Originally Posted by
pinniped
Feels like an overreaction to me.
UA3411 had nothing to do with overbooking.
Unintended consequence
#1 : I'm a business traveler, and I want to buy BS/AT three days before my flight, but in the future more flights will show "sold out" where today I would have been able to buy a date/time I wanted, albeit at a very hefty price.
Unintended (or maybe intended?) consequence
#2 : I'm a leisure traveler, just looking for a $59 fare far in advance, willing to travel anytime. That fare is now gone, because the revenue model has to change to get more out of the medium to high fares since they can't oversell at the AT/BS level anymore.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but I don't see how the math works any other way. I know the CEO isn't going to take a pay cut to fund it.
(1) No, UA3411 didn't have to do with an overbooking scenario, but I think it's fair to say that it has been conflated with such in the public mind.
(2) Moreover, overbooking-related complaints are nothing new.
(3) I doubt it would be WN to introduce it, but what about an airline offering a "guaranteed day only" ticket or something similar? You're guaranteed a seat on a flight on a given day (or within a given time range on a given day) when you book, but you're not told which flight you're assigned to until a certain time before (say, 72 hours out) and you're
#1 for reaccomodation. Basically an advance-purchase variant on a standby ticket. In that scenario, you'd still have the $59 cheapo fare, but you wouldn't know if you were on the 0600 or 0900 flight.