Jump to content

United Incident


Tommy

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

We're pilots, we understand math and science. Here are some actual numbers. Since 1995, United has bumped 4.3 passengers per 100,000 passengers flown. Southwest is actually much worse at 9.9 passengers bumped per 100,000 flown.  Anecdotal experience says that the majority of passengers, based on the rush to the podium to sign up, actually appreciate the travel voucher or compensation, for being bumped. But even so that is a minuscule percentage.  

This article states that United bumped 11/100,000 in 2014, not sure what more recent data is, but your point is valid.

In the balance is the issue that the airline is a basic service provider operating in a realm that is heavily subsidized by the general society (i.e. the airlines don't build and maintain runways, terminals, etc).  No one could legitimately question the airline's ability to make a profit.  The issues is if/when they operate a business model (routine systematic overbooking) that maximizes their profit....when this business model literally leaves a passenger stranded...who should be responsible for bearing the brunt of the cost? .

The article linked above shows that you are right (in saying that the majority of passengers appreciate being bumped), because of how the airlines handle routine cases.  It is 11/100,000 case where they failed here.  From the article:

""In 2014, about 96 of every 100,000 Delta fliers had to take a later flight because the plane was overbooked. This compared to 95 at United and 50 at American. But only three of every 100,000 Delta passengers were bumped involuntarily. United had to bump 11 and American, five. Multiplied out, Delta was able to get thousands more of its passengers to agree to stay behind and bumped thousands fewer passengers involuntarily. ""

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the reference I cited.... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-idUSKBN17D2R3 It is quoting Dept of Transportation data. To be a bit more accurate, it's been keeping data since 1995 of bumped passengers and 2016 was the lowest year ever with UAL only bumping 4.3 per 100,000. That's out of a total of 143 million passengers in 2016.

Sorry, I should have cited my source.

I guess my belief is that without the ability to bump passengers as they see fit, airline ticket prices would be much higher and average folks wouldn't be able to fly.  I think the airlines do a pretty good job of delivering on the job they have.

I understand if others don't agree with me and I don't pretend to know how to run an airline. I do though, benefit for the service. I'll fly UAL from St. Johns > Toronto > Chicago > Austin tomorrow. And the next day will fly Austin > Houston > Narita. Because of some frequent flyer miles and some travel vouchers from getting bumped, my wife will fly with me to Japan and we won't pay anything out of pocket for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

We're pilots, we understand math and science. Here are some actual numbers. Since 1995, United has bumped 4.3 passengers per 100,000 passengers flown. Southwest is actually much worse at 9.9 passengers bumped per 100,000 flown.  Anecdotal experience says that the majority of passengers, based on the rush to the podium to sign up, actually appreciate the travel voucher or compensation, for being bumped. But even so that is a minuscule percentage.  

Paul,

The fact that that the percentage of bumping is small or that majority of the traveller "rushes to the podium" has zero relevance to what transpired on that United flight from the passenger's point of view. The risk of it happening for him is 100%. The issue here, for him, rather, is the heavy-handed approach. 

From the company's point of view, it means what happened is a rare occurrence but not an impossible event. The consequence, on the other hand, is severe if not catastrophic for the airline (almost 1-billion wiped from its share). From a risk management point of view. This demands mitigation unless you prefer to stick your head in the sand. One of the simplest solutions will be to stop deliberate and systematic overbooking practices, which is what the customers want and appreciate. Another simple solution will be allowing the staff to raise the incentive to say 4k. The list goes on.

The worst solution, as United painfully found out, is to do nothing because it's so rare.

Since you are like to wear your pilot's hat, the analogy I can draw is in-flight break up. Rare but would you do nothing to prevent it from happening?

ps. And the fact you are a pilot means even less. Do you start every conversation / argument with "I am a pilot..."? I can tell you there are plenty of pilots don't know anything about math and science but can certainly fly the damn plane better than you and I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

We'll agree to disagree... I'm boarding a United flight in about three hours. I'm on multiple United flights each of the next 3 days and happy to do it.

Let's just hope you don't get bumped because you know what they say, Karma is a b....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I guess my belief is that without the ability to bump passengers as they see fit, airline ticket prices would be much higher and average folks wouldn't be able to fly.  I think the airlines do a pretty good job of delivering on the job they have.

I am calling your bs unless you can provide evidence of the additional profit they make with systemical overbooking practice has directly and explicitly goes back to the reduction of ticket price of the overbooked flights and not to Munoz's $7 million remuneration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I guess my belief is that without the ability to bump passengers as they see fit, airline ticket prices would be much higher and average folks wouldn't be able to fly.  

Assuming 10 passengers per 100k are bumped against their will, we can make some guesses on how much extra ticket prices would be for everyone else.  If airlines kept upping the ante in forced bump situations:

$1000 cash x10 bumped passengers = $10,000/100,000 =$10 extra per ticket to to the 100k.  

You can expand this for higher average ante prices, but I don't agree that the extra cost would make the ticket cost prohibitive.

Why don't airlines do this now? I'd assume race to the bottom economics and that it's simply easier from an administrative standpoint to default to the mandatory minimum airline payout.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

It isn't simply that his fellow physicians don't think much of him, information revealed about his background may shed some light on his mental condition. I would argue that someone convicted of (not simply charged with, convicted of) the crimes he was is not a normal healthy human being from a mental standpoint.  Of course airport security did not know anything about that at the time but it may help to explain why he did what he did. Mentally ill people do not respond rationally.

So now you are a criminal psychologist?

Define Normal Healthy Human Being from a Mental Standpoint? More than 50% of the population will, in their lifetime, being diagnosed or fit the diagnostic criteria of a mental condition (depression makes up a large proportion). So by definition, it's actually normal to have a mental condition in your life time.

Why is it there are no short of people on MSpace lining up to blame the victim? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming 10 passengers per 100k are bumped against their will, we can make some guesses on how much extra ticket prices would be for everyone else.  If airlines kept upping the ante in forced bump situations:
$1000 cash x10 bumped passengers = $10,000/100,000 =$10 extra per ticket to to the 100k.  
You can expand this for higher average ante prices, but I don't agree that the extra cost would make the ticket cost prohibitive.
Why don't airlines do this now? I'd assume race to the bottom economics and that it's simply easier from an administrative standpoint to default to the mandatory minimum airline payout.

I believe that the airlines, at least the ones I use, don't offer cash incentives but rather non-refundable and non-transferable travel vouchers that are good for one year. For some of us a travel voucher is almost useless as the last thing we want to do on our time off is travel.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome out in the open, gscott.
What made you want to post your first post here?
Tommy is in Australia.  Posting at lunch time while the rest of the posters have shut down for the evening...
Best regards,
-a-

Actually, to be honest and a little embarrassed to admit, I'm using tapatalk and it's new to me. I thought I was on a different board as I am more of a Mooneyspace lurker having never been in a Mooney. That being said, and having lurked here for several months, I've come to become a Mooney (and Mooneyspace) fan and regret having that be my first post. :-)

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tom said:

Assuming 10 passengers per 100k are bumped against their will, we can make some guesses on how much extra ticket prices would be for everyone else.  If airlines kept upping the ante in forced bump situations:

$1000 cash x10 bumped passengers = $10,000/100,000 =$10 extra per ticket to to the 100k.  

You can expand this for higher average ante prices, but I don't agree that the extra cost would make the ticket cost prohibitive.

Why don't airlines do this now? I'd assume race to the bottom economics and that it's simply easier from an administrative standpoint to default to the mandatory minimum airline payout.

I think Paul's argument is that the benefit of overbooking far outweighs the cost of actual bumping.

They overbook passengers on flights knowing that some will be no show. So for one seat they make twice as much money (assume they don't refund the no shows or late cancellations etc). 

And statistically speaking, it makes sense. 

But my issue is that Paul needs to show evidence that, somehow, these additional windfall directly benefits the passengers - especially the ones that's on the overbooked flight - and not the executives....

And why don't other countries' top airlines do the same? Well one can only surmise that they know the hassle and the PR risk just ain't worth the effort and the extra profit. And, quite possibly a very different fundamental business paradigm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Have you not booked a flight that you know is overbooked often?  Like Monday morning going anywhere.

All it takes is to be ready to put your hand up to take the offered benefits...

A simple trolling for the ever available offers to take the next flight out...

Learned as an engineer on the first business trip taken, months out of college.  Taught by a long time research engineer. Didn't need to be at work until the next morning...

Capitalism works in strange ways...

May not be perfect, but it is a good system.

Speaking of capitalism.  Somebody bought the stock on the dip.

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am yet to witness a bidding / offering due to overbooking in Australia. And I fly at least twice a week commercially because no airline - well at least the airlines that I travel with - practice systematic and deliberate overbooking for profit.

My argument is that how can it be a good system when United is outranked by Ethiopian Airline? And how can it be a good system when none of the best performed airlines are doing and still make MORE profit than United?

Tarnishing your reputation for less profit (perhaps due to less patronage) is a good system?

Even more puzzling is that how is it still a good system after United's incident, an injured doctor, a cabin full of traumatized passengers, 3 sacked airport security officers, and a wipe out of 1 billion in cap?

And a laughing stock from Emirates... https://www.businessinsider.com.au/emirates-united-airlines-ceo-feud-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

Your country's pride and tourism take a direct hit all because of corporate greed, arrogance, and stupidity (less profit)? And it's a good system?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.