no cost to the airline on the day to allow you onto the earlier flight, they will damage their ability to charge you (or anyone else) more for a higher ticket class in future. Why would you pay for something if you can get it for free.
Generally, the more you pay, the more flexibility but total flexibility comes with paying full fare.