3 ms·

The point is that they do offer enough to get people to bump voluntarily, and it doesn't include any cash like 90%+ of the time, because people are willing to a

by dmoy 9y ago

The point is that they do offer enough to get people to bump voluntarily, and it doesn't include any cash like 90%+ of the time, because people are willing to accept travel voucher instead. If no such law exists, and everyone refuses up to like a million dollars, than what, the plane just sits there and nobody leaves? There should be some cap. Maybe it should be higher, but not unlimited. (I'd be more in favor of no overbooking at all honesty) The other part of the problem is lack of awareness. Most people in the US don't know you are legally entitled to cash if bumped involuntarily. If they knew, more would hold out for cash instead of vouchers.

mikeash 9y ago
My point is that that remaining 10% of the time is some massive problem when there's a simple solution. Your hypothetical is silly. What if Jesus Christ descends from the heavens and declares air travel to be a mortal sin? That's about as likely. It's not going to be impossible to find a few people among 100+ who are willing to take the next flight for an amount of money that's at least vaguely reasonable. And if airlines don't want to risk it, they always have the option of not overbooking. This way it's their choice how to handle it.
- dmoy 9y ago
  No the remaining 10%* of a time it's also not a massive problem, they hand over cash and someone is really pissed. The United thing happens when they let someone board first that they shouldn't have, and then tried to haul him off. We can argue that the cash offer should be higher, but when was the last time you even saw the voucher bids go up past a thousand dollars and then get replaced by cash? I'm guessing never since you didn't even know it was the law. I've never seen it, only increasingly high voucher offers. * Also it's not 10%, it's like 1 in 100000 passengers.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    "I'm guessing never since you didn't even know it was the law." Assumes facts not in evidence. I'm well aware of the law. I'm also well aware that the law specifies a pretty low cap on what airlines are required to give. Offering people worthless vouchers and then bumping people involuntarily for a mere 4x their fare for that segment is very much not what I was referring to in my original comment.
    - dmoy 9y ago
      Ok my apologies for the assumption then. But then I'm confused, is the complaint that for the 0.001% of passengers, they should get higher cash compensation? Because the other 99.999% of passengers either board without issue or take vouchers.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        My complaint is that the airlines are too quick to bump people involuntarily and too quick to complain about overbooking. The "problem of oversold flights" (as the article puts it) is trivially solved without involuntary bumping. They just don't want to. This article paints involuntary bumping as some terrible thing the airlines are saddled with, and this new approach offers a way to finally get past it. Which just isn't the case at all.
        dmoy 9y ago
        Yea I agree with you on both points there. I wish there were no overbooking. I wonder how Southwest's recent stance (they won't overbook) will affect their business...
  - opo 9y ago
    >...The United thing happens when they let someone board first that they shouldn't have, and then tried to haul him off. No, the United "thing" (aka the assault) happens when they decide that a someone who made travel plans, paid for a seat, travelled to the airport, went through security and waited for the plane just to have the airline decide that they would breach their contract and use the seat for their employee. The fact that the individual had already boarded the plane meant the poorly trained security people had to use an extreme amount of violence against him, but even if they had stopped him before boarding the plane, it doesn't explain or excuse the companies willful breach of contract.
adekok 9y ago
> f no such law exists, and everyone refuses up to like a million dollars, than what, the plane just sits there and nobody leaves? Or maybe, the plane leaves because it's full, and everyone has boarded? It's beyond me why anything thinks it's a good idea to hold up a full plane because someone else wants to board.
- dmoy 9y ago
  When this happens, the people without seat assignment haven't boarded at all, there's 10 people for 9 seats or w/e, and the airline tries to get one of them to cave for the lowest price.
- imgabe 9y ago
  Because that someone else also paid for a ticket and was told by the airline that they would be on that flight. The airline is the one responsible here, not the passenger who gave them money for a ticket with no idea that there wasn't actually a seat to go with it.

by dmoy 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

My point is that that remaining 10% of the time is some massive problem when there's a simple solution. Your hypothetical is silly. What if Jesus Christ descends from the heavens and declares air travel to be a mortal sin? That's about as likely. It's not going to be impossible to find a few people among 100+ who are willing to take the next flight for an amount of money that's at least vaguely reasonable. And if airlines don't want to risk it, they always have the option of not overbooking. This way it's their choice how to handle it.

dmoy 9y ago
No the remaining 10%* of a time it's also not a massive problem, they hand over cash and someone is really pissed. The United thing happens when they let someone board first that they shouldn't have, and then tried to haul him off. We can argue that the cash offer should be higher, but when was the last time you even saw the voucher bids go up past a thousand dollars and then get replaced by cash? I'm guessing never since you didn't even know it was the law. I've never seen it, only increasingly high voucher offers. * Also it's not 10%, it's like 1 in 100000 passengers.
- mikeash 9y ago
  "I'm guessing never since you didn't even know it was the law." Assumes facts not in evidence. I'm well aware of the law. I'm also well aware that the law specifies a pretty low cap on what airlines are required to give. Offering people worthless vouchers and then bumping people involuntarily for a mere 4x their fare for that segment is very much not what I was referring to in my original comment.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    Ok my apologies for the assumption then. But then I'm confused, is the complaint that for the 0.001% of passengers, they should get higher cash compensation? Because the other 99.999% of passengers either board without issue or take vouchers.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      My complaint is that the airlines are too quick to bump people involuntarily and too quick to complain about overbooking. The "problem of oversold flights" (as the article puts it) is trivially solved without involuntary bumping. They just don't want to. This article paints involuntary bumping as some terrible thing the airlines are saddled with, and this new approach offers a way to finally get past it. Which just isn't the case at all.
      - dmoy 9y ago
        Yea I agree with you on both points there. I wish there were no overbooking. I wonder how Southwest's recent stance (they won't overbook) will affect their business...
- opo 9y ago
  >...The United thing happens when they let someone board first that they shouldn't have, and then tried to haul him off. No, the United "thing" (aka the assault) happens when they decide that a someone who made travel plans, paid for a seat, travelled to the airport, went through security and waited for the plane just to have the airline decide that they would breach their contract and use the seat for their employee. The fact that the individual had already boarded the plane meant the poorly trained security people had to use an extreme amount of violence against him, but even if they had stopped him before boarding the plane, it doesn't explain or excuse the companies willful breach of contract.

adekok 9y ago

> f no such law exists, and everyone refuses up to like a million dollars, than what, the plane just sits there and nobody leaves? Or maybe, the plane leaves because it's full, and everyone has boarded? It's beyond me why anything thinks it's a good idea to hold up a full plane because someone else wants to board.

dmoy 9y ago
When this happens, the people without seat assignment haven't boarded at all, there's 10 people for 9 seats or w/e, and the airline tries to get one of them to cave for the lowest price.
imgabe 9y ago
Because that someone else also paid for a ticket and was told by the airline that they would be on that flight. The airline is the one responsible here, not the passenger who gave them money for a ticket with no idea that there wasn't actually a seat to go with it.