4 ms·

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in t

> "For the airlines, the opportunity costs really do add up. Itir Karaesmen Aydin, an American University researcher who has studied overbooking strategies in the airline and hotel industries, puts it this way: If a 100-seat airplane sells $200 tickets, and only 95 percent of passengers show up, the airline loses out on $1,000. (Even if the airline doesn’t refund those tickets, it could have sold five more seats for an extra $1,000.) “The major airlines in the United States fly thousands of flights every day,” Karaesmen Aydin says—even a few empty seats on every flight means losing millions in potential revenue every 24 hours." This is infuriating to read. Having empty seats is not an "opportunity cost", you sold the damn seats, you made your money, that should be the end of it. It does not cost the airline a single thing to fly with empty seats, other than a blow to unchecked greed. If people don't make the plane they shouldn't get a refund, and I'd imagine that the vast majority do not, so literally the only thing being "lost" is the extra money they had no business making in the first place. This is a sick symptom of our gone-mad capitalism. I love capitalism, it's done great things for us but the relentless pursuit of growth, profit, year after year straight in the face of reality, morals and common fucking sense is getting comically ridiculous.

manarth 10y ago
To add to that, flying without the passengers who didn't show is cheaper. Every extra kg is a cost in fuel, so passengers not showing up is already a net saving. That said, I do see the appeal of allowing flexibility in tickets, allowing someone who's missed their flight to catch the next, with no/minimal additional cost. And I recognise that might need practices such as overbooking to accommodate. Overbooking's been happening for years, on almost all of the airlines. Individuals do inevitably get caught up in, get annoyed/compensated for getting booted from their flight, but for the most part it works. It breaks down in this extreme situation, where someone literally got beat up in order to ease logistics for an airline.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the logistics actually be much simpler if they did away with overbooking altogether? Then they'd have drastically fewer people needing to emergency board flights (since they weren't kicked off) and wouldn't need to compensate them. It's more accurate to say a man got beat up because United sold his seat twice and couldn't figure out what to do about it when they got caught.
  - manarth 10y ago
    You're right to say that doing away with overbooking would simplify the system, simplify the logistics. As a consumer though, it would makes things more complicated and/or more expensive. I would argue that in most cases, the airlines are in a better position to handle the complexity and costs than the individual consumers, who may be delayed, break down on the way to the airport, whatever. This particular scenario is bizarre and unwarranted for two main reasons: 1. The event happened after the individual had boarded the aircraft. If the dispute had happened at the gate, the individual would have had to use violence to board the aircraft. As it happened after he had boarded, it was the aviation authorities (at the request of United) who resorted to violence, to remove the individual. It's also worth considering that violence at the gate is more easily contained (minimising harm to anyone, including the perpetrator) than violence on a confined aircraft. It's also worth noting that in all of the video footage available, the individual shows no signs of violent behaviour. 2. The flight wasn't even overbooked. It appears to be a last-minute decision for United to ship crew to a new location, whilst also deciding to give the crew precedence over paying passengers, who had already boarded. There's been some suggestion that there is no legal precedence allowing them to do this. I think the practice of "over-booking" is unduly taking the fall in this example, because the flight wasn't over-booked, and even an over-booked flight shouldn't create the circumstances for this type of harm.
wsxcde 10y ago
I don't get the hate for overbooking. If you know 3% of passengers won't show up for whatever reason -- they're late, missed connections, cancelled plans -- it makes sense to sell 103% of capacity and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. This is a good idea. They only thing we need to do is regulate overbooking to make sure that when this probabilistic premise fails, customers are treated fairly and respectfully. I'm sure if United had offered $2000 for someone to take a different flight, they'd have found takers. The mistake here is poor management of the situation from united and Chicago PD, not overbooking.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  > and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. If someone can prove this actually happened and United (or any airline really) didn't just pocket that money as profit, I will eat my hat and post the video for all to see.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Not proof, exactly, but... I read somewhere that total airline profits for domestic carriers from 1960 to 2010[1] were $0. The history of airlines is just bankruptcy, restructuring, reworking union contracts, belt-tightening, and rinse and repeat. [1] This is from memory. Actual years may vary.

manarth 10y ago

To add to that, flying without the passengers who didn't show is cheaper. Every extra kg is a cost in fuel, so passengers not showing up is already a net saving. That said, I do see the appeal of allowing flexibility in tickets, allowing someone who's missed their flight to catch the next, with no/minimal additional cost. And I recognise that might need practices such as overbooking to accommodate. Overbooking's been happening for years, on almost all of the airlines. Individuals do inevitably get caught up in, get annoyed/compensated for getting booted from their flight, but for the most part it works. It breaks down in this extreme situation, where someone literally got beat up in order to ease logistics for an airline.

FussyZeus 10y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the logistics actually be much simpler if they did away with overbooking altogether? Then they'd have drastically fewer people needing to emergency board flights (since they weren't kicked off) and wouldn't need to compensate them. It's more accurate to say a man got beat up because United sold his seat twice and couldn't figure out what to do about it when they got caught.
- manarth 10y ago
  You're right to say that doing away with overbooking would simplify the system, simplify the logistics. As a consumer though, it would makes things more complicated and/or more expensive. I would argue that in most cases, the airlines are in a better position to handle the complexity and costs than the individual consumers, who may be delayed, break down on the way to the airport, whatever. This particular scenario is bizarre and unwarranted for two main reasons: 1. The event happened after the individual had boarded the aircraft. If the dispute had happened at the gate, the individual would have had to use violence to board the aircraft. As it happened after he had boarded, it was the aviation authorities (at the request of United) who resorted to violence, to remove the individual. It's also worth considering that violence at the gate is more easily contained (minimising harm to anyone, including the perpetrator) than violence on a confined aircraft. It's also worth noting that in all of the video footage available, the individual shows no signs of violent behaviour. 2. The flight wasn't even overbooked. It appears to be a last-minute decision for United to ship crew to a new location, whilst also deciding to give the crew precedence over paying passengers, who had already boarded. There's been some suggestion that there is no legal precedence allowing them to do this. I think the practice of "over-booking" is unduly taking the fall in this example, because the flight wasn't over-booked, and even an over-booked flight shouldn't create the circumstances for this type of harm.

wsxcde 10y ago

I don't get the hate for overbooking. If you know 3% of passengers won't show up for whatever reason -- they're late, missed connections, cancelled plans -- it makes sense to sell 103% of capacity and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. This is a good idea. They only thing we need to do is regulate overbooking to make sure that when this probabilistic premise fails, customers are treated fairly and respectfully. I'm sure if United had offered $2000 for someone to take a different flight, they'd have found takers. The mistake here is poor management of the situation from united and Chicago PD, not overbooking.

FussyZeus 10y ago
> and give everybody 3% cheaper fares. If someone can prove this actually happened and United (or any airline really) didn't just pocket that money as profit, I will eat my hat and post the video for all to see.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Not proof, exactly, but... I read somewhere that total airline profits for domestic carriers from 1960 to 2010[1] were $0. The history of airlines is just bankruptcy, restructuring, reworking union contracts, belt-tightening, and rinse and repeat. [1] This is from memory. Actual years may vary.