AA won't remove boarded pax for oversales - C of C change April 2017
Apr 15, 2017, 4:09 pm
#31
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,368
Exactly, are crew deadheading considered "passengers" in this context. Years back a staff member at the SNA AC told me that in extreme circumstances AA will use private charter to transport crew. However, certainly IVBs to accommodate crew is far less expensive than Netjets and the like.
Moreover, in just about most circumstances the GA is going to know there are "must ride" crew that need to be accommodated. Rarely will crew show up at the last minute.
Moreover, in just about most circumstances the GA is going to know there are "must ride" crew that need to be accommodated. Rarely will crew show up at the last minute.
I wonder what happens if there are duplicate seat assignments and both passengers are on board the aircraft when it's discovered. That can happen, although it seems to happen less frequently than in the past.
ADDED: The AA policy says that you won't be removed from the flight after you've boarded, not that you won't be downgraded if they want to give your seat to someone else. In the case of the paid FULL FC guy who was downgraded on the HNL flight for someone that UA considered to be more important, AA's policy wouldn't have mattered as he flew in a very bad coach seat.
Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 15, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Apr 15, 2017, 4:18 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,040
Deadheading crew is a legal responsibility of the airline--they are obliged to ensure that crew are in place to operate an aircraft, with sufficient rest if appropriate.
If four "must rides" turn up after a full load of passengers have boarded and the airline is unable to make alternative arrangements to meet its legal obligation to have crew in place, then four seats are going to have to be vacated. How the airline goes about doing that is another question, of course.
And while deadheads are generally known in advance, there are all sorts of reasons why a last minute deadheading situation might arise. Rare it may be--but neither impossible nor unforeseeable.
If four "must rides" turn up after a full load of passengers have boarded and the airline is unable to make alternative arrangements to meet its legal obligation to have crew in place, then four seats are going to have to be vacated. How the airline goes about doing that is another question, of course.
And while deadheads are generally known in advance, there are all sorts of reasons why a last minute deadheading situation might arise. Rare it may be--but neither impossible nor unforeseeable.
Basically once on board you don't have to get off under new policy. Don't think it goes far enough. DL policy basically is we're not removing you involuntarily at all. I think AA will have to goto a DL style policy to starve off DOT rules/Congressional legislation barring overbooking.
Apr 15, 2017, 4:21 pm
#33
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,368
Maybe the message here is that if you don't like something, you should start screaming and shouting and hope 50 people turn their smart phone cameras on and post it all on social media so that the opinion police can decide who is right while the fools who obey the law take their 400% of the ticket price up to $1,350 and skulk away like law-abiding people.
JonNYC is entirely correct. Just like the tarmac delay rule, the result of something that will probably never occur again is that should this situation repeat itself and the need for 4 seats arises after the aircraft is boarded, UA Ops people will just pull the plug on the flight which the four would have operated. Not worth the hassle. Just tell the 100 people sitting at the other end that their scheduled crew timed out and it wasn't possible -- try as UA might -- to get a replacement crew out to fly people back.
JonNYC is entirely correct. Just like the tarmac delay rule, the result of something that will probably never occur again is that should this situation repeat itself and the need for 4 seats arises after the aircraft is boarded, UA Ops people will just pull the plug on the flight which the four would have operated. Not worth the hassle. Just tell the 100 people sitting at the other end that their scheduled crew timed out and it wasn't possible -- try as UA might -- to get a replacement crew out to fly people back.
Apr 15, 2017, 4:25 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
I don't think UA would agree that it's cheaper to use NetJets than IDBs.
I wonder what happens if there are duplicate seat assignments and both passengers are on board the aircraft when it's discovered. That can happen, although it seems to happen less frequently than in the past.
I wonder what happens if there are duplicate seat assignments and both passengers are on board the aircraft when it's discovered. That can happen, although it seems to happen less frequently than in the past.
Apr 15, 2017, 4:34 pm
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,423
Maybe the message here is that if you don't like something, you should start screaming and shouting and hope 50 people turn their smart phone cameras on and post it all on social media so that the opinion police can decide who is right while the fools who obey the law take their 400% of the ticket price up to $1,350 and skulk away like law-abiding people
If you're just talking in the abstract, the rule regarding IDB compensation does not allow airlines to breach their contracts of carriage, so the specific situation would depend on whether the airline was otherwise in compliance with its CoC and applicable law.
AA's change likely has little or any effect, but was an effort to stave off bad publicity and the possibility of government regulation.
As noted, with sufficient payment, an airline can avoid IDB situations. See the new DL policy.
Apr 15, 2017, 8:04 pm
#36
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Amsterdam, Asia, UK
Programs: IHG RA (Spire), HH Diamond, MR Platinum, SQ Gold, KLM Gold, BAEC Gold
Posts: 5,072
Has no one picked up on the phrasinf "Revenue Passenger" will not be involuntarily removed once boarded. Award tickets are surely non-Rev!
If fully boarded and x Crew deadhead seats requited post boarding, before departure then seems that "NON-Rev Award Tickets Seats" will be IDB'd
(mayb or maybe not after first asking for volunteers at $nnn
Surely there are at least a couple of award tickets on each and every AA flight ?
If fully boarded and x Crew deadhead seats requited post boarding, before departure then seems that "NON-Rev Award Tickets Seats" will be IDB'd
(mayb or maybe not after first asking for volunteers at $nnn
Surely there are at least a couple of award tickets on each and every AA flight ?
Apr 15, 2017, 8:10 pm
#38
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Surely not. In the usual parlance, "non-rev" refers strictly to airline employees and their companions traveling on employee passes.
Apr 15, 2017, 8:14 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
[QUOTE=scubaccr;28184585]Has no one picked up on the phrasinf "Revenue Passenger" will not be involuntarily removed once boarded. Award tickets are surely non-Rev!/QUOTE]
Negative.
Negative.
Apr 15, 2017, 9:06 pm
#40
Join Date: May 2012
Location: HNL
Programs: AA PP 1.8MM, PC Spire, Hertz 5*, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,030
This is the type of stuff I was hoping for. I'm hoping for even more. It may be small, but every little thing helps.
UA may be feeling the pain now, but DL and AA realize it could have easily been them and need to change as well. If the pain at UA continues for several more weeks, easily could happen depending on how the lawsuit goes, I expect more concessions from AA.
UA may be feeling the pain now, but DL and AA realize it could have easily been them and need to change as well. If the pain at UA continues for several more weeks, easily could happen depending on how the lawsuit goes, I expect more concessions from AA.
Apr 15, 2017, 9:14 pm
#41
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
And the lawsuit will be settled. Peak outrage has long passed.
Last edited by rjw242; Apr 15, 2017 at 9:21 pm
Apr 15, 2017, 10:20 pm
#42
Join Date: May 2012
Location: HNL
Programs: AA PP 1.8MM, PC Spire, Hertz 5*, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,030
Possible realistic expectations:
* AA increases max cap for vouchers similar to Delta
* Increase IDB compensation.
* Program to increase staff being "nicer" (vague I know, can't think how this will materialize)
Unrealistic, but not impossible:
* No more overbooking
Unicorn dreams
* UA eliminates EQD requirement and goes back to miles flown for RDM, AA has no choice, but to follow suit
Although peak outrage has passed, there is still a good amount of outrage. Even though this is UA's mess, AA realizes it could have easily been them and AA will make the same concessions UA and DL make.
Apr 15, 2017, 11:03 pm
#43
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 432
I'm agnostic on this whole thing-- and, personally speaking bored-stupid over the whole thing-- but, I can tell you the person in question would disagree with almost every word and comma in your post. Starting with, no, no one at AA is "glad that this incident happened on United [vs. AA]" because they know damn well that it's AA next time, or the time after, etc. -- and don't want to be a slave to the whims of aggrieved persons on social media. Nor would any of the rest resonate with them, but, as I said, I personally give exactly no ____'s about this whole thing, so, Ill leave it at that
Apr 15, 2017, 11:28 pm
#44
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
That a "high level person at AA" would have this attitude is emblematic of why people are so angry and this story has resonated so much with the public. Airline management has pushed customer unfriendly policies for years to make a buck and somehow are shocked (shocked!) that something like this blows up. Trying to dismiss this as just "aggrieved persons on social media" is precisely what got Oscar Munoz to the precipice of losing his job. If airline executives can't take this opportunity to rethink their approach to their customers, they deserve whatever scandal happens to them.
Apr 16, 2017, 1:52 am
#45
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: AA LT GLD 1MM
Posts: 811
That a "high level person at AA" would have this attitude is emblematic of why people are so angry and this story has resonated so much with the public. Airline management has pushed customer unfriendly policies for years to make a buck and somehow are shocked (shocked!) that something like this blows up. Trying to dismiss this as just "aggrieved persons on social media" is precisely what got Oscar Munoz to the precipice of losing his job. If airline executives can't take this opportunity to rethink their approach to their customers, they deserve whatever scandal happens to them.
That's really dangerous thinking. They should be learning from this incident, not resigning themselves to repeat it. When a minor issue blows up and costs hundreds of millions of dollars in market cap, I as an AA shareholder want AA to try really hard to not have the same type of scandal.
