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: Frank F. Matthews on 2 Mar 2007 15:09 Tchiowa wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:30 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...(a)gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) > wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird >> >><RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote: >> >>>Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running >>>their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests. >> >>err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the >>benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their >>customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone >>else. > > > Very true. > > >>folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal >>construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and >>investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal >>liability for their actions. > > > Utter nonsense. > Not completely. It would be better to say that the purpose of a corporation is to limit the personal liability of the owners to the capital invested at the formation of the corporation plus the retained earnings. That is why some types of corporations are regulated like insurance companies. > >>in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially >>redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally >>constrained. > > > Even worse. > > >>only the most naive would think that corporations would be put >>customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term >>growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price. > > > Some corporations act solely in the near term, as you suggest. Those > corporations tend not to last very long. Good corporations know that > taking care of the customer is the best way for a long term stable > company. > > In the case of the seating that people complain about, the fact is > that the vast majority of customers have made it clear that they are > willing to accept cramped space and reduced service in order to get > lower costs. The low cost airlines proved that and the rest of the > industry is following their lead. This is customer satisfaction at its > best. Or worse, as you may view it. > > A good example of proof of that is the dramatic *increase* in service > for Business and First Class. Those people have said that service is > more important than cost so they're getting improved service. The > economy passenger has made a different choice so the airlines are > accomodating them. >
From: whitely525 on 2 Mar 2007 16:42 On 2 Mar, 16:05, Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote: > Nisse PowerMan wrote: > > Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check > > the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept > > whatever. > > > It was not until the EU put down the foot and regulated against bandit > > carriers that people could get their right against aircarriers. > > > Now it is regulated how much it cost to overbook and to delay and that > > is good and in favor to the people travelling. > > > But it would not have been addressed by criminal companies at all. > > Who ends up paying for this stuff? That is the whole point of choosing > discount carriers, you give up some perks to save money. Does it make > any sense for carriers to pay customers when their are weather delays? > This is what is happening in Europe now. Hardly. There is a huge hole in the EU regulations where airlines cite 'extra-ordinary' circumstances and avoid liability. This can even include a technical fault with the aircraft....! I don't expect compensation for weather related events, I do expect that airlines plan for it so that whole systems don't completely collapse. We are told that we should expect delays: so should airlines, they are the experts..! And if they tell me to get on a flight or loose my ticket I do expect them to pay for the hotel accommodation if I miss the connecting flight. >Sure, it might be better in the > short term for customers, but then if it puts low cost carriers out of > business, then who pays?
From: Brian on 2 Mar 2007 18:55 On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:03:20 +0100, Nisse PowerMan <dud(a)nilsson.com> wrote: >Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check >the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept >whatever. It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3 checked bags. I don't particularly like their boarding system but it does give us (tall) people a better shot at seats with more leg room. AirTran allows upgrades to business class at a reasonable price on a space available basis.
From: VS on 2 Mar 2007 21:26 In article <t1ehu2pcq1lqpedlklqeb2n1cn40kmkk3u(a)4ax.com>, Brian <drmorrisnospam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low >cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3 >checked bags. ... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'. In fact, the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines' first-class seats. It's good to have airlines like Southwest that maintain standards of service while others are racing to the bottom.
From: js on 2 Mar 2007 22:01
On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, s...(a)xenon.Stanford.EDU (VS) wrote: > In article <t1ehu2pcq1lqpedlklqeb2n1cn40kmk...(a)4ax.com>, > > Brian <drmorrisnos...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low > >cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3 > >checked bags. > > ... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'. 32 and 17 width > In fact, > the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines' > first-class seats. Nope. > It's good to have airlines like Southwest that > maintain standards of service while others are racing to the bottom. You go right ahead. js |