4 ms·

It should not be legal and probably isn't really. It is a basic morality thing? Contracts should be fair. If you book a flight then it should be clear your book

It should not be legal and probably isn't really. It is a basic morality thing? Contracts should be fair. If you book a flight then it should be clear your booking is subject to availability. If it is subject to availability then to maintain the principle of contractual reciprocity you should be able to cancel without incurring a charge as you too are 'subject to availability'. Currently it is not fair. They should not be overbooking fixed seats and expect people to help them out for bribes no less to the implied 'desperate for money' college student or a backpacker. What a disgusting world view that encourages. As to those who were subjected to violence and forcibly ejected - they should be able to sue for eye-watering punitive damages in the tens of millions (money being something so dear).

rbcgerard 9y ago
while no fan of the system at all, there is a certain amount of reciprocity. Either you voluntarily accept an inducement to fly at a different time or you get paid ~0-400%[1] of the one way fare of the flight you got kicked off of plus they still need to fly you there. I personally think that number is too low... [1] https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo...
bb611 9y ago
I think the current system actually meets your criteria for fairness quite well. First, at this point it's reasonable to expect passengers in the US to know that their booking is subject to availability in some limited number of edge cases. It's not particularly common but it's also very public knowledge that it sometime does happen. Second, both parties have a cost to rebook - passengers pay a rebooking fee, airlines pay a bump fee (in a voucher if the passenger is foolish enough to accept that). Additionally, the rebooking fee for a passenger is significantly lower as a % of ticket cost than it is for the airline.
- e59d134d 9y ago
  I never knew that they overbooked flights until recently. From my perspective, it appeared obviously wrong and immoral. So never imagined that an ethical company would do this.
- opo 9y ago
  >...First, at this point it's reasonable to expect passengers in the US to know that their booking is subject to availability I question that. My guess is that the vast majority of the people who get a seat assignment when they book, never consider the possibility it might be taken from them. Most of the time, people are conditioned to not want to cause a scene, but I can bet no one is too happy about it when a breach of contract happens. Airlines are unique in that lots of people go along with this. If you sign a lease to rent your house to someone and on the day they arrive with their moving truck you tell them you decided to lease it to your brother, there is a good chance you will end up in court.
  - bb611 9y ago
    > but I can bet no one is too happy about it when a breach of contract happens. It's very odd that you consider this a breach of contract, because these contracts are pretty heavily policed by regulators and the courts. Check every ticket you've bought, the contract of carriage includes terms specifically about overbooking. For instance, here's United's Rule 4G: All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.
    - opo 9y ago
      >It's very odd that you consider this a breach of contract, You are partially right in the sense of the one-sided document that they impose on their customers, they reserve the right to not let you board. In the case of the United passenger (and many others that came to light after this assault) the person had already boarded. At that point, the reasons for not transporting (Rule 21) are spelled out and they don't include reasons like ("we decided to use the seat for our employee" or "a gold member wants the seat"), etc. >...because these contracts are pretty heavily policed by regulators and the courts. The idea of involuntary bumping should probably be viewed as regulatory capture. We don't allow that in other industries.

rbcgerard 9y ago

while no fan of the system at all, there is a certain amount of reciprocity. Either you voluntarily accept an inducement to fly at a different time or you get paid ~0-400%[1] of the one way fare of the flight you got kicked off of plus they still need to fly you there. I personally think that number is too low... [1] https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo...

bb611 9y ago

I think the current system actually meets your criteria for fairness quite well. First, at this point it's reasonable to expect passengers in the US to know that their booking is subject to availability in some limited number of edge cases. It's not particularly common but it's also very public knowledge that it sometime does happen. Second, both parties have a cost to rebook - passengers pay a rebooking fee, airlines pay a bump fee (in a voucher if the passenger is foolish enough to accept that). Additionally, the rebooking fee for a passenger is significantly lower as a % of ticket cost than it is for the airline.

e59d134d 9y ago
I never knew that they overbooked flights until recently. From my perspective, it appeared obviously wrong and immoral. So never imagined that an ethical company would do this.
opo 9y ago
>...First, at this point it's reasonable to expect passengers in the US to know that their booking is subject to availability I question that. My guess is that the vast majority of the people who get a seat assignment when they book, never consider the possibility it might be taken from them. Most of the time, people are conditioned to not want to cause a scene, but I can bet no one is too happy about it when a breach of contract happens. Airlines are unique in that lots of people go along with this. If you sign a lease to rent your house to someone and on the day they arrive with their moving truck you tell them you decided to lease it to your brother, there is a good chance you will end up in court.
- bb611 9y ago
  > but I can bet no one is too happy about it when a breach of contract happens. It's very odd that you consider this a breach of contract, because these contracts are pretty heavily policed by regulators and the courts. Check every ticket you've bought, the contract of carriage includes terms specifically about overbooking. For instance, here's United's Rule 4G: All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.
  - opo 9y ago
    >It's very odd that you consider this a breach of contract, You are partially right in the sense of the one-sided document that they impose on their customers, they reserve the right to not let you board. In the case of the United passenger (and many others that came to light after this assault) the person had already boarded. At that point, the reasons for not transporting (Rule 21) are spelled out and they don't include reasons like ("we decided to use the seat for our employee" or "a gold member wants the seat"), etc. >...because these contracts are pretty heavily policed by regulators and the courts. The idea of involuntary bumping should probably be viewed as regulatory capture. We don't allow that in other industries.