Originally Posted by
saltydog75
This is not a thread to discuss anything related to the recent incident. I've had enough of that. Whatever your opinions, it's time to move on to something constructive.
United's recently announced they will not involuntarily remove passengers with force (at least, that's what's being reported). I want to hear ideas on the best way for that to work.
Some possible topics:
Should the amount paid to give up your seat be increased? If so, should there be a cap? Should it continue to be offered in voucher format, should it be a no-restrictions credit, or should it be a check?
Should there be some sort of "immunity idol" designation that requires them to be left on board? An example would be specific professions - healthcare providers, first responders, etc. And should there be some sort of process by which everyone's asked to give some response as to why they shouldn't be bumped? In other words, should only people who can't give a reasonable answer as to why being bumped would significantly impact them be eligible to be bumped?
Should there be increased discussion amongst the crew and passengers about a deadlocked situation? For example, should the crew notify everyone on board that we have a passenger that cannot or will not leave and ask for more volunteers and continue to do that until the deadlock is resolved? Should the person unwilling to leave be required to stand up and give a reason to everyone else as to why?
Is there a better process by which bumped passengers can get to their destination faster? Can airlines cooperate better to handle these passengers and ensure less delay than is typical under the current system?
Please keep this positive and constructive. The goal is to design a superior process that gets the plane in the air and creates a win-win-win-win situation for the airline, the crew, the passengers who get bumped, and the passengers waiting for the situation to be resolved.
If this isn't an appropriate new thread to start, my apologies. I just think we need a forum to allow constructive dialogue about the whole process with none of the venom that we've all seen in threads about the specific incident in question.
This is one of those threads that is going to take longer to read than I have time for, but the concept of the OP got my attention. I apologize if my response has already been discussed, but from the brief scanning I have done of the first page and last page, it would appear I am in the clear. Apologies if this is a redundant response.
Here's what I think should happen.
If the root of the problem truly is overbooking and / or finding seats for employees to make it to a future flight, and the airline is concerned with transporting an efficient number of passengers (as full as possible), we should look at the motivations for that efficiency.
If you care about maximizing the amount of money gained on that flight, then the solution should be NO OVERBOOKING AT ALL. In order to satisfy the "maximizing revenue" portion, a dynamic, running tally of all no-shows for every flight should be tallied and recorded on a public agency database. That was the average no-show rate for a given airline, a given flight, a given departure time, can all be calculated for a given interval (one month, one week, six months, etc). At booking, a given fare will have the base fare shown, plus the no-show rate adjustment added on and displayed prominently (by law). This adjustment rate will likely be the average number of no shows for a given interval divided by the total number of seats, multiplied by the average cost of each seat in that cabin (not sure how fare classes will factor into this, still thinking this through). That way, the airline won't have to be so aggressive in trying to pack the plane as tight as possible, and if there will be, on average, seats that are not taken, then it will be entirely possible to allow for airline employees to find a seat without having to remove someone from the plane. On average. This is not a perfect solution, but I feel that it would help to reduce the likelihood of the involuntary deboarding situation that was so widely viewed as unacceptable.
The agency of course, must have access to all data on passenger show rates, and cannot be controlled by any airline personnel. I know some folks are against increased government regulation and payroll, but a completely free market is probably not in everyone's best interest, nor is a completely regulated market.
Would appreciate some additional (hopefully positive) feedback!