|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The passengers were randomly chosen, please don't make this a weird reverse racism thing for goony idiots to run with. The problem is they assaulted him. Getting violent with a non-violent person, no matter what they did, is wrong 100% of the time. Nah. What if they just won't leave the plane when you ask and you're a cop?!
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
waggles posted:In the Schadenfreude thread the guy forced out is a doctor that has to see patients the next day. They gave his seat to a United employee. He supposedly also got his face bashed hard enough while being forced off the plane that he was bleeding when he was put back on. So basically he got assaulted and forced off the plane to let a United employee fly in his place because they overbooked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The passengers were randomly chosen, please don't make this a weird reverse racism thing for goony idiots to run with. The problem is they assaulted him. Getting violent with a non-violent person, no matter what they did, is wrong 100% of the time. It's not reverse racism, it's marketing. If you get anyone but a White male from your random selection you select again. I mean, how horrible would it be looking right now if the randomly chosen passenger had been a Muslim woman? If your plane is predominately filled with White people your only option from a marketing standpoint is to pick a White guy otherwise it just gets exponentially worse. Preferably a fat White guy. If Kevin Smith had been on the plane you'd pick him. And I say that as a fat White guy who looks not unlike Kevin Smith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Choosing Kevin Smith would have freed up two seats, it's a no brainer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Usually they pick the people who bought the cheapest seats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
There's a simple solution, stop using overbooking. vvv Late stage capitalism, have to find every extra cent you can, even if it makes your product less attractive. vv Gynocentric Regime has a new favorite as of 18:15 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Glazier posted:There's a simple solution, stop using overbooking. It's a super weird practice for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
They have to. Margins are so thin that if they didn't overbook the empty seats that would result from no-shows would kill them.Glazier posted:vvv Late stage capitalism, have to find every extra cent you can, even if it makes your product less attractive. vv There are two sides to this. The other side is that people don't want to pay more for airline tickets, so you can't just increase your margins to the point where you can do away with overbooking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Overbooking would have sorted itself out by now if it was a big enough issue for consumers. The occasional battered passenger is a small price to pay for keeping your planes as full as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Maybe the dumbest move in all marketing was capitalism itself!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, you're right, air travel was much better back before deregulation when the fares and routes were set by the state's regulators, airlines were *guaranteed a profit*, and all those poors couldn't afford to fly. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, you're right, air travel was much better back before deregulation when the fares and routes were set by the state's regulators, airlines were *guaranteed a profit*, and all those poors couldn't afford to fly. Well, you could smoke on the plane and there were always just two larger seats in a row back then. Does sound a little better in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have to. Margins are so thin that if they didn't overbook the empty seats that would result from no-shows would kill them. So throw $20 onto the price of First/Business Class pax, they aren't price sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I don't know how people being able to smoke on a plane is a net positive, and if you want wider seats those are still an option. But most people would rather a cheaper fare than a wider seat, which is why so many of them fly coach. In 1974 the cheapest price allowed by law for a NYC-LA flight was $1507 in current dollars; if you're willing to pay that much you can get a nicer seat now than you could get back then.Glazier posted:So throw $20 onto the price of First/Business Class pax, they aren't price sensitive. Of course they are. Otherwise the airlines would already have done that. Just because the passenger isn't paying for his seat directly doesn't mean there's no price elasticity of demand there. My company will let me get business-class seats for international travel, but only coach seats domestically; if there was no price sensitivity there that wouldn't be the policy. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 18:35 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have to. Margins are so thin that if they didn't overbook the empty seats that would result from no-shows would kill them. Raising prices or reducing costs seem like more sensible solutions than selling more tickets than there are seats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Raising prices or reducing costs seem like more sensible solutions than selling more tickets than there are seats. Customers want cheap seats. Employees want good wages. Regulations require things like "maintenance" and "fuel reserves". So you are limited in how much you can raise prices or reduce costs. You are also limited in how much you can overbook a plane, because customers don't like being bumped. But they mind being bumped at the frequency they currently are a lot less than they mind higher prices, so that's what happens. And of course they mind being punched in the face and laid out even more, so I'm betting United will wind up asking "Why didn't we just offer more than $800 to get volunteers?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Customers want cheap seats. Employees want good wages. Regulations require things like "maintenance" and "fuel reserves". So you are limited in how much you can raise prices or reduce costs. You are also limited in how much you can overbook a plane, because customers don't like being bumped. But they mind being bumped at the frequency they currently are a lot less than they mind higher prices, so that's what happens. I dunno, somehow every other industry in the world manages to get by without selling things they don't have. I guess those companies are just corporate wizards or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I dunno, somehow every other industry in the world manages to get by without selling things they don't have. I guess those companies are just corporate wizards or something. TIL that all industries operate under exactly the same constraints. Besides, you're just wrong: a bunch of other industries do oversell and build their infrastructure for typical demand rather than peak demand: hotels, telephone companies, rental providers, internet service providers, etc. Trains would do it too, but trains have the advantage that they can sell a cheaper tier of tickets that don't guarantee you a seat, because people are allowed to stand and walk around on trains while they are in transit (and are also not weight-limited in the way that planes are). Phanatic has a new favorite as of 18:48 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I dunno, somehow every other industry in the world manages to get by without selling things they don't have. I guess those companies are just corporate wizards or something. Hotels do it, too. You book every room you have plus a couple more because 99.99% of the time someone won't show, and if everyone does you have reasonable plans to deal with it (alternate accommodation, free gifts).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't know how people being able to smoke on a plane is a net positive, and if you want wider seats those are still an option. But most people would rather a cheaper fare than a wider seat, which is why so many of them fly coach. In 1974 the cheapest price allowed by law for a NYC-LA flight was $1507 in current dollars; if you're willing to pay that much you can get a nicer seat now than you could get back then. Smoking is cool. I don't even smoke, but I know it looks awesome, makes you look intriguing, and gives you something to do with your hands at parties. You're blowing out smoke like some sort of dragon. Not to mention it's a drug and drugs are cool too. Yeah, smoking is bad rear end.....what were we talking about again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:TIL that all industries operate under exactly the same constraints. So what you're saying is that we need planes with standing room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Hotels do it, too. You book every room you have plus a couple more because 99.99% of the time someone won't show, and if everyone does you have reasonable plans to deal with it (alternate accommodation, free gifts). I am fairly sure that hotels don't pull guests out of their beds and drag them onto the streets if they have overbooked, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:So what you're saying is that we need planes with standing room. No poo poo, RyanAir tried doing that, claiming ticket prices of just a few GBP, but it never went anywhere because it would violate CAA regs. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/travel/standing-cabin-plane-study/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No poo poo, RyanAir tried doing that, claiming ticket prices of just a few GBP, but it never went anywhere because it would violate CAA regs. You really need to get re-accommodated
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Whoops. Great timing. https://twitter.com/prweekus/status/842484619744178176
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Hotels do it, too. You book every room you have plus a couple more because 99.99% of the time someone won't show, and if everyone does you have reasonable plans to deal with it (alternate accommodation, free gifts). The last time I went to New York they booked my room to someone else expecting one of us to not show. We both did. They ended up giving me one of their suites instead. It was a pretty nice suite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Last time I flew on business, one of my flights got delayed, and I didn't land at my destination until 11pm. I can assure you that I was thrilled that they gave away my rental car, and tried to hype up the mini-van I was given instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't know how people being able to smoke on a plane is a net positive, and if you want wider seats those are still an option. Phanatic posted:And of course they mind being punched in the face and laid out even more, so I'm betting United will wind up asking "Why didn't we just offer more than $800 to get volunteers?" Were they bumping boarded passengers in order to move crew? Ya, I'm thinking you just up the offer and take your lumps, it seems shortsighted in hindsight to drag a customer off the plane. Dark comedy indeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
porktree posted:Were they bumping boarded passengers in order to move crew? Ya, I'm thinking you just up the offer and take your lumps, it seems shortsighted in hindsight to drag a customer off the plane. Dark comedy indeed. Yep. Given that the alternative is that you're now in a position where you need to cancel an entire flight because the crew didn't get there in time, it's doubly-hosed that you don't just increase the offer to get your four volunteers to get rebooked. It's still way cheaper than canceling. Bonus: It's not even a United flight, it's a codeshare operated by Republic; all the decisions were made by Republic without any United employees being involved. I'm fine with United taking the heat they're taking; if you're going to paint your livery over someone else's plane and let them wear your uniforms to make it appear like they're you, then suck it up when they do something really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't know how people being able to smoke on a plane is a net positive, One possible net positive; Higher air quality in the cabin. When smoking was allowed they had to vent/refresh the air every 2-3 minutes with air from outside. When smoking was banned they could switch that to every 10-20 minutes, and use mainly recirculated air. The airlines love this as its way cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:One possible net positive; Higher air quality in the cabin. When smoking was allowed they had to vent/refresh the air every 2-3 minutes with air from outside. When smoking was banned they could switch that to every 10-20 minutes, and use mainly recirculated air. The airlines love this as its way cheaper. I was really pissed off when I heard that. Less chance of lung cancer is good, but every long haul I have been on I now get a respiratory infection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
"We just take carbon dioxide, freshen it up a little, then pump it back in. So you'll be breathing the same roomful of air for the rest of your flight. I just thought that was interesting."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
spog posted:I was really pissed off when I heard that. Every second of every flight you are breathing in dozens of people's recycled farts. Enjoy your flight!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have to. Margins are so thin that if they didn't overbook the empty seats that would result from no-shows would kill them. I legit don't understand that, because it's not like doing a no-show gets you a refund. Wouldn't someone missing their flight actually be cheaper, since you don't have to burn fuel for their weight and luggage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I legit don't understand that, because it's not like doing a no-show gets you a refund. Wouldn't someone missing their flight actually be cheaper, since you don't have to burn fuel for their weight and luggage? You could still sell the empty seat, which apparently is needed to remain profitable? All I know is that I ruled at AeroBiz and AeroBiz: Supersonic, so I have to assume that airlines' CEO's just aren't very good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I legit don't understand that, because it's not like doing a no-show gets you a refund. Wouldn't someone missing their flight actually be cheaper, since you don't have to burn fuel for their weight and luggage? It's more that they have to sell 102% of their seats in order to be profitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Atmus posted:You could still sell the empty seat, which apparently is needed to remain profitable? Yeah so then you've got a seat you sold twice, sounds like a win to me. I know air travel is complicated and I fully believe there's logic to this I'm not seeing, but I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I sincerely think that if airlines would offer flights that were like $50-100 more but guaranteed there would be no children on board they would sell out those flights each and every time. I know I'd exclusively buy those tickets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
spog posted:I am fairly sure that hotels don't pull guests out of their beds and drag them onto the streets if they have overbooked, though. If they overbooked but everyone showed, and then realised that four beds were needed for the cleaners that were essential to another night of guests to be roomed (because a member of staff forgot before handing out the keys), and for some reason none of the guests would accept the offer of $800 worth of meals & drinks in the restaurant to be roomed across the street instead, and it was against a bunch of regulations to let anyone sleep in the hallway, and the people actually in charge of policy at the hotel weren't available, then yeah, if someone chosen by lottery refused to move were confronted by 1 then 2 then 3 security personnel, then I think they might? It's not like this was standard policy for any and all overselling issues. A series of mistakes were made leading to the assault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Remember airlines have been making record profits since oil prices finally came down. They have not reversed fees related to those high fuel costs and haven't expanded their planes or routes, preferring to maximize the number of passengers per flight. This overbooking to be profitable is bullshit. It's just more profitable to overbook and offer incentives in case everyone shows up. 9 times out of 10 you won't have to offer anything and you get to sell the same seat 2 or 3 times. Not this time. No, this instance isn't going to be very profitable for United at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:42
|
|