I'm not suggesting you should not feel aggrieved, but it may be logical to expect that there is some form of hierarchy in the choice, if it comes to having to make one. In your own FF programme for example, you might expect top tier members to be treated more sympathetically than base tier, or to members from other programmes.

But airlines don't really want to offload or reroute people, it costs them money. Your re-route, however much you didn't want it, probably cost them.

I had a partner for many years who worked in airline revenue management, and the selection of compulsory offloads was determined by, as expected, cold hard revenue. We had a number of discussions about the emotional downsides of being denied boarding but her airline were specific about keeping people like her away from the emotions of check in so that they could only make the best commercial decision.

I'm sure I may also have seen on here somewhere a while ago that there was some kind of expected hierarchy for upgrades at QR, broadly reflecting a combination of fare paid and FF level and programme. No doubt that also applies to downgrades and offloads.

Some people are delighted to take whatever compensation is offered to take the next flight. But in my experience of it happening to me, it's anywhere between frustrating and annoying, to extremely inconvenient. Thankfully it happens extremely rarely.

​​​​