• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

United Airlines strikes again

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Perhaps what they need are FAA mediators or someone who has the authority to give orders to airline personnel on the spot. They could have resolved the entire situation by simply ordering the four airline employees to wait for the next flight and telling the bozo "captain" to get stuffed. Problem solved, and that would have been the end of it.
If the airline can't move employees to where they're needed,
there could be delays to passengers downstream. What
makes the most sense is to raise the offer to volunteers.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If the airline can't move employees to where they're needed,
there could be delays to passengers downstream.
Pretty much this.
What we appear to be looking at is the results of airline cost cutting to provide the cheap fares everybody shops for. The lack of redundancies keeps prices down, but risks this sort of problem due to staff getting sick or reaching flight time limits or something like that.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pretty much this.
What we appear to be looking at is the results of airline cost cutting to provide the cheap fares everybody shops for. The lack of redundancies keeps prices down, but risks this sort of problem due to staff getting sick or reaching flight time limits or something like that.
Tom
I've heard talking heads on NPR blame competition between airlines.
I say hogwash to that.
Competition needn't result in brutality & the PR disaster to follow.
(Note that the assault itself was committed by government workers.)
This (I expect) was a learning experience for the airline, ie, to enlist
volunteers is better than having cops assault the unwilling.
I strongly advise them to simply auction off the bumping (the usual
procedures), which would be far cheaper than the aftermath of this fiasco.

Overbooking makes sense economically, even if airlines pay some
fliers to delay. It's also greener to fly with full planes because it means
fewer of them in the sky.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Perhaps you are suggesting some government regulations on the "bumping system "?
Tom
If the airlines have any more such incidents, then we'll talk.

But I caution you....
The same government which writes the regulations governing the cops &
TSA would be writing airline bumping regs. They might make things worse.
There are always costs & risks with gov regulation...there should be a clear
net benefit.
 

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
The proper course would've been to keep offering more money until someone bit.

The problem is there is a cap on what can be offered to compensate bumped passengers and it's pretty low ball. As Harvard Business Review notes,

"... the DOT has adopted a rule that encourages involuntary bumping — which is undoubtedly less popular with flyers than voluntary bumping. The regulation specifies that if a passenger is involuntarily bumped, airlines have to pay a penalty amounting to 200%–400% (depending on the delay length) of the one-way fare that they paid with a maximum cap of $1,350. This provides an incentive for airlines to bump passengers who paid the least amount for their ticket, often the poorest travelers on the plane. So while United was offering $1,000, the unlucky four who were told to deplane could end up receiving less than half of that amount if they were flying on discounted $200 roundtrip tickets. By setting such a low liability, the DOT is inviting airlines to excessively bump passengers."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The problem is there is a cap on what can be offered to compensate bumped passengers and it's pretty low ball. As Harvard Business Review notes,

"... the DOT has adopted a rule that encourages involuntary bumping — which is undoubtedly less popular with flyers than voluntary bumping. The regulation specifies that if a passenger is involuntarily bumped, airlines have to pay a penalty amounting to 200%–400% (depending on the delay length) of the one-way fare that they paid with a maximum cap of $1,350. This provides an incentive for airlines to bump passengers who paid the least amount for their ticket, often the poorest travelers on the plane. So while United was offering $1,000, the unlucky four who were told to deplane could end up receiving less than half of that amount if they were flying on discounted $200 roundtrip tickets. By setting such a low liability, the DOT is inviting airlines to excessively bump passengers."
If true, it would seem that government regulation is more of a problem than a solution.

But the wording is ambiguous....is the cap a limit on what government can impose
upon the airline, or a cap on what the airline can voluntarily offer?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If the airline can't move employees to where they're needed,
there could be delays to passengers downstream. What
makes the most sense is to raise the offer to volunteers.

Yes, although isn't there a cap on the maximum amount they can offer?

It's not really the passengers' problem if the airlines can't move their employees without causing a lot of disruption. That's something they should resolve behind the scenes, even if they have to pay another airline to fly their crew or even if they have to charter a private plane. Whatever they have to do, that's their problem to solve - not something the passengers should have to worry about.

EDIT: I didn't notice that you addressed the issue of the cap in subsequent posts, so you can disregard the first question.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
It's not really the passengers' problem if the airlines can't move their employees without causing a lot of disruption. That's something they should resolve behind the scenes, even if they have to pay another airline to fly their crew or even if they have to charter a private plane.
Suppose Delta takes this slightly more expensive route, and provide slightly better service. Do you suppose that customers will choose the more expensive fare required to support that choice? Or will the large majority take the $115 fare over Delta's $117.25?
My guess is that they will take cheap, 90% of the time.
Tom
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Suppose Delta takes this slightly more expensive route, and provide slightly better service. Do you suppose that customers will choose the more expensive fare required to support that choice? Or will the large majority take the $115 fare over Delta's $117.25?
My guess is that they will take cheap, 90% of the time.
Tom
That is SAD! Two dollars? I'd agree if it was a substantial savings, but two dollars?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've heard talking heads on NPR blame competition between airlines.
I say hogwash to that.
Competition needn't result in brutality & the PR disaster to follow.
(Note that the assault itself was committed by government workers.)
This (I expect) was a learning experience for the airline, ie, to enlist
volunteers is better than having cops assault the unwilling.
I strongly advise them to simply auction off the bumping (the usual
procedures), which would be far cheaper than the aftermath of this fiasco.

Overbooking makes sense economically, even if airlines pay some
fliers to delay. It's also greener to fly with full planes because it means
fewer of them in the sky.

I don't think the issue is competition. My understanding is that the current system has airlines operating "fortress hubs" which actually inhibit competition. There are also international airlines who are trying to break in to the domestic US market, and the US carriers are fighting hard against that (because they don't want competition).

It's also tougher for those who live in smaller cities away from the large hubs. I find that I get much better deals if I drive up to Phoenix and fly out of there as opposed to flying out of Tucson.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That is SAD! Two dollars? I'd agree if it was a substantial savings, but two dollars?
When was the last time someone factored the possibility of being dragged, bloody, off a jet by government officials into their tickets buying decision?
Yeah, a $2 difference will sell a lot of tickets on a route like Chicago/ Louisville.
Tom
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When was the last time someone factored the possibility of being dragged, bloody, off a jet by government officials into their tickets buying decision?
Yeah, a $2 difference will sell a lot of tickets on a route like Chicago/ Louisville.
Tom
I am not rich, but I wouldn't even notice a two dollar difference. Do you go out to eat much?
If I had to fly every day I would notice the difference, but I might still spend the extra little bit to punish that airline.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I am not rich, but I wouldn't even notice a two dollar difference. Do you go out to eat much?
If I had to fly every day I would notice the difference, but I might still spend the extra little bit to punish that airline.
Would you be inclined to punish them by buying a ticket on an airline with the same policies? If you wouldn't, how would you find out what the policies of any other carrier actually are? As far as I know, even Delta didn't know that this was their policy until it happened.
Tom
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Would you be inclined to punish them by buying a ticket on an airline with the same policies? If you wouldn't, how would you find out what the policies of any other carrier actually are? As far as I know, even Delta didn't know that this was their policy until it happened.
Tom
There is no policy in place that allows for an assault against a passenger. I believe what they did is not legal. I realize it wasn't United Airlines' people who did the dragging, but it proves to me that the airline personnel are not alert. Alert personal is what I might pay for.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
There is no policy in place that allows for an assault against a passenger.
That is not true. The reason that there are air marshals is for that possibility. They are like policemen, they have powers and protections that the rest of us don't have.
Tom
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is not true. The reason that there are air marshals is for that possibility. They are like policemen, they have powers and protections that the rest of us don't have.
Tom
I know other people who define assault wrong too. That is why I am here, imo.
 
Top