Not the best way to handle overbooking


spaminator
#121
United CEO calls bloodied passenger 'disruptive and belligerent' following viral

'Fly the unfriendly skies': Twitter users mock United after disturbing viral vid

United stock drops $1.4 billion following passenger beatdown | REPORT | World |

Does docís rep excuse United?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#122
Regardless of what the existing policy is right now (for any airline), when someone purchases a ticket they should be guaranteed a seat on the plane they purchased that ticket for.

Period.
 
spaminator
+1
#123
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV28_ENzFog
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Regardless of what the existing policy is right now (for any airline), when someone purchases a ticket they should be guaranteed a seat on the plane they purchased that ticket for.

Period.


Unfortunately you are only guaranteed the price of admission, (and even that may be suspect). In other words you are guaranteed to get to where you want, or where you started from, and not be stranded someplace in between, or your money back. But even that is qualified. Airlines going broke while you are on vacation aside, there are times, though it doesn't happen as often as it used to, if the weather is questionable at your destination you are given a choice of going, taking the chance of being stranded at an alternate airport, or staying behind and waiting 'till chances are better. A $hitty policy most airlines are moving away from.


Other than obeying the rules of their code share alliances, airlines are sort of self policing in the customer service department, something not all are terribly adept at. They will have to start doing better because the last thing they need or want is mindless bureaucrats who know absolutely nothing about the industry imposing legislation on them.


That being said, there are some exceptional airlines out there too, but the poor ones do shorten the yardstick some.
 
Jinentonix
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Is this overbooking shyt a uniquely US of A problem?

Nope. In fact Air Canada not only does it, they engage in a form of racketeering while they do it. You buy your ticket in a show of good faith by both sides and then they "suggest" you buy seat insurance to make sure you can actually get on the flight you just paid for.

Just like the mafia who won't outright rob you for protection money but "can't be held responsible if something happens" if you don't pay it, Air Canada "won't be responsible" if you are unable to board your flight because you didn't pay them extra and above for your seat.
 
petros
#126
You can fly Allegiant and get just a seat frame until a tech comes along and brings cushions if you complain.
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Nope. In fact Air Canada not only does it, they engage in a form of racketeering while they do it. You buy your ticket in a show of good faith by both sides and then they "suggest" you buy seat insurance to make sure you can actually get on the flight you just paid for.

Just like the mafia who won't outright rob you for protection money but "can't be held responsible if something happens" if you don't pay it, Air Canada "won't be responsible" if you are unable to board your flight because you didn't pay them extra and above for your seat.


Like I said before, WestJet is the only airline I know of that doesn't do it, that may have changed in the past year or so, but I haven't heard. There may be others too, I don't know.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You can fly Allegiant and get just a seat frame until a tech comes along and brings cushions if you complain.


I don't care what you say, an orange crate does constitute a seat and two lengths of rope and a safety pin do constitute a seatbelt
 
taxslave
#128
I'm betting United won't be having an over booking problem for a while.
 
Cliffy
#129
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#130
Crucified man had prior run-in with authorities

By Alexandra Petri April 12




In accordance with this new house style I am writing up an incident whose anniversary some people are celebrating this week.


The gentleman arrested Thursday and tried before Pontius Pilate had a troubled background.


Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals.


He had had prior run-ins with local authorities — most notably, an incident of vandalism in a community center when he wrecked the tables of several licensed money-lenders and bird-sellers. He had used violent language, too, claiming that he could destroy a gathering place and rebuild it.


At the time of his arrest, he had not held a fixed residence for years. Instead, he led an itinerant lifestyle, staying at the homes of friends and advocating the redistribution of wealth.


He had come to the attention of the authorities more than once for his unauthorized distribution of food, disruptive public behavior, and participation in farcical aquatic ceremonies.


Some say that his brutal punishment at the hands of the state was out of proportion to and unrelated to any of these incidents in his record.


But after all, he was no angel.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.77869ee8be38


Sounds just like petros.
 
spaminator
#131
'I won't go': Verbal battle before United customer dragged from flight | Home |
 
B00Mer
#132
 
Tecumsehsbones
#133


 
Vbeacher
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

The captain didn't say get off his plane. The desk supervisor isn't the captain of the aircraft. The Chicago Aviation Division goon squad isn't the captain of the aircraft.

The crew or captain. It doesn't make any difference. He was told to leave. He was breaking federal law by refusing.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Lol

Seriously though, is this an unintended consequence of America's hyper capitalism?

The whole premise that led to this scenario seems completely absurd to me.

Why is overbooking even a problem?

This is FUKKED

Because people make reservations and then miss their flights, often because connecting flights are late, or they got held up in a security screening line, or just change their minds because a kid gets sick or there's something else that stops them at the last minute. The alternative to overbooking is either the airplane flies with empty seats, which means less profit, which means they have to raise prices, or the airline charges you for that seat whether you made the flight or not.

Bottom line is if the airplane doesn't belong to you then you have no right to be in it if the representatives of the owners say they want you gone. You don't get to refuse to leave. This man child acted like a whiny two year old and got dragged out like a whiny two year old.
 
Corduroy
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Lol

Seriously though, is this an unintended consequence of America's hyper capitalism?

The whole premise that led to this scenario seems completely absurd to me.

Why is overbooking even a problem?

This is FUKKED

Yeah, when corporations screw you it's because that is a feature of capitalism. Air travel is a maturing business with little room for customer growth. But capitalism demands constant growth, not continued profits but increasing profits. And when you can't expand your market you squeeze costs and rip off your customers.

Amazingly people who would never complain about capitalism lose their minds when airlines do this. Sometimes they get very near to the truth and complain about corporate greed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

They both are! The rule is if John Wayne used it in a cowboy movie, it's a good gun.

If John Wayne used it in a war movie, it's a mean scary deadly killer assault rifle.

Does that mean that any gun made after John Wayne died can't be labelled an assault rifle? The John Wayne loophole?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by Vbeacher View Post

The crew or captain. It doesn't make any difference. He was told to leave. He was breaking federal law by refusing.

Actually, it does. The privileges of the captain are a matter of international law. The crew, not so.

Also, it wasn't the crew who made the decision. It was a ground supervisor.



Quote:

Because people make reservations and then miss their flights, often because connecting flights are late, or they got held up in a security screening line, or just change their minds because a kid gets sick or there's something else that stops them at the last minute. The alternative to overbooking is either the airplane flies with empty seats, which means less profit, which means they have to raise prices, or the airline charges you for that seat whether you made the flight or not.

Bottom line is if the airplane doesn't belong to you then you have no right to be in it if the representatives of the owners say they want you gone. You don't get to refuse to leave. This man child acted like a whiny two year old and got dragged out like a whiny two year old.

You know a lot of two-year-olds who routinely get dragged out unconscious and bleeding? Wow, you have quite the social circle there!
 
Corduroy
+1
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by Vbeacher View Post

Because people make reservations and then miss their flights, often because connecting flights are late, or they got held up in a security screening line, or just change their minds because a kid gets sick or there's something else that stops them at the last minute. The alternative to overbooking is either the airplane flies with empty seats, which means less profit, which means they have to raise prices, or the airline charges you for that seat whether you made the flight or not.

That's not how overbooking works. If you don't show up for your flight, the airline doesn't lose money and flies empty. The airline keeps your money and flies with an empty seat. They've realized they can make double their money by filling that seat. If everyone shows up, the airline offers to pay passengers a fraction of the cost of the ticket to get off the plane. So they make double the cost of your seat minus the few hundred they had to pay you to vacate it. Then you get another flight, but that flight is overbooked too.

In this case, not enough people were willing to take the money United Airlines offered, so they had to call in the state to enforce their profits.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Yeah, when corporations screw you it's because that is a feature of capitalism. Air travel is a maturing business with little room for customer growth. But capitalism demands constant growth, not continued profits but increasing profits. And when you can't expand your market you squeeze costs and rip off your customers.

Amazingly people who would never complain about capitalism lose their minds when airlines do this. Sometimes they get very near to the truth and complain about corporate greed.

To be fair, corporations are supposed to be greedy. That's their purpose, to make money. In some countries, like Germany (I don't know about Canada), corporations are permitted to do certain things for social good, but not hyar in Murka! If a corporate officer or board does something good that costs the corporation money, they can be personally liable to the shareholders for the $$ loss.



Quote:

Does that mean that any gun made after John Wayne died can't be labelled an assault rifle? The John Wayne loophole?

Actually, the definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" (by which I mean the actual definition, not the shrieking armwaver definition) includes "selectable semiautomatic and automatic fire." Which means it has been illegal to manufacture or import them in the U.S., except for the military or law enforcement, since 1986, and private ownership is highly regulated (and damned expensive). Since 1986, one homicide has been committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, i.e., an assault rifle.

Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

In this case, not enough people were willing to take the money United Airlines offered, so they had to call in the state to enforce their profits.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
Corduroy
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Actually, it does. The privileges of the captain are a matter of international law. The crew, not so.

International law? So what you're saying is that this guy should be hauled before the International Criminal Court with all the other international belligerents: Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

International law? So what you're saying is that this guy should be hauled before the International Criminal Court with all the other international belligerents: Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet.

Yep. Then we could send the Navy SEALs to free him, which we've promised we'd do if any American was ever brought before the ICC.

Tomahawks on The Hague! Captain, you are hereby authorized to go full-on stupid! Make America Great Again!
 
Johnnny
#141
This thread..... LOL
 
Corduroy
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

To be fair, corporations are supposed to be greedy. That's their purpose, to make money. In some countries, like Germany (I don't know about Canada), corporations are permitted to do certain things for social good, but not hyar in Murka! If a corporate officer or board does something good that costs the corporation money, they can be personally liable to the shareholders for the $$ loss.

That's my point. ****ing customers is a feature not a bug.


Quote:

Actually, the definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" (by which I mean the actual definition, not the shrieking armwaver definition) includes "selectable semiautomatic and automatic fire." Which means it has been illegal to manufacture or import them in the U.S., except for the military or law enforcement, since 1986, and private ownership is highly regulated (and damned expensive). Since 1986, one homicide has been committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, i.e., an assault rifle.

Unless you buy it at the annual North by SouthEast Kansas John Wayne Convention and Corn Dog Eating Contest. The government doesn't need to worry about any terrists or darkskinned people attending.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#143
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

That's my point. ****ing customers is a feature not a bug.




Unless you buy it at the annual North by SouthEast Kansas John Wayne Convention and Corn Dog Eating Contest. The government doesn't need to worry about any terrists or darkskinned people attending.

You're wrong on this (aside from the snark, which is actually pretty dead-on), but I don't expect things like facts to change your mind.
 
Johnnny
+1
#144
Corporations don't just treat customers like that, they also treat their employees like that.

Heck you could go to work one day, get called up to the supervisors office, get laid off and have security escort you off the property.
 
Corduroy
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yep. Then we could send the Navy SEALs to free him, which we've promised we'd do if any American was ever brought before the ICC.

Tomahawks on The Hague! Captain, you are hereby authorized to go full-on stupid! Make America Great Again!

I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You're wrong on this (aside from the snark, which is actually pretty dead-on), but I don't expect things like facts to change your mind.

I'm wrong on what?

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny View Post

Corporations don't just treat customers like that, they also treat their employees like that.

Heck you could go to work one day, get called up to the supervisors office, get laid off and have security escort you off the property.

Proponents of trickle down economics say that more corporate profits means more jobs, but corporations don't want jobs, they want profits. So reality is the other way around. They will only create jobs if that means more profit. What happens when less jobs and lower wages mean more profit?
 
EagleSmack
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.

 
Tecumsehsbones
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.

Be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Aside from the carnage, I mean.

But just you believe me, missy, the U.S. Navy SEALs can kill WAAAAY more people than some "self-radicalized" wannabe crashing an SUV into pedestrians!

Or even a drunk, washed-up former teenage movie star crashing an SUV into pedestrians.



Quote:

I'm wrong on what?

I'm losing track, to be honest. We're fighting about refugees and guns, and pretty much agreeing on corporations and the notion that, legal though it may be, dragging a paying customer off a plane semi-conscious and bleeding and calling it "re-accommodation" probably isn't the best idea ever.

I'll try to keep my threads straight.



Quote:

Proponents of trickle down economics say that more corporate profits means more jobs, but corporations don't want jobs, they want profits. So reality is the other way around. They will only create jobs if that means more profit. What happens when less jobs and lower wages mean more profit?

I take it that question is rhetorical. Further, the stats have shown over and over that the middle class circulating its money produces far more jobs and far more wealth than the rich and corporations "investing."
 
Corduroy
+1
#148
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Aside from the carnage, I mean.

But just you believe me, missy, the U.S. Navy SEALs can kill WAAAAY more people than some "self-radicalized" wannabe crashing an SUV into pedestrians!

Or even a drunk, washed-up former teenage movie star crashing an SUV into pedestrians.

Or even unregulated industry trying to make an extra nickel!

Quote:

I'm losing track, to be honest. We're fighting about refugees and guns, and pretty much agreeing on corporations and the notion that, legal though it may be, dragging a paying customer off a plane semi-conscious and bleeding and calling it "re-accommodation" probably isn't the best idea ever.

I'll try to keep my threads straight.

We aren't really disagreeing about guns. You posted something about gun specifications, which is all just gibberish to me, so I said something about assault rifles to annoy you. Whenever there's a gun debate people get overly specific about the definitions of gun types and I think it's silly. All you gotta say is "assault rifle" and you trigger a gun nut.

Quote:

I take it that question is rhetorical. Further, the stats have shown over and over that the middle class circulating its money produces far more jobs and far more wealth than the rich and corporations "investing."

Yup, and income redistribution is better for the economy than corporate tax cuts. Best to give welfare recipients more money with less strings and then make CEOs piss in a cup for the salaries.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post




We aren't really disagreeing about guns. You posted something about gun specifications, which is all just gibberish to me, so I said something about assault rifles to annoy you. Whenever there's a gun debate people get overly specific about the definitions of gun types and I think it's silly. All you gotta say is "assault rifle" and you trigger a gun nut.

Or an anti-gun nut.

The solution to the U.S.'s gun problem is simple. Go after the handguns. Screw the "assault weapons;" long guns are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides and less than 10% of all gun deaths. Further, you can get around the Second Amendment because a handgun is not a military, therefore "militia," weapon. As a practical matter, it's a little tough to tuck a hunting rifle, or even an "assault weapon" in your waistband under your jacket.

Downside is that cops would have to come up with another reason for killing unarmed kids.



Quote:

Yup, and income redistribution is better for the economy than corporate tax cuts. Best to give welfare recipients more money with less strings and then make CEOs piss in a cup for the salaries.

Nah, make 'em drink the cup. Not that they wouldn't, mind.
 
Corduroy
#150
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Or an anti-gun nut.

The solution to the U.S.'s gun problem is simple. Go after the handguns. Screw the "assault weapons;" long guns are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides and less than 10% of all gun deaths. Further, you can get around the Second Amendment because a handgun is not a military, therefore "militia," weapon. As a practical matter, it's a little tough to tuck a hunting rifle, or even an "assault weapon" in your waistband under your jacket.

Downside is that cops would have to come up with another reason for killing unarmed kids.

So back on topic, the man dragged off the plane should have been able to use a second amendment solution to defend his seat. This is the sort of tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned you about. Isn't it about time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots?

Quote:

Nah, make 'em drink the cup. Not that they wouldn't, mind.

Sell it to them. Corporate pigs and American presidents will pay good money to drink a cup of their own piss.