Mauricio23

I think you have gone way off the deep end here. Literally millions of business operate in this country and the world over subject to rules that oblige them to deliver the services they have agreed to, or suffer stiff penalties. That's the point of contracts. None of these businesses go bankrupt, or raise their prices unreasonably because of a putative worst case scenario. And, in this case, that worst case scenario does not exist. Nobody is proposing that an airline compensate a passenger to the tune of millions of dollars - this scenario only exists in your mind. So let's come back down to earth.

Airlines sell a service. If they cannot deliver because of actions that are entirely within their control, such as overselling, it is on them to make the passenger whole, to a reasonable liability limit. $800 is not a reasonable liability limit -it's peanuts, especially considering that the airline stands to make way more than $800 if it purposefully oversells full economy fares at the last minute. There is no need for nanny states or regulation ran amok - this is basic contract law, and without it your beloved market economy would not exist.

If you want to play a game where everyone gains an infinitesimal amount while screwing one person big time, that's called a reverse lottery - not a transportation service.

Stranger

Problem with that statement is that schedule is absolutely NOT part of the contract. Nor should it be.

Although they try to hide this from you (no conspiracy, merely because they don't want to scare you), flying cannot be considered routine.

Starting with weather.

ffsim

There's no problem whatsoever with Mauricio23's statement.

This has come up very often, and as long as airlines charge different prices for different schedule, then schedule is ABSOLUTELY part of the purchasing process. Imagine if a passenger shows up 8 hours late and says, "well, I know I was supposed to be on a flight 8 hours ago, but your flight schedule is not part of our contract, so put me on the next flight." Any idea how that'll go?

And the key part of Mauricio23's comment was "because of actions that are entirely within their control"... again, an entirely reasonable position.

YYT82

That's right, airlines don't guarantee schedule. They try their very best to make the posted schedule, but there are just too many factors that could throw schedules out the window. Like you mentioned, starting with weather, then we have ATC, mechanical, geopolitical events (eg. Istanbul coup), terrorism (eg. IST/BRU bombing), etc. Airlines look after safety first and foremost. If it ain't safe to fly, they will not fly, regardless of re-scheduling headaches.

This comes straight from US DOT website regarding Delays and Cancellations: "Airlines don't guarantee their schedules, and you should realize this when planning your trip. There are many things that can-and often do-make it impossible for flights to arrive on time. Some of these problems, like bad weather, air traffic delays, and mechanical issues, are hard to predict and often beyond the airlines' control." See link.

It's amazing how many people pretend they understand Tariffs, when in fact they don't.

ffsim

It's amazing how many people pretend they understand the nuance of "airlines' control."

It's really simple: if a delay is beyond the airline's control, it's understandable and excusable. If a delay is within an airline's control, they should (and often are forced) to pay up. It's not complicated.

YYT82

Just so we get one thing clear: overbooking is within the airlines' control and they have a tool to ensure the schedule is met, and that is IDB. Read further down the link I posted, there is another section that deals with overbooking (and subsequently denied boarding). Yes, it is the US DOT, but the CTA's stance on overbooking is more or less in line with DOT, except the compensation part.

Now regarding mechanical, regularly scheduled maintenance does not always guarantee seamless performance, but it does tend to lead to that. However, unpredictable mechanical issues are also outside of the airlines' control. Next time you get stuck on the Tarmac with an engine issue or a thrust reverser issue before take off, please go tell the captain that you want him/her to make the schedule which you believe to be part of the contract and see what response you get.

Stranger

But this is about what you think the contract *should* be. Not about what it is.

This said, I still don't think I agree. If you give people a choice between teo fares, one that allows for overbooking, and a slightly more expensive one that guarantees no overbooking, guess which one 95% of the folks will pick? And then still complain when they get bumped.

I submit that most people are actually getting what they are paying for. Of course that does not necessarily include people on FT.

(I just read somewhere that average fare paid in the US declined by 8.5% or so from last year to this year.)

ffsim

Wait a minute... you're suggesting mechanical problems are outside an airline's control?

No one's suggesting an unsafe airplane takes off because of schedule. That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion and the part I bolded above is nonsense. Get serious.

But mechanical problems are by definition within an airline's control; they're fully responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their aircraft. How can you be SE and not know this? Heck, they proactively give out discount vouchers in these cases.

ffsim

This has nothing to do with what I think the contract should be.

This has everything to do with the public's perception of what they think they're buying when they book an airline ticket. It's exactly why there's no much coverage and misunderstanding. It doesn't matter that a contract says one thing if the general public feels they're being ripped off. Just like telcos were forced to clean up their act not so long ago, airlines sooner or later will be forced to do the same. And I think events like those appearing regularly on mainstream media will simply accelerate that process, whether voluntarily or via some sort of legislation.

Stranger

You sure you are not talking about what the contract should be?

If not, what then?

To some extent you have a point about public perception. t least when it comes to airlines still marketing themselves on the basis of flying is fancy, while people want to pay for crap, pay for crap and get crap.

But there is another side that's harder. Flying still is note routine. The day it's perceived as such it would become dangerous. But the airlines don't really want to emphasize that because understandably they don't want to scare people unnecessarily.

For example I continue getting irritated by the euphemistic announcement "if the cabin pressure changes" for sudden decompression. Or the idyllic picture of evacuation at see on the safety card...

YYT82

You seem to misunderstand my points further and further. Just so you get it, yes, mechanical issues are by definition within the airlines' control and I do know this, even when I was a no-status thank you very much. What I am saying is that even with regularly scheduled maintenance, there are things that could come up last minute out of nowhere that could throw schedule out the window. Case in point - I was on AC810 to IST last year on a very new B788, which theoretically should have minimal issues and require not as much maintenance as old B763s. One of the two brake modules failed during pre-departure check, so the pilots tried rebooting the entire computer system. That didn't work, so they had to get the parts in and swap the failed module out. That caused a 4+ hour delay and caused me to miss my connection. By definition this is within the airlines' control and if Canada had a rule similar to EC261/2004, I and many other passengers would be entitled to 600 Euro equivalent. I didn't get compensation except rebooked flight (and that was another ticketing saga in itself), but I did not complain because I understand the nature of this situation. Airlines industry is perhaps the most regulated and most difficult to run due to all the external regulations and geopolitical factors, throwing schedule guarantee in there is just not going to go well. If I were running a business and the government steps in to tell me that I need to abide by certain rules and regulations that they came up with, and I knew it was going to kill my profit margin, my decision is simple: fold or I'll increase the prices I charge significantly.

My point in my previous posts was that all airlines will make their best attempts at adhering to their posted schedule, but they will never guarantee it. To them, safety is above all else, because a fatal incident would cost them much more than mechanical delays or overbooking issues. Taking off in bad weather is unsafe, taking off with serious mechanical issues is unsafe, flying to a country that is in political turmoil puts their employees and customers in danger, flying to an airport that just got attacked also puts employees and customers in harm's way. Thus, airlines should NOT guarantee schedules. This is my main point.

ffsim

Your original comment was: "this is about what you think the contract *should* be".

It isn't.

This whole thread is about public perception. I said at the very beginning that the limited info we had suggested a ticketing mixup between airlines which, as seasoned travellers, we know can happen. The public sees: "Family kicked off plane. Again."

This is all about perception and the way in which airlines seem to take every opportunity to miscommunicate or come across as the bad guys. I've been very consistent in this belief both in this thread and throughout FT.


Clearly. Such a shame.

Adam Smith

That's not my experience. I've not been able to OLCI or do an eUp on numerous TA-issued tickets until it was actually ticketed. Very frustrating when the flight is booked on only a few hours' notice and you want to get your upgrade and BP.

canadiancow

All this talk about schedule...

We're not talking about a situation where the plane is delayed.

We're talking about a situation where the aircraft flew on schedule, but a passenger with a confirmed reservation was told, at the last minute, that they would not be able to fly.

This is not a weather delay, or a mechanical delay, or captain-goes-crazy-and-walks-off-the-plane delay. There is no delay.

Just the airline choosing not to give you what you paid for.

Stranger

More like not giving them what they did not pay for, i am afraid. At least in the mother's case.

Why te other three did not go remains unclear. But apparently it was not overbooking. At least according to AC the flight was not overbooked.