Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Transportation

Why Do Airlines Overbook? (bbc.com) 575

Posted by msmash from the eli5 dept.
From a report on BBC: A common overbooking problem on a United Airlines flight on Sunday ended with a man being bloodied and dragged from his seat and an already troubled airline earning more bad press. How did it all go so wrong? Overbooking on flights happens all the time. Empty seats cost airlines money, so they offset the number of passengers who miss flights by selling too many tickets. In this case, the problem arose because United decided at the last minute to fly four members of staff to a connection point and needed to bump four passengers to make way for them. When there's an overbooking issue the first step is to offer an inducement to the passengers to take a later flight. [...] Of the 613 million people who flew on major US carriers in 2015, 46,000 were involuntarily denied boarding, according to data from the Department of Transportation -- less than 0.008%.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Do Airlines Overbook? More

Why Do Airlines Overbook?

Comments Filter:

  • Mile high club (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:23AM (#54212973)
    They all wanna do it but they don't wanna be caught doing it.

  • Because it is profitable to do so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:24AM (#54212977) Homepage

    That's the beginning and the end of this conversation.

    The only way to get airlines to stop doing it is to make it unprofitable to do so either through fines and/or regulations which increase the compensation for those bumped from flights to the point where it's not worth it to do.

    • they didn't do it in the 80's and 90's when flying half full planes was the norm. they started in the late 90's when airline tickets first went online and people started to shop by price. after that someone figured out that selling a business class ticket and having that person miss the flight was really losing money cause they could have sold two tickets for that seat.

      and it really took off with Priceline who made a huge business of selling cheap tickets that were the first ones to be denied boarding

      • they didn't do it in the 80's and 90's when flying half full planes was the norm. they started in the late 90's when airline tickets first went online and people started to shop by price.

        I was bumped off a trans-Atlantic flight for just this very reason in 1991, so I don't buy that.

        Turned out OK. Put up in a hotel, flight refunded and flew the next day, and I was in no hurry as I was going to the US for the whole summer. But had I been going for just a week, or have had commitments at the other end, I'd have been pissed.

        This was with British Airways BTW.

    • Re:Because it is profitable to do so (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:37AM (#54213125)

      A suggestion I put in one of the other versions of this story - require airlines to get volunteers and place no limit on compensation. The issue here is that there is a power imbalance and its in the financial interest of the dominant party to take advantage of the weaker.

      By removing the compensation limit and requiring volunteers we return balance to the situation and make it a free market. If it occasionally costs $20000 for someone to volunteer then airlines will be more careful about overbooking and people being bumped won't be complaining as they got an amount they're happy changing their plans for.

    • It says technically it was in United's right to remove the man. No, there are at least 3 parts of contract law that not only make this illegal, but another part that makes this a criminal offense.
      Just because airlines and the TSA constantly break the law, does not make it their right.
      Federal courts are constantly towing out FBI cases because of criminal acts FBI officers commit to get evidence.
      For some reason airlines, the TSA and private guards that have no more legal power than you, or I are being tr

  • Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:25AM (#54212983)

    46,000 were involuntarily denied boarding, according to data from the Department of Transportation -- less than 0.008%.

    It may be less than 0.008% but it's still forty six thousand human beings.

    • I happily voluntarily deny boarding. Last time the benefit I got was worth far more than the cost of the ticket in the first place, not to mention the extra day as a tourist in London. Last time my girlfriend swapped a 4 hour delay in an Australian airport instead of a 4 hours delay in Dubai for her connecting flight, and in exchange had a first class ticket.

      Not to mention that the practice of overbooking ensures fully booked flights which also help drive down the costs of tickets. Sure we could target 0%,

      • Re:Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:49AM (#54213221)

        That's good, and MOST of the time I'd happily be willing to accept a delay too. However, there are people who may be flying somewhere for a funeral. They may absolutely have to be back at work the next day or face termination. As the man in the latest United scam claimed (maybe truthfully, maybe not), they may be a doctor that has patients they must attend to.

        The bottom line is that is there is something inherently just not right about a business being able to sell you a ticket on a plane that is taking off but then deny you a seat on that plane because they sold too many of them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        I have volunteered my seat on a many occasions when I was single with no kids. Now, often enough, when I'm travelling to somewhere, it's for work - and I cannot be late. The return flight may be different, but then I have a wife and kids waiting for me to come home, so the reward for volunteering my seat needs to be a lot higher than it used to be. I advocate a zero involuntary bump policy, requiring airlines to keep upping the incentive to volunteer your seat until it's high enough to make enough people

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pr0t0 ( 216378 )

        I had a college professor who told us that if we did not hand in our final project at 9:00am on the appointed day, we would not get credit for it. No exceptions. If you were in a car accident, crawl to the class on bloody stumps to hand it in or find someone to do it for you, but there would be no leniency for a late submission. Period. And because he was clear about this from day one of the class, no one in his 30 years as a professor had ever tried to hand it in late and get credit.

        I bring this up because

    • Re:Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cob666 ( 656740 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:33AM (#54213077)

      46,000 were involuntarily denied boarding, according to data from the Department of Transportation -- less than 0.008%.

      It may be less than 0.008% but it's still forty six thousand human beings.

      Also, denied boarding is a whole different ball game than being physically removed from the plane after already boarding. United should have either offered more compensation until somebody took the bait or they should have bumped one of the 4 UA employees that wanted to fly. I hope the guy that was dragged from the plane has a basis to sue because what happened is not OK.

      • Was there no one else on the flight who was just going to visit grandma and who could use an extra $800 + a free hotel stay? Maybe if they'd thrown in free hotel room porn channel...

      • Re:Numbers (Score:4, Informative)

        by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:57AM (#54213295)
        The airline was offered $400 for each volunteer to give up their seat. After there were no takers, they upped it to $800. I assume they mean $800 + a ticket refund. There are regulations in place that increase the dollar value the longer the passenger has to wait for another flight. But at that point, I have to ask, "Couldn't the airline just send the employees to the destination using ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION for that much money?"

        • I assume they mean $800 + a ticket refund.

          No, it was $800, a hotel for the night, and a seat on the next available airplane, which was at 3PM the next day. You accept the deal, you're not getting your money for the ticket back.

          But at that point, I have to ask, "Couldn't the airline just send the employees to the destination using ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION for that much money?"

          That aircrew that hands you free drinks has a federal law limiting their duty day and mandating rest periods. Taking 6 hours to drive them to their destination almost certainly means they will violate either or both, making them unavailable for the flight they were trying to deadhead to.

      • I don;t think he has the basis to sue. Once onboard an aircraft, the captain is in charge. He issued an instruction for that passenger to leave - the passenger disobeyed that order, so was at fault. Regardless of how s****y it may be for the airline to bump him from the flight, or the circumstances in which it happened, the passenger was guilty of failing to comply with the captain's instruction.

        I imagine he could sue the airline for the way that the situation was handled, but the airline could equally w

        • Re:Numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

          by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:30AM (#54213639) Homepage

          Then maybe the captain should be charged with the assault if you want him to be responsible. Removing someone is not the same as giving them a concussion and a number of other injuries.

      • the 4 UA employees that wanted to fly (Score:4, Interesting)

        by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:17AM (#54213497) Journal

        They were crew for a flight that would be cancelled if they weren't there. What this is, in addition to a PR foulup, is a logistics screwup. The crew should have been booked on a flight already.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Market failure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:28AM (#54213025)
    Flying is an awful experience these days because market drives price optimization above anything else. A lot of it is driven by "find cheapest" aggregators and "you must fly cheapest" corporate policies. This is actually not in the best interest of consumers. Actually, vast majority of consumers would be better off with slightly more expensive but consumer-focused service.

    Security theater at the airports, outrageous fees, cramped seats, inadequate cleaning between flights. Why would anyone fly unless they absolutely had to?

    • Re:Market failure (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:04AM (#54213361) Homepage Journal

      Why would anyone fly unless they absolutely had to?

      Because it usually works out just fine, and it's so incredibly fast compared to driving. Days turn into just a few hours. Fewer hotel nights means it's cheaper than driving too, sometimes enormously so.

      If you're rich and can afford to drive everywhere because you don't mind more nights in hotels and there's no limit to the time you can be away, I understand why you don't fly. But when you look down on jetsetters, you're being an insensitive snob.

      We jump through hoops like trained animals, no longer having the dignity of humans, and now from this story we see that it's unreliable and a carrier might not keep its word. Yet even still, it comes out on top. Look at it this way: Airplanes were such a great technological advancement, that we'll put up with so much bullshit.

      • Because it usually works out just fine, and it's so incredibly fast compared to driving. Days turn into just a few hours.

        Sure, if you're talking long distances. And it really depends on your particular situation: Do you have a direct flight, or do you have connections? Do you live close to a major airport, or do you need to drive 90 minutes to get to one (and is it in the "right" direction)? How efficient are the security lines, etc. at your airport? How much time do you need to allow for traffic?

        And what about your destination? How far is that from the airport? Do you need to pay for transportation while there? Havi

    • What the fuck are you talking about? Flying these days can only be explained as a perfect market forces at work and is as good or as bad an experience as you want to make it.

      Want to fly across to the other side of Europe for little more than the cost of a local train ride to the airport without food, drink, or anything beyond a small backpack? You can do that.
      Want to fly across to the other side of Europe with a suitcase, and lunch served with a bit of extra room? You can do that too.
      Need to fly but don't k

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by green1 ( 322787 )

        Maybe you should realize that not all of the world is Europe.

        Around here we have a government mandated duopoly on air travel. There are 2 airlines, with identical service and identical prices on all routes. The cost for a one hour flight is several hundred dollars, and includes no amenities, no luggage, and no knee room. The only other option is for the same flight to cost several thousand dollars for "business class".

        As for trains... yeah... not even an option, there simply aren't any around here for anyth

  • an Overbooking issue.

    If you want to talk about Airlines feeling they can manhandle passengers out of their seats - great, I think it needs to be discussed so airlines understand that wasn't acceptable.

    But, I think everybody here understands why airlines overbook, so don't bother explaining.

  • Not an overbooking incident (Score:5, Informative)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:34AM (#54213095)

    Overbooking incidents are resolved at check-in counters. This is an incident of someone being removed from a plane to make way for employees. Not only is this not overbooking, but it's also a mindbogglingly dickish move by an airline to de-board someone already sitting and expecting to reach their destination, even more dickish that it wasn't voluntary at all.

    I really wish I could boycot United, but as have already done so for years there's not much more I can do. Frankly these types of incidents only seem to happen with one carrier over and over again.

    Last time I checked in at a KLM service desk they told me they were overbooked and they gave me the choice of flying 30min later and paid me €200 for my troubles. Quite a different response then "these people will need to get off the plane to make space for an employee of ours".

    • I adore KLM as an airline. With 50+ flights and only had issues once I'm fairly happy with how they handle things.
      The one time it went to shit I missed my second leg flight to the US but got re-booked and handed a stack-o-euros with no mess.

    • Re:Not an overbooking incident (Score:4, Informative)

      by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:56AM (#54213279)
      They did supposedly offer $400, then $800 reimbursement. No one took them up on it.

      The mildly moronic part was not offering more money or saying "We're going to all sit here until someone gives up." The stupid part was choosing someone at random and demanding he give up his seat without listening to whether he absolutely needed to get back or had some flexibility. "I'm a doctor and I have patients I need to tend to" is a pretty fucking good excuse. Find some retiree or some asshole who sells cars or does computer stuff.

      The part that was stupid even for a US airline company was using force to get him off rather than choosing someone else. The airline isn't his parents, the point shouldn't be to teach him to obey.
    • One key reason why flying overseas/international is so much better than flying domestically? Competition.

      That is, there's actual competition on overseas routes, to a degree that really doesn't exist in the US domestic market. Thanks to airline consolidation, there are four major carriers, and they pretty much don't compete on many routes. Other airlines can get you there, but only with a connection or two, and a much longer flight. For instance, look at what airlines offer direct flights from Denver to Ch

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jhon ( 241832 )

      " Not only is this not overbooking, but it's also a mindbogglingly dickish move by an airline to de-board someone already sitting and expecting to reach their destination, even more dickish that it wasn't voluntary at all."

      I agree it was poorly handled. But the "employee" that needed to be on board was for 4 members of a flight crew who were to be working shortly after their arrival on ANOTHER flight which would have been delayed or cancelled -- which would have caused 100+ other passengers who were expeci

    • Re:Not an overbooking incident (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:16AM (#54213485)

      Overbooking incidents are resolved at check-in counters. This is an incident of someone being removed from a plane to make way for employees. Not only is this not overbooking, but it's also a mindbogglingly dickish move by an airline to de-board someone already sitting and expecting to reach their destination, even more dickish that it wasn't voluntary at all.

      Exactly. People keep labeling this is an overbooking issue, but it's questionable whether that's really the case at all. And even if it was, it's likely that they didn't have the authority to remove him anyway.

      Airlines have been granted limited authority by the Department of Transportation to deny boarding to confirmed passengers when they're overbooked. As you said, that sort of issue is handled at the check-in counter at the time of boarding, but if all of the confirmed passengers had already boarded and were in their seats, it should be self-evident that the plane wasn't overbooked, given that everyone was already in their seats. Moreover, even if the plane was overbooked, they still wouldn't have the authority to remove people from the plane, meaning that their only recourse would be to deny boarding to the passengers who hadn't boarded yet, namely their four employees. And really, that should have been their choice anyway, given that none of the employees needed to be at the destination until the next day and the destination was just a four-hour car ride away.

      That the police went along with this is also appalling, given that they're supposed to be the sane ones who actually enforce the law. Yes, I know it's naive, but I've seen plenty of videos of law enforcement officers who've refused to obey whatever the hell a pissed off TSA agent is screeching at them to do, and have instead helped the passengers or visitors in going about their business (I seem to recall them even asking the passenger in one video if they wanted to press charges against the TSA agent, which shut that agent up immediately). What the officers did here was shameful.

  • Every Overbooked Seat is Paid For Twice (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It should be noted that airlines will only oversbook a non-refundable seat/ticket.

    A successful overbook is one where a seat is sold to two people and one of them does not show up. In this situation, the seat is paid for twice but only used once. This is free money for the airlines.

    An unsuccessful overbook is where a seat is sold twice and they both show up. The second person to check in is not assigned a seat number and told they will get one at the gate. The airline then waits to see if another seat become

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      While it is a game of money, every time I've missed a flight (either through delays of connecting flights or other reasons), the airlines have always been accommodating about re-booking me without penalty. I think it's more about making sure they are not losing potential income than it is about gaining extra... very few people willingly miss a flight they've paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for.

    • Re:Every Overbooked Seat is Paid For Twice (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:40AM (#54213745)
      They could have planned ahead, they could have flown them another airline, they could have chartered a private plane. They had choices.

  • "Empty seats" in the sense of the article are already profitable for the Airline, as someone has payed for the seat but didn't show. They don't "cost the airline money" except in the sense that they are a revenue opportunity to sell the seats of no-shows a second time.

    Perhaps airlines should be forced to refund tickets if they manage to resell the seat - which given the way their pricing works they invariable do at a higher price anyway.

    • "Empty seats" in the sense of the article are already profitable for the Airline, as someone has payed for the seat but didn't show. They don't "cost the airline money" except in the sense that they are a revenue opportunity to sell the seats of no-shows a second time.

      Perhaps airlines should be forced to refund tickets if they manage to resell the seat - which given the way their pricing works they invariable do at a higher price anyway.

      I'm not defending the practice, but you are missing one scenario: lost connections. If my initial flight is late, and I miss my connection, then the seat I paid for on the 2nd flight is empty (assuming no overbooking happened). The airline still needs to get me to my final destination, which means they need to find a flight with an available seat. In this scenario, putting a paying customer in my "empty" seat actually means breaking even, since that customer basically covered the cost of my seat in the fina

  • Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @10:46AM (#54213189) Homepage Journal
    "Empty seats cost airlines money" not if those seats are already paid for. This total BS. If the seat is paid for then less weight saves them money. Overbooking is pure greed. They know the average percentage of people who will miss the flight and they overbook to make more money but sometimes the people do not miss the flight and they do not have enough seats. It is pure greed and lies. If I have paid for a seat it should not be theirs to sell again as what they normally do is just get more strict about the check in time to reject people if they are going to have a problem. You arrive at check in a minute late (I was rejected 3 minutes late once) and they get hard arsed because they already have someone sitting in your seat. They have sold it and made money from something they had already sold to you.
  • If a plane has 100 seats and they know on average that 4 people won't show up they might be inclined to sell a couple of extra seats. It's free money, especially since tickets on a nearly-full aircraft sell for more money than those on an empty one.

    It must be profitable even after compensating every one that they bump.

  • and dragged him off the plane should be fired and blacklisted from any job of authority or security, if they are not smart enough to think for themselves that beating up an innocent old man is wrong then they dont need to be in that line of work,
  • United Airlines Flight 3411 is NOT a United Airlines flight. The U.S. government allows mis-labeling. Flight 3411 is a CommutAir [wikipedia.org] flight.

    United's CEO Oscar Munoz made the situation FAR worse by the pretend caring in what he said: United is investigating why authorities dragged a passenger off a flight -- here's what it found [businessinsider.com].

    Quotes from the CEO:

    "... we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding..."
    It was not "apologetic". The passenger was alrea

    • While a lot of what you said is correct, it appears that flight 3411 is actually a Republic Airline [wikipedia.org] flight. And really, it appears it's not so much a mis-labeling as it is outsourcing/contracting. United is correct in sharing the blame for this in choosing to partner with them.

  • What else are you going to do, drive to Europe? Take a 20 hour cab ride to your meeting in New York?

    At [airline] we have you by the nuts, so fuck you.
  • A google maps search suggests one can drive Chicago -> Louisville in under 5 hours. Was the crew needed before the following morning? United could have hired a driver for them and avoided all this (or they could have put the displaced passengers in a car with some money and still had them in Louisville before the next flight would have gotten them there).

  • What about standby? (Score:3)

    by j2.718ff ( 2441884 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:13AM (#54213455)

    I've never flown standby, so I'm not completely sure how it works, but I think it's a model that makes more sense.

    Let's say a plane has 100 seats. The airline knows on average there will be 4% no-shows. What if, instead of selling 104 tickets at full-price, they sold 100 tickets at full-price, and 4 at a discount? Those people with the discounted tickets would usually get to fly, but would understand they might get bumped.

  • Overbooking is not even the problem (Score:3)

    by thewolfkin ( 2790519 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @12:13PM (#54214123) Homepage Journal

    The problem with what happened with United wasn't overbooking. It was how they handled overbooking. They could have taken the seats at the gate for their people and decided who wouldn't board at the gate. But instead they let everyone board, let everyone sit down and THEN pulled out the "we need your seats" thing. THAT's the problem.

    Or more specifically A problem because dragging someone out of the plane by their arms is ridiculous. He's not a sack of wheat. There were three dudes there and they couldn't grab his feet?

    And that doesn't even touch the extreme escalation of violence visited upon a Doctor who had purchased a ticket and was already seated.

    No they did many many things wrong on this flight but overbooking doesn't even come close to being one of the major ones.

  • So what if he's a doctor (Score:3)

    by xfizik ( 3491039 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @12:19PM (#54214199)
    They keep mentioning he's a doctor as though that gives him more rights. I'm not a doctor, but I'd be just as upset if I were told to get off the plan in such circumstances. Doctor or not, United is in the wrong here.
    As for the article, it has a wrong conclusion saying "if you face security then just comply or you get a fat lip". Well, everyone complying is the reason the police shoot unarmed people on the streets, passengers get dragged off the plane after paying full price for the ticket and so on. Compliance is not the way to deal with assholes like United.

  • New fare class (Score:3)

    by orgelspieler ( 865795 ) <w0lfie@ma c . c om> on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @01:33PM (#54215131) Journal
    United is proud to offer their new Thunderdome fare class. They divide the cost of one ticket among as many people who dare book it, and then the prospective passengers fight to the death in a steel cage on the tarmac. On the positive side, if you do not get a seat on the plane, they will still allow your remains on the cargo hold as long as you submitted a notarized certificate to United's corporate office three days in advance.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close