HMPS

This is what is wrong with companies that have lost sight of CUSTMOER Satisfaction , replacing it with priority over the bottom line.
In the US the auto Lemon Law came into being after the voluntary arbitration was agreed between BBB & Auto mfrs.
As a person in the field, I did say to my bosses that the minute we go to BB and then Small Claims court, even though we may win often we have LOST as that CUSTOMER will tell other eleven future buyers to shun this company .
History proved that was what happened .

Globaliser

So if I understand this correctly, the surmise is that the reason for the invol DG was that at the time of this pax's OLCI and again at the time of airport check-in the number of pax with confirmes reservations and allocated seats + the number of pax with confirmed reservations but no allocated seats > number of physical seats on the aircraft, even though RM's expectation (even at those times) continued to be that by the time of check-in closure the excess would have reduced to below zero, so RM was then still allowing new reservations to be taken? And further, that the pax in question either did not have a pre-allocated seat, or had a pre-allocated seat but no status so the pre-allocation would not be protected (as a status pax's pre-allocations would)?

But even if that explains the mechanism by which this incident happened, it still leaves open the question of why, amongst the non-status pax with confirmed reservations but no (or cancellable) pre-allocations this pax (but not his wife) was chosen to be invol DG. I think that we can all see the financial calculations that would lead to the conclusion that if someone has to be invol DG, it would make sense to do that to the person who is entitled to the least compensation. And so understanding the mechanism doesn't remove the suspicion that the companion on a 2-4-1 booking is more at risk (aka is targeted for invol DG) in the situations in which an invol DG is necessary.

If that is the mechanism by which this incident happened, it seems to me that one lesson is to have both status and a pre-allocated seat! But that isn't practicable for many of those who use 2-4-1s.

I also wonder whether BA could manage this process better. For example, the mechanism above seems to take no account of the fact that it is worse to invol DG (even temporarily) one person in a booking for two than it is to invol DG a singleton - the airline instils apprehension and anxiety in two passengers at once, at the part of the journey which is for most the part of maximum apprehension and anxiety in any event. If someone can't be allocated a seat in CW at the time of check-in but RM genuinely expects the potential oversale to clear by the time of check-in closure, why not issue a standby CW BP rather than tell the pax that they have been invol DG? That would send the message that BA is still trying to make sure that the pax travels in the booked cabin. For non-status pax who chose not to pre-allocate seats, it might also subtly underline the airline's message that the airline would like the passenger to have stumped up that extra money.

corporate-wage-slave

It would be OR paid seating, rather than AND a pre-allocated seat. It's those without status and without a paid for seat and without an on-carriage (connection, sort of) who are at greater risk. But for those on Amex+Tesco 2-4-1s the chances are they may well be in this group. Clearly having status means you're likely to have a pre-allocated seat anyway, but I am reasonably certain that paid-for seats are among the last to be shifted.

I don't know much about the other points you raised, other than [Nick Ross Voice] please don't have nightmares, downgrades are a less than 1 in 200 event [/NRV] despite the angst instilled by some FTers. Clearly BA could probably do better by using their existing technology, e.g. sending out App Notifications to people airside inviting them to volunteer to go tomorrow for a hotel and £300, I hope that someone is looking at this.

dougzz

I understand the need for an airline (well the non state sponsored ones anyway) to be profitable, and that obviously involves some sophisticated management of sales and bookings. But I'm still slightly bemused by the way experienced flyers just regard selling more seats than you have as all part of how it works, especially in the case where it seems seats are on sale after a potential downgrade happens.

Globaliser

Because you have to ask yourself what would happen if you didn't take more reservations than you have physical seats.

I frequently recall the occasion when I was booked in economy on a 747 (not on BA) and happened to be told what the bookings were like for that specific flight a few months out. The cabin was overbooked by more than 100 at that stage. But the cabin eventually went out only something like 80-90% full.

And that process has to continue right up to the moment of check-in closure, given that AIUI something in the order of 10% of passengers with reservations simply don't turn up for the flight, for one reason or another.

Flexible preferences

Let's face it, if there was no overbooking there would be a huge upward pressure on fares.

secretplantofightinflation

Why?

The airline will already have the money from the previous bookings (the pax that, for whatever reason do not show up).

I am a sales director. In my industry, if I couldn't fulfil my received orders/sales - my company could quite reasonably expect to be taken to court. I therefore ensure that my team does not accept orders it knows it cannot fulfil.

Globaliser

That's fallacious reasoning. It would only be true if your ticket was valid for one flight only and there were no circumstances in which the passenger would nevertheless be entitled to a seat on another flight. But even on "no changes, no refunds" fares like ex-UK I class fares, that is not true.It would help to know what your industry and product is. If that is your company's policy, there are very good chances that your product is not analagous to an airline's product.

In particular, the airline produces a fixed number of units, which are all perishable - and will perish at a specific time. Yet customers' orders for those units are in effect cancellable for refund or exchange - to a greater or lesser extent, depending on fare rules, the airline's T&C and applicable legislation - right up to the moment that the product perishes.

Flexible preferences

Isn't it obvious?

corporate-wage-slave

Is your company one where 40% of your customers pay for stuff and then don't turn up to collect it? Unfortunately not, you presumably say. But is your rival using this fact to slash their prices by 40% to undercut you?

BERbound

Ryanair with their no overbooking policy seem to manage it ok.

Tobias-UK

Yes, so it claims. If that is true, it is the only European airline not to overbook flights.

Tinseltown

One of the first lectures I had during my Masters degree in Business Management over a decade ago involved exactly this.

Airline company with however many seats available... optimise the sale of tickets by overbooking, taking into account that some people don’t make their flights, etc.

If you teach this on a course (it was fairly basic), you damn well can be sure it is applied in the real world.

LPQ

'downgrades are a less than 1 in 200 event' #288

Do I understand that to mean one or two people on each 747 will be downgraded?

HMPS

Having migrated to ME3s for long hauls. I have never seen a page of fare details with other data that includes NO SHOW or CHANGE/ Cancellations prices. This happen well before you are asked to pay many times with how many hours before departure.
Thus the airline has the money, and is free safely to resell the ticket ?
If I am DG or IVDB I would interpret it as someone who paid more than me bumped me. I would not care to do business with that airline, of course I will exact the pound of flesh.