BA overbooking - a bad experience
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Next: United Mileage Plus mystery terms
From: DevilsPGD on 3 Mar 2007 12:34 In message <1172800189.254872.133930(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a >passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a >week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. First off, most of the tickets sold have that condition (Perhaps most is going too far, but many) I'd suggest the opposite -- Rather, if I have a non-refundable ticket, and I find out a week in advance I won't be flying, why should I tell the airline? It's the same to me either way. If there was some small benefit to informing the airline in advance, they'd have a chance to resell that ticket and make their money WITHOUT overbooking. Part of my theory is supported by WestJet (The Canadian version of Southwest) -- Absolute lowest fares, virtually no tickets are refundable, but *all* flights can be converted into credit (Good as cash, minus a $40 change fee) up to two hours before the flight leaves. Westjet does quite well, last I heard they even turn a profit, they have assigned seating (although assignments only start 24 hours before the flight, but no stampeding like Southwest), make accommodations for people with special needs (my aunt gets a pre-assigned seat in a bulkhead row, and doesn't have to be online 24 hours before the flight madly clicking away), and a significant percentage of the Westjet flights I've flown have been 100% full (vs American -- I have *never* flown on a 100% full American flight) I've only dealt with Westjet on one canceled flight (My brother's flight, actually, but I was at the airport and did the wheeling and dealing), their offer was 100% compensation, plus they'd get him there about four hours late, or 100% compensation, plus a free ticket on any flight in the next 7 days to the same destination, waiving any difference in fares -- They were quite happy that my brother was just as willing to go home tomorrow, and ignored the fact that there was no seat-sale tomorrow, which worked out fine for the two of us) -- Insert something clever here.
From: Jeff Hacker on 3 Mar 2007 13:34 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1172800189.254872.133930(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 1, 5:47 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa' >> posted this onto rec.travel.air: > >> >There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining >> >because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was >> >not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to. >> >Understanding that is part of "growing up". >> >> Lol. An American joker... >> >> You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support >> of the current airline model > > No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown > to be the best way to solve problems like this. > >> even though many people dread flying >> nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like >> cattle. > > Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and > they overwhelmingly turn it down. > >> If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you >> will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model >> of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not >> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width; > > And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger > demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly > higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what > customer demand makes them do. > > The airlines would be happy to have one passenger for a whole 747 > paying a million dollars for the flight. But there aren't enough who > will do that. Whenever the airlines have tried increasing seat pitch, > for example, and charging slightly more for it, the passengers beat a > path to their competitor's door in order to save money. > >> airlines are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays >> etc. > > There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a > passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a > week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. Are you ready to > accept that??? How about it they raise prices 10% without any > additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"? > That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain > percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in > order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the > cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations. > Which would you prefer? Actually, in real practice that's pretty much what we have today. Most tickets are non-refundable; if somebody doesn't show up they forfeit their airfare, unless they've canceled in advance (in which case they can pay a charge to rebook on another flight). If they don't cancel and rebook prior to departure, they forfeit 100% of the fare. So the airline still has the income and can re-sell the seat to a standby passenger, in effect, double dipping. > >> It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to >> find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger >> than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs. > > We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force > obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming > discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off. > >> And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok >> I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight >> *as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight >> for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy >> problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should >> they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight? > > In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you??? > >> I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr >> rule on compensation but I have no info on this. > > Could very well be. > >> Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the >> airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's >> designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack >> seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to. > > Again, airlines have tried to do it differently and the passengers > forced them to change. > >> All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current >> model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying >> nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change. >> I wanted to see what other people had to say about it. > > ????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard > time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a > month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the > airlines have plenty of passengers. > >> >No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of >> >itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is >> >demanding smaller, cheaper seats. >> >> I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually >> above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful. >> Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little >> recourse. >> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the >> American obsession with them. I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't forced to serve many smaller communities. This is especially evident in the United States where deregulation has resulted in the failure of legendary pioneer carriers such as Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, and TWA, and the numerous bankruptcies of the other legacy carriers - Continental (2x), United, US Airways (2x), Northwest, Delta, etc., but it also applies to airlines like Canadian in Canada, Sabena and Swissair in Europe (and possibly, in the near future, Alitalia), Ansett in Australia, etc. Coupled with less personal service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation. > > America is far and away the most successful country on the planet > economically. It's people live better than anyone else. Make more > money, take more flights, have bigger houses, drive nicer cars, etc. > The American obsession with the free market is based on the fact that > is WORKS! > >> I could also rant on about the current situation with Microsoft and its >> new Vista Op/Sys. > > If someone had a better standard that people were willing to pay for > then MicroSoft would be forced out of business. > >> >> >For the record I fly >> >> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of >> >> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like. >> >> >> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I >> >> don't see what that's got to do with it. >> >> >You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much >> >experience in flying. >> >> No I did not. > > You mean you didn't make this comment to Thur: "If you can't see the > bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for > you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming > these days: " > > "Perhaps he's not aware..."??? > >> Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers). >> >> I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day >> - only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo >> revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so. > > So your complaint is that they didn't communicate well? Yeah, that's a > problem. > >> Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we >> would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to >> the airport and ticketed? > > Yes. > >> >> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples: >> >> >> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a >> >> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay >> >> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in >> >> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a >> >> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over >> >> >comfort. So you get what you pay for. >> >> >> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*. >> >> >Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA >> >doesn't have Business or First? >> >> This is nonsense. > > Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat. > Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different > costs. You chose *CHEAP*. > >> >> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or >> >> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher >> >> cost in Economy" as you say. >> >> >Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for >> >more space so the airlines don't offer it. >> >> IYO. Others may disagree. > > Sorry, but it's been proven. Airlines tried. Jet Blue and SouthWest > won by having smaller seats and less service. Other airlines are > forced to change in order to compete. > >> >> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a >> >> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines. >> >> Business and first are way too expensive. >> >> >As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You >> >put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain >> >because of the choice you made. >> >> Who is now behaving like an immature poster? > > ??? How is that immature? You made a choice. Now you are complaining > about the results of *YOUR* choice. > >> When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of >> service but I rarely receive it. > > You "expect"??? You know what the service is. You know you can get > better service if you pay for it. But you won't. > >> >> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes >> >> to maximise numbers and profits. >> >> >Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit >> >more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But >> >they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free >> >market. >> >> Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is >> more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting >> customer expectations. > > No, it's concerned with running itself as the customers demand they > run it. Customers vote with their wallets every day. > >> >It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want >> >proper travel advice, use a travel agent. >> >> If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it? > > A website that sells tickets. > >> >Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then >> >you complain about the service. >> >> More nonsense. > > More facts. > >> >I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours >> >including layovers. You were just on part of the flight. >> >> I didn't fly from Sydney. > > The plane did. > >> As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London. >> I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I >> spoke to several other passengers. > > Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather > than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those > things out. >
From: js on 3 Mar 2007 17:47 On Mar 3, 11:17 am, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> said in rec.travel.air: > > >American Airlines even tried increasing legroom for everyone in coach. > >But.... it didn't work. > > What do you mean by "it didn't work?" > > What was the goal of the increased legroom? Revenue and profits. Had the model worked to achieve the business goal then the organization would not have undid the model.
From: Mike Hunt on 4 Mar 2007 04:57 VS wrote: > In article <FuKdnSl7r9XignTYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote: > > >>What carriers have less than 32 inches of pitch in FIRST CLASS? > > > KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest. > I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did refer to American legacy carriers. Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom. On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.
From: Jim Ley on 4 Mar 2007 09:07
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:34:29 GMT, "Jeff Hacker" <hacker-j(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the >>> American obsession with them. > >I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not >the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline >employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due >largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers >with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't >forced to serve many smaller communities. Good! because it means all those younger/newer workforces have jobs, rather than being unemployed, that's not a bad thing! > Coupled with less personal >service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on >many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation. You mean you want the government to force passengers to subsidise the lifestyles of Flight Attendants? Jim. |