3 ms·

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 someo

by 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.

by dmoy 9y ago

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.