4 ms·

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

by 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.

by manarth 10y ago

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.