Should a law be passed that bars airlines from overbooking flights?

[Gaius46]

It definitely falls under the category of "why we can't have nice things". If there weren't so many people being no shows, and not paying for the seat they booked, the airlines wouldn't have to overbook.

A no refunds policy would solve the overlooking problem, but I fear the outcry would be even louder.

What makes you think a lot of people are no shows and don't pay? I admit I don't travel on airlines much but I've never gotten a ticket that was refundable for a no show. Very few people fly on tickets that are refundable if they don't show.

What the airlines are actually doing is using computer models to estimate the number of no shows on a given flights - booking that many additional seats and then pocketing all the money. So if a plane as 250 seats and the computer says that 10 are likely no shows the sell 260 tickets. If all 10 are no shows they get all the revenue of selling 260 seats on a 250 seat aircraft.

 

[Gaius46]

No.

The government is never a better solution when it comes to a business satisfying their customers. Money talks louder.

How does that work when the practice is used by all the airlines in a market?

 

[Gaius46]

No it isn't. You are paying for transportation, not a seat, and it is contract based. Read the contract.

The easy answer is to fly charter or maybe purchase first class. You never get bumped from charter and, I'm not sure about all airlines, but I bet first class passengers are rarely, if ever, bumped. If you want guarantees, you have to pay for them.

.

One sided contracts like these - called contracts of adhesion - are often construed against the side with all the marbles. And for good reason. Passengers have zero bargaining power in a airline ticket sale.

 

[jonny5]

That isn't really a valid solution. The United States is large enough that there's no other practical way to cross it in any reasonable amount of time.

And given the small number of airlines and the fact that they all do this, "the market" doesn't seem to be solving the problem.

Then dont cross it. Or invent something better. If you think you can do better than the airlines, buses, trains, and cars, start your own business, treat all your customers the way you want to be treated, and im sure youll be super popular and profitable. It must be that easy if a law can just make it happen.

 

[Winchester]

What makes you think a lot of people are no shows and don't pay? I admit I don't travel on airlines much but I've never gotten a ticket that was refundable for a no show. Very few people fly on tickets that are refundable if they don't show.

What the airlines are actually doing is using computer models to estimate the number of no shows on a given flights - booking that many additional seats and then pocketing all the money. So if a plane as 250 seats and the computer says that 10 are likely no shows the sell 260 tickets. If all 10 are no shows they get all the revenue of selling 260 seats on a 250 seat aircraft.

Yep and they use that extra revenue to be more competitive when pricing the tickets in the first place.

If we put a law on the books outlawing overbooking, fine, all the airlines will be on the same playing field but we will pay more for tickets. That or seats will get smaller and larger people might get charged by butt width. :2razz:

 

[jonny5]

Because although they are private businesses, airlines are also a vital part of our national infrastructure just like the highway system. And since the US has no government-owned or -run airline to provide that vital service, they need to regulate the private airlines

And heres that slipperly slope. Classify everything as vital and next thing you have is the Patriot Act or Obamacare.

 

[Gaius46]

Yep and they use that extra revenue to be more competitive when pricing the tickets in the first place.

If we put a law on the books outlawing overbooking, fine, all the airlines will be on the same playing field but we will pay more for tickets. That or seats will get smaller and larger people might get charged by butt width. :2razz:

That extra revenue probably amounts to $10 or $20 per ticket. When I fly I usually have to be somewhere at a specific time and I'm guessing most people do so change me the exta 20 if you must and leave me be.

 

[molten_dragon]

Then dont cross it.

I'm required to travel for work, so that's not an option either. It's the same way for a lot of other people too. You aren't always traveling by choice.

You aren't really offering realistic solutions. "Don't use it" doesn't work when you're talking about vital national infrastructure.

 

[molten_dragon]

Give me an example of where it's not. Not showing up is always the fault of the person who doesn't do so.

When you are on a multi-leg flight and your previous leg was canceled or delayed. That's completely out of your control and in no way your fault.

 

[radcen]

What makes you think a lot of people are no shows and don't pay? I admit I don't travel on airlines much but I've never gotten a ticket that was refundable for a no show. Very few people fly on tickets that are refundable if they don't show.

What the airlines are actually doing is using computer models to estimate the number of no shows on a given flights - booking that many additional seats and then pocketing all the money. So if a plane as 250 seats and the computer says that 10 are likely no shows the sell 260 tickets. If all 10 are no shows they get all the revenue of selling 260 seats on a 250 seat aircraft.

Like you, I don't fly much anymore, but that is my understanding also. They aren't losing anything, they're pocketing extra money.

I've said before, but if I don't say it again someones will come along and accuse me of being anti-business: I don't expect or want airlines to lose money, but in this scenario they're not losing money.

Yep and they use that extra revenue to be more competitive when pricing the tickets in the first place.

If we put a law on the books outlawing overbooking, fine, all the airlines will be on the same playing field but we will pay more for tickets. That or seats will get smaller and larger people might get charged by butt width. :2razz:

Do they? This suggests that they are altruistic and are operating with our best interests as priority #1.

 

[molten_dragon]

And heres that slipperly slope. Classify everything as vital and next thing you have is the Patriot Act or Obamacare.

Not regulating private companies regardless of what service they provide is just as slippery a slope.

Our power grid is built and maintained by private companies. As is our telecommunications network. Our highways are paid for by tax dollars, but the actual work is done by private construction companies. So are the railways, and air infrastructure. Pretty much all of our military equipment is built by private companies. Should we also take your stance of "Hey, they're private companies, let them do whatever they want, it's not our place to regulate them" with all of those things?

Or should we maybe do the sensible thing and recognize that those things are all vital parts of our national infrastructure, because without them we'd be a third-world country, and insist that the government regulate them to some degree.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm required to travel for work, so that's not an option either. It's the same way for a lot of other people too. You aren't always traveling by choice.

You aren't really offering realistic solutions. "Don't use it" doesn't work when you're talking about vital national infrastructure.

Even when you're travelling by choice - on vacation for example - you may well be on a tight timeframe. If I'm planning to get home on Sunday and back to work on Monday I really do need to get home on Sunday.

 

[Gaius46]

It isn't much of a problem and the fact is, it is too expensive for these planes to take off if every single seat isn't filled. You want to know whose fault the overbooking problem is? The customers who don't show up. The airlines have to overbook so they have enough people on the plane to make it financially feasible to fly. Go yell at the people who don't show up. It's all their fault.

Most tickets are non refundable so even if the plane takes off with no shows the seats have been paid for.

 

[Winchester]

Do they? This suggests that they are altruistic and are operating with our best interests as priority #1.

No it suggests they have competitors who are trying to undercut their price... constantly.

 

[apdst]

Should a law be passed that bars airlines from overbooking flights?

Lots of examples in recent news. Chances are these types of incidents aren't new, they're just trendy in the media now that they've caught our attention.

There shouldn't be a law against overbooking. At the same time, flight crews shouldn't be able to threaten passengers with arrest if they don't give up their seat.

 

[natsb]

What makes you think a lot of people are no shows and don't pay? I admit I don't travel on airlines much but I've never gotten a ticket that was refundable for a no show. Very few people fly on tickets that are refundable if they don't show.

The no shows don't pay for that seat. They can still use the money to pay for another seat. When you buy a non-refundable ticket, it is true that you do not get the money back, but it is not true that the money is gone if you don't show up. If you miss a flight, you can attribute the cost of that ticket to another new ticket. Most airlines give you up to one year to use the money.

The ins and outs of non-refundable airline tickets

Travelers are often confused by what "non-refundable" means when it comes to airline tickets.

In general, it means that you won't get any money back if you cancel or change your flight. However, most airlines will allow flyers to apply the face value of the canceled ticket toward the purchase of a new ticket. In those cases, a penalty of $50 or $75 usually is charged.

What the airlines are actually doing is using computer models to estimate the number of no shows on a given flights - booking that many additional seats and then pocketing all the money. So if a plane as 250 seats and the computer says that 10 are likely no shows the sell 260 tickets. If all 10 are no shows they get all the revenue of selling 260 seats on a 250 seat aircraft.

I understand this fully, and have no argument against it.

 

[jonny5]

Not regulating private companies regardless of what service they provide is just as slippery a slope.

Our power grid is built and maintained by private companies. As is our telecommunications network. Our highways are paid for by tax dollars, but the actual work is done by private construction companies. So are the railways, and air infrastructure. Pretty much all of our military equipment is built by private companies. Should we also take your stance of "Hey, they're private companies, let them do whatever they want, it's not our place to regulate them" with all of those things?

Or should we maybe do the sensible thing and recognize that those things are all vital parts of our national infrastructure, because without them we'd be a third-world country, and insist that the government regulate them to some degree.

Not regulating companies isnt a slippery slope. Its the flat top of the mountain. You cant go any higher.

To answer your questions though, YES. Freedom over security. We would not be a third world country without gradle to grave regulation and in fact we did just before the 1930s when most of this came about.

 

[jonny5]

Most tickets are non refundable so even if the plane takes off with no shows the seats have been paid for.

Which is leaving money on the table and why they might overbook. If everyone shows up, they make money. If no one shows up, they resell the seats and make MORE money. If a few extra people show up, they lose a little money bribing them to delay. Do you think theyve done the math to figure out the way they make the most money?

 

[jonny5]

There shouldn't be a law against overbooking. At the same time, flight crews shouldn't be able to threaten passengers with arrest if they don't give up their seat.

Which I think is already the rule depending on your carriage contract. Once youre on the plane you cant be removed unless youre disruptive. If they do, then you can sue them for breach of contract.

 

[antiquity]

Don't need no stinking government involvement in this...let the market place decide. If an airlines can't police they employees the public will and not do business with them....case in point...Jack-in-the-Box a few years ago.

 

[molten_dragon]

Not regulating companies isnt a slippery slope. Its the flat top of the mountain. You cant go any higher.

To answer your questions though, YES. Freedom over security. We would not be a third world country without gradle to grave regulation and in fact we did just before the 1930s when most of this came about.

So you'd be fine if, for example, there were no regulations on the national power grid and different companies in different areas decided to use different voltage and current standards for the power they provided?

Or if Lockheed Martin could build a new fighter jet for the US air force, and then immediately sell the technical specs to whoever they wanted, like Russia or China?

And I'm sorry, if you don't think we'd be a third world country without a power grid, a telecommunications system, or national transportation infrastructure, you're out of your mind.

 

[molten_dragon]

Don't need no stinking government involvement in this...let the market place decide.

I'm fine with that as long as companies are required to be up front and honest about the services they are (or aren't) providing.

It's difficult for customers, i.e. the market, to solve problems like this when companies are dishonest and do their utmost to make sure those customers don't really know what's going on.

 

[Gaius46]

The no shows don't pay for that seat. They can still use the money to pay for another seat. When you buy a non-refundable ticket, it is true that you do not get the money back, but it is not true that the money is gone if you don't show up. If you miss a flight, you can attribute the cost of that ticket to another new ticket. Most airlines give you up to one year to use the money.

The ins and outs of non-refundable airline tickets




I understand this fully, and have no argument against it.

Okay so you're right about being able to change. However from I just read the 3 big US airlines charge $200 to change a ticket. That probably runs anywhere from 50% to close to the full cost of most domestic one way tickets. And there are usually strings attached. Must use the new ticket in a year. Must be on the same route etc.

 

[Phys251]

No. If airlines want to deal with waves of unhappy customers that have to get sent to later flights, that's on the airlines.

 

[natsb]

Okay so you're right about being able to change. However from I just read the 3 big US airlines charge $200 to change a ticket. That probably runs anywhere from 50% to close to the full cost of most domestic one way tickets. And there are usually strings attached. Must use the new ticket in a year. Must be on the same route etc.

Agreed, the change fee can eat into the amount you have to spend. I'm too lazy right now to look up who the big three are. I fly about 20 times a year, and usually on the same three airlines so I can rack up the frequent flyer miles. United and American charge $75.00. Southwest doesn't charge anything, you can use the full amount of your non-refundable ticket. I have no experience with the other airlines.