United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

[mom2rtk]

Very cool! Congrats to him!!

Thanks! Now he just has to decide if he's ready to move to Madison! But I'm very excited for him.

 

[mnrose]

I guess the question of whether we need to regulate the crap out of airlines comes down to if there's a problem with how things currently are. If there is a problem, are airlines willing to address it on their own.
I like my cheap flights. Of course I want it to stay like that but I also want confidence that airlines respect customers.
The biggest problem with this whole situation is United's response. If that's the attitude airlines are going to have, then yeah there needs to be more protections for customers even if that means high prices.

It's a one off thing. It was not good. Do we really need to rant and rave against the entire industry (or even ALL of United) because of the actions on ONE flight on ONE "commuter" affiliate of United? I don't think so. That's why I think this needs to be handled by this passenger pursuing his legal rights in a court of law...it's going to get sorted out one way or the other there. No need to go all "OMG, the entire thing needs to change!" Involuntary bumps occurred 40,000+ times last year, and I do not recall reading of a single instance among those 40,000+ involuntary bumps where a passenger was dragged from a plane. In other words, the system the airlines have for involuntary bumps seems to work pretty well. BTW, United is NOT the airline with the most involuntary bumps. That honor belongs to Southwest (with the highest rate per passenger flown on major airlines....there was a regional carrier (not for United) with a higher rate). United's rate of involuntary bumping was less than 1/2 of Southwests. So, if you don't want to be bumped involuntarily, I'd avoid Southwest.

 

[mnrose]

I fly about once or twice a year (usually on American). Every time I have gone online to purchase a ticket I am taken to a screen with a seating diagram and asked to choose my seat from the available seats (with some of the seats only available via an upcharge for extra legroom or what have you). I know Southwest doesn't assign seats.

The question I was addressing is what happens if there ARE no available seats when you purchase your ticket, but the airline is still willing to sell you a ticket on that flight because "statistically" they will be able to accommodate you. The answer I gave is correct. I've flown a lot in my life (at one point, flying 6+ legs a week), and there were MANY times when I could not get a seat assigned in advance. Once or twice a year is not a whole lot of experience to extrapolate from, particularly if it's leisure travel where you book in advance. Business travelers book very late in the game sometimes (for example, a terrible employment problem occurred in our Tucscon office, and I needed to fly THAT day....I ran home, grabbed my bag and went to the airport). A day or two before is something that happens with regularity in that environment. Businesses pay through the nose for these seats...they are much less price sensitive than leisure travelers.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

It's a one off thing. It was not good. Do we really need to rant and rave against the entire industry (or even ALL of United) because of the actions on ONE flight on ONE "commuter" affiliate of United? I don't think so. That's why I think this needs to be handled by this passenger pursuing his legal rights in a court of law...it's going to get sorted out one way of the other there. No need to go all "OMG, the entire thing needs to change!" Involuntary bumps occurred 40,000+ times last year, and I do not recall reading of a single instance among those 40,000+ involuntary bumps where a passenger was dragged from a plane. In other words, the system the airlines have for involuntary bumps seems to work pretty well. BTW, United is NOT the airline with the most involuntary bumps. That honor belongs to Delta. Southwest is also right up there.

The policy is a bad one. Period. People have been willing to put up will almost ANYTHING if told by an airline that they have to -- we don't question them enough. This is ONE ISSUE, but it highlighted a larger problem of poor customer service in the industry. And I am glad for that "side effect" of this story.

 

[bcla]

The question I was addressing is what happens if there ARE no available seats when you purchase your ticket, but the airline is still willing to sell you a ticket on that flight because "statistically" they will be able to accommodate you. The answer I gave is correct. I've flown a lot in my life (at one point, flying 6+ legs a week), and there were MANY times when I could not get a seat assigned in advance. Once or twice a year is not a whole lot of experience to extrapolate from, particularly if it's leisure travel where you book in advance. Business travelers book very late in the game sometimes (for example, a terrible employment problem occurred in our Tucscon office, and I needed to fly THAT day....I ran home, grabbed my bag and went to the airport). A day or two before is something that happens with regularity in that environment. Businesses pay through the nose for these seats...they are much less price sensitive than leisure travelers.

I've never willingly paid for unrestricted (or corporate rate which is a bit less) fare, but I've flown on them. I remember going on my first interview on the East Coast, and it was over $1300 round trip from San Francisco to Boston (on United strangely enough). A few months before that I flew to NYC to visit my cousin going to school there, and it was less than $300. This is still their bread and butter. And for the most part they reserve space on every flight at unrestricted fare. Of course they do this, because cultivating business travelers is how they try to avoid needing another bailout.

And in my case they're not making 4 times more on that unrestricted passsenger who flies, but possibly 10-20 times more depending on how costs are accounted.

The other deal these days is that most loyalty programs are no longer "mileage" programs. So the days of accumulating miles based on cheap leisure fares is over.

 

[mnrose]

The policy is a bad one. Period. People have been willing to put up will almost ANYTHING if told by an airline that they have to -- we don't question them enough. This is ONE ISSUE, but it highlighted a larger problem of poor customer service in the industry. And I am glad for that "side effect" of this story.

Like I said earlier, there are people who LOVE the overbooking....they want to be bumped. There are entire blogs and postings devoted to how to increase your chances of being bumped. Some people don't like. Some people do.

And, I don't feel like there is poor customer service in the airline industry. It has not been my experience....YMMV. I choose to fly airlines where I believe I get the best bang for the buck. That's how I vote....with my wallet. I don't feel we need to engage in regulation to solve the problem. Vote with your feet. I guarantee you, however, that MOST leisure travelers will forget this pretty quickly and will once again choose based on who is cheapest. It's the way most people roll. Then they will complain bitterly about their treatment. LOL. It's so predictable. My favorites are people who complain about the lack of service and leg space on Spirit airline...LOL. Really? That's how they make their money...being very low frill and packing 'em in like sardines. Don't complain when you get exactly what you pay for.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Like I said earlier, there are people who LOVE the overbooking....they want to be bumped. There are entire blogs and postings devoted to how to increase your chances of being bumped. Some people don't like. Some people do.

And, I don't feel like there is poor customer service in the airline industry. It has not been my experience....YMMV. I choose to fly airlines where I believe I get the best bang for the buck. That's how I vote....with my wallet. I don't feel we need to engage in regulation to solve the problem. Vote with your feet. I guarantee you, however, that MOST leisure travelers will forget this pretty quickly and will once again choose based on who is cheapest. It's the way most people roll. Then they will complain bitterly about their treatment. LOL. It's so predictable. My favorites are people who complain about the lack of service and leg space on Spirit airline...LOL. Really? That's how they make their money...being very low frill and packing 'em in like sardines. Don't complain when you get exactly what you pay for.

"Vote with your feet" -- This is just not reasonable. If I am going to Hawaii, I can't exactly rent a car. If I am traveling for work with time at a premium, I can't drive across the country each time. And to the extent that I CAN pick an airline with better service (e.g. JetBlue or Alaska), I do -- even at a premium.

We are a captive market to a very large extent. And MOST airlines have taken advantage. It is time they make some changes.

We can disagree, clearly. I am NOT happy with the level of customer service. I think the "outcry" on this is largely because many other people aren't either.

 

[bcla]

"Vote with your feet" -- This is just not reasonable. If I am going to Hawaii, I can't exactly rent a car. If I am traveling for work with time at a premium, I can't drive across the country each time. And to the extent that I CAN pick an airline with better service (e.g. JetBlue or Alaska), I do -- even at a premium.

Alaska overbooks. The last time I flew on Alaska was August, and I got the checkin message that they were asking for volunteers. JetBlue has an even higher IDB rate than United.

I think part of the reason for Alaska is that they have free same day standby for any flights to/from Seattle or Portland, OR. That would be worked into their revenue management model to determine how much they'll overbook.

 

[MillauFr]

I think part of the reason for Alaska is that they have free same day standby for any flights to/from Seattle or Portland, OR. That would be worked into their revenue management model to determine how much they'll overbook.

Correct. Alaska is pretty quick the close the doors upto 10 minutes early. Anyone who shows up 5 minutes before the flight leaves and the doors are already closed is classified as "Involuntary Denied Boarding". That happens most on the Portland flights. They will fill up the plane as fast a possible and depart knowing that if someone doesn't make it the next flight is in a half hour.

 

[MillauFr]

And, I don't feel like there is poor customer service in the airline industry.

There is a big difference in customer service between airlines like United and Spirit compared to Alaska, Jet Blue, and Delta.

 

[mnrose]

"Vote with your feet" -- This is just not reasonable. If I am going to Hawaii, I can't exactly rent a car. If I am traveling for work with time at a premium, I can't drive across the country each time. And to the extent that I CAN pick an airline with better service (e.g. JetBlue or Alaska), I do -- even at a premium.

We are a captive market to a very large extent. And MOST airlines have taken advantage. It is time they make some changes.

We can disagree, clearly. I am NOT happy with the level of customer service. I think the "outcry" on this is largely because many other people aren't either.

My point was that you can CHOOSE your airline based on the service they provide. There are multiple carriers operating flights to Hawaii from the west coast. Off the top of my head: United, Delta, American, Hawaiian Airlines, Alaska (and their might be more). You are not "captive" to any airline. It's a free market. If you don't like the service you receive at your local grocery store, what do you do? Choose another store, right? Same with airlines. The negative press United has received is going to cause them to make changes....if they see a significant and sustained loss of passengers, they will make even more. There are two ways to make a capitalistic enterprise change course: customer pressure (specifically, customers going elsewhere) and government regulation. Government regulation, which I am not in general opposed to, nearly always results in increased costs. If we forbid airlines from overbooking, fares will rise. That is just a fact. You can argue all you want that they should be able to improve service without raising rates, but it isn't going to happen. The VAST majority of people (especially leisure travelers) are very price sensitive. They choose based on price above every other factor. That is NOT how I choose. I choose based on service, and the fastest schedule, THEN price....all other factors being equal, I will choose the lesser price. But, I will pay more for better service and a better schedule. I am a relatively rare bird in the leisure travel segment though...don't believe me, read the trip planning threads on this site.

They can make changes, but it will cost you. That simple. If you are not price sensitive (as I am not), I guarantee you, that you are in the minority. They have got to keep butts in the seats to make their business work. It's simply not reasonable to "demand" better service and then expect it to be delivered for the same price.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Alaska overbooks. The last time I flew on Alaska was August, and I got the checkin message that they were asking for volunteers. JetBlue has an even higher IDB rate than United.

I think part of the reason for Alaska is that they have free same day standby for any flights to/from Seattle or Portland, OR. That would be worked into their revenue management model to determine how much they'll overbook.

I think the thing about this thread is that it depends on what you're outraged about. Don't get the people who are outraged over the actual overbooking and bumping. As you say, everyone does it. I don't agree with the people who are upset security removed the guy from the flight either- that was pretty much the expected outcome once involuntary bumping came into play. But I think this person is just disgusted with United customer service, and that, I totally agree with. Alaskan and Jet Blue are both a lot more pleasant to fly with. United has the customer service of Spirit but it's not an ULCC- and that comparison may actually be insulting to Spirit.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Alaska overbooks. The last time I flew on Alaska was August, and I got the checkin message that they were asking for volunteers. JetBlue has an even higher IDB rate than United.

I think part of the reason for Alaska is that they have free same day standby for any flights to/from Seattle or Portland, OR. That would be worked into their revenue management model to determine how much they'll overbook.

Read back some and you'll see the JetBlue data appear to be the result of a temporary adjustment to changes in aircraft. The screenshot you posted is NOT typical JB experience.

And Alaska may well be explained by standby activity.

And OBVIOUSLY customer service is more than just bumping. JB & Alaska do a better job across the board IMO.

 

[Westcoastwild]

My point was that you can CHOOSE your airline based on the service they provide. There are multiple carriers operating flights to Hawaii from the west coast. Off the top of my head: United, Delta, American, Hawaiian Airlines, Alaska (and their might be more). You are not "captive" to any airline. It's a free market. If you don't like the service you receive at your local grocery store, what do you do? Choose another store, right? Same with airlines. The negative press United has received is going to cause them to make changes....if they see a significant and sustained loss of passengers, they will make even more. There are two ways to make a capitalistic enterprise change course: customer pressure (specifically, customers going elsewhere) and government regulation. Government regulation, which I am not in general opposed to, nearly always results in increased costs. If we forbid airlines from overbooking, fares will rise. That is just a fact. You can argue all you want that they should be able to improve service without raising rates, but it isn't going to happen. The VAST majority of people (especially leisure travelers) are very price sensitive. They choose based on price above every other factor. That is NOT how I choose. I choose based on service, and the fastest schedule, THEN price....all other factors being equal, I will choose the lesser price. But, I will pay more for better service and a better schedule. I am a relatively rare bird in the leisure travel segment though...don't believe me, read the trip planning threads on this site.

They can make changes, but it will cost you. That simple. If you are not price sensitive (as I am not), I guarantee you, that you are in the minority. They have got to keep butts in the seats to make their business work. It's simply not reasonable to "demand" better service and then expect it to be delivered for the same price.

I agree with most of your post. But there are origins and destinations that become a lot harder, if not impossible, to do if I don't ever fly United. I try to avoid them but I favor schedule/nonstops over price. It's kind of like the grocery store example- in some rural towns, you are essentially captive to that grocery store. Sure, you could vote with your "feet" and drive 45 minutes to the larger town, but if your car breaks down or you're short on gas money, you don't have much choice. that grocery store can charge pretty much whatever they want.

We are oddly in the minority, you are right about that. Until I started reading forums, I didn't realize what extremes people will go to to save relatively small amount of money on vacation

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

My point was that you can CHOOSE your airline based on the service they provide. There are multiple carriers operating flights to Hawaii from the west coast. Off the top of my head: United, Delta, American, Hawaiian Airlines, Alaska (and their might be more). You are not "captive" to any airline. It's a free market. If you don't like the service you receive at your local grocery store, what do you do? Choose another store, right? Same with airlines. The negative press United has received is going to cause them to make changes....if they see a significant and sustained loss of passengers, they will make even more. There are two ways to make a capitalistic enterprise change course: customer pressure (specifically, customers going elsewhere) and government regulation. Government regulation, which I am not in general opposed to, nearly always results in increased costs. If we forbid airlines from overbooking, fares will rise. That is just a fact. You can argue all you want that they should be able to improve service without raising rates, but it isn't going to happen. The VAST majority of people (especially leisure travelers) are very price sensitive. They choose based on price above every other factor. That is NOT how I choose. I choose based on service, and the fastest schedule, THEN price....all other factors being equal, I will choose the lesser price. But, I will pay more for better service and a better schedule. I am a relatively rare bird in the leisure travel segment though...don't believe me, read the trip planning threads on this site.

They can make changes, but it will cost you. That simple. If you are not price sensitive (as I am not), I guarantee you, that you are in the minority. They have got to keep butts in the seats to make their business work. It's simply not reasonable to "demand" better service and then expect it to be delivered for the same price.

Look -- I get what you're saying. But options are FAR MORE LIMITED than choosing something like a store to make a purchase. Never said I was captive to ONE AIRLINE -- the choices are VERY LIMITED as compared to most markets.

And most airlines have the same lazy approach to customer service these days, making REAL options even more limited.

The giant open market situation you're suggesting just isn't there in air travel.

And if you read my past posts, I never said they should disallow overbooking. I think 1) some like united should revisit their algorithms, and 2) they should adopt policies that allow MARKET RATE to be paid for VOLUNTEERS to be bumped, and allow LATITUDE FOR EMPLOYEES TO USE COMMON SENSE.

 

[MillauFr]

My point was that you can CHOOSE your airline based on the service they provide.

Yes and no... If you live in New Jersey near Newark or on in the north suburbs of Houston the extensive list of cities that United flies to non-stop is probably going to outweigh the crappy customer service.

 

[mnrose]

I'm going to keep repeating that per the facts, United is better than most at not involuntarily bumping or even voluntarily bumping. The worst is Southwest (factor of two worse than United). And, yet they are recognized as having "better" customer service. I don't think they need to rework their algorithms, but I agree with you that they probably should give wider latitude to gate agents to "do the right thing." I believe from what I've read they are in the process of doing this, as any company would do when they've had a disastrous (from a PR standpoint) incident like this one. But, we don't need regulation to solve the problem. And, we don't need them to be "forced" to not overbook. No one (that I know) wants airline fares to increase.

 

[mnrose]

Yes and no... If you live in New Jersey near Newark or on in the north suburbs of Houston the extensive list of cities that United flies to non-stop is probably going to outweigh the crappy customer service.

That's a choice. Maybe not a good one. But, still a choice. Not all choices in life are optimal. If enough people said "I refuse to board another United jet ever again" their customer service would improve. But, by continuing to fly them because the "other" choices are worse, they have no incentive to change their service. They are "doing enough" to keep you on board.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I don't think they need to rework their algorithms, but I agree with you that they probably should give wider latitude to gate agents to "do the right thing." I believe from what I've read they are in the process of doing this, as any company would do when they've had a disastrous (from a PR standpoint) incident like this one.

Seems pathetic to me that they needed this big a PR catastrophe to engage a modicum of common sense. Some others already had.

And the CEO's initial handing was abysmal.

 

[bcla]

Correct. Alaska is pretty quick the close the doors upto 10 minutes early. Anyone who shows up 5 minutes before the flight leaves and the doors are already closed is classified as "Involuntary Denied Boarding". That happens most on the Portland flights. They will fill up the plane as fast a possible and depart knowing that if someone doesn't make it the next flight is in a half hour.

It was a little different than I thought, or maybe they changed their policy. I though that free same day standby was the policy for all flights going though Seattle or Portland, but I found it's only for specific "shuttle" routes like Seattle/Portland. However, these are a very large proportion of their flights.

My wife hates waiting, and will even pack less than an hour before departure. We have maybe a 25 minute drive to Oakland, and SFO is even longer. Once I rushed her to OAK where she and our kid apparent got to the gate 5 minutes before scheduled departure. The plane was at the gate but they just shut the door. I don't think she was offered anything outside of standby for the next flight. We have cut it close way too many times, including asking for a ride to BART, or even jumping off and getting a taxi when the original plan was for public transportation. We've gotten in faster with a small child. I'm frankly surprised that my wife (I only dropped them off) has only missed a single flight since I've known her.

Strangely enough, for our last flight I didn't cut it that close, and my wife stashed a Happy Meal beverage (which spilled over the fries) in a bag and triggered an enhanced pat down. That took about 8 minutes, but we had enough time.