Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 13, 2017, 7:55 am
  #4621  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by kenn0223
Ya, the first one I quoted with the cops in Smokey Bear hats (here) was an old lady that eventually gets "sternly" lead off the plane. The cops clearly are trained in the force techniques they are using.
If this lady did in fact have a stroke she could be suffering from vascular dementia (stroke caused brain damage, literally parts of her brain may be dead due to oxygen deprivation from the stroke).

She may well have been a LEO / prison employee in the past, when really agitated closer to the plane door, she may have been mentally 'time traveling' (people with dementia can do this, get confused in where they are in time and their lives) and genuinely believed at that moment that she was 23.

The officers did pretty well but there's an occupational therapist named Teepa Snow who teaches all kinds of people how to handle people with dementia (or suspected dementia). She's got a DVD (sold out at her site but you may be able to get it at Amazon) and also an online streaming version of a talk she gave to LEOs, rescue squad/EMT workers, firefighters, emergency room docs & nurses on how to better deal with people with dementia (less dangerous for both person with dementia AND a person trying to interact with a person with dementia)

Link to online course is here (there are samples videos on the page)
https://www.pineseducation.org/produ...-online-video/

Having had a parent who had dementia, Teepa's videos were a life saver for me and my father (who died of fronto-temporal dementia at age 75 in 2015). I did use this video to help the local rescue squad deal with my father when he had issues (in late stage dementia he would fall down a lot, I could not get him back up by myself and into a chair or a hospital bed and neither could the tiny hospice nurses who came to give him care in his home, so we would have to make a non-emergency call to the rescue squad to have them come help my father up off of the floor and back into a chair or bed so the hospice nurses could ensure he had not seriously injured himself, like Dr. Dao's probable concussion after his head was slammed into an armrest). They learned how to handle my father more gently (which they will be able to do with other elderly people with dementia in future) and my father was calmer (and less likely to hurt his helpers).

People these can be SERIOUS incidents, especially in a confined space like a plane. Dementia screening is pretty awful in the USA (maybe 50% of people with dementia have a proper diagnosis, and those diagnosed are diagnosed later in the disease rather than earlier). They probably shouldn't be flying, especially by themselves (if I had had to move Dad I would have booked a sleeper on Amtrak or driven in a private car with help), but as it's the real world with lots of things that 'shouldn't be happening', one day you may be on a plane with a person with dementia.

I would hope that you would take this as a friendly invitation to learn more about dementia (Alzheimers is but one form of dementia) and learn how to be around someone with it because unless some magical medical miracle happens, it will be only a matter of time before you are introduced to it in some way and it would be better for everyone if you could really help (and not just be filming the 'crazy lady / crazy guy' in the cabin for later watching on social media.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 7:59 am
  #4622  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by porky
I don't buy the oft repeated argument that stopping oversales would increase ticket prices significantly. For instance the figure most quoted for denied boarding is 12 per 100,000 passengers or 0.012%.

Here is a link: https://qz.com/956005/united-ual-pas...or-us-airline/

If airlines were to stop overbooking, we would have to absorb the cost of these empty seats. So if the average ticket price was $300, the average increase would be 0.012% or $0.036. An insignificant amount for the passenger but translates to a nice hefty sum for the airline selling hundreds of thousands of tickets.
Your math does not make any sense, you appear to be equating IDB rate to overbooking rate, the two are not anywhere close to being the same thing.

Originally Posted by George Purcell
I actually believe that overbooking INCREASES ticket prices. The ability to is a key reason why airlines can boost load factors so high. Not only do high load factors make flying miserable they also allow airlines to remove capacity. In other words every seat that airlines sell as an overbook removes an actual, physical seat--and actual, physical airplanes--from the passenger transportation market. Whatever tiny, marginal consumer utility gains might accrue due to overbooking are completely swamped by giant utility losses due to decreased overall supply.
No oversells would require greater supply as you say, the greater supply would be at greater total cost (unit cost would not decrease more quickly than the increase in capacity), which means price must increase, which ultimately would lead to less demand, and further increase in price as unit costs increase due to smaller scale.
Beckles is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:03 am
  #4623  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
In what other industry can a company sell the same unique item to two different people?
Hotels and rental car companies do the same thing, so are all travel companies ripping customers off, or is there something about travel that makes overbooking a sound business practice (e.g., you have a high incidence of no shows for a variety of reasons).
Beckles is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:04 am
  #4624  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by IntFF
Here is my guess why United CEO went back and forth with his statements.
After his first statement, instead of consulting PR he consulted lawyers and made the 2nd statement (blaming the passenger), then the PR guys came and he made the 3rd statement.

And the lawyers he consulted were experts in handling car accidents, with the moto: never admit you are guilty, never apologize.
A personal injury lawyer hit an acquainted lawyer's car at a high speed in Chicago a few weeks ago while that personal injury lawyer was speeding backwards down a one-way street. The personal injury lawyer was quick to apologize and admit fault. Surely, the personal injury lawyer raking in the money in Chicago knows what it meant in terms of potential legal and related financial exposure. There are circumstances where the sound advice doesn't exclude acknowledgement of fault.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:07 am
  #4625  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by lksf
I wanted to write something, and then stumbled upon this.
I am not related or affiliated to UA, but it still describes my thoughts very well.

thepilotwifelife/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

So annoying how so many people side with him and think he was ok. Acting like a 4 years old
You've been flying for a whole day, back from China, and this is the last leg. You are jet-lagged, and just need to sleep in your own bed. You have a full day of work tomorrow. The gate agent comes in and states that four people have to go because they need room for four employees. The GA acts as though the passengers are all jerks for not jumping to volunteer for a highly limited $800 voucher, given that the next flight being offered is a full day later--not even early the next morning. You don't need an $800 voucher--your work responsibilities the next day simply cannot be bought off. Find someone who has that flexibility and buy them off. At least one person offered to be bumped for a large, but not unreasonably large, amount, and the gate agent laughed at them.

Then, out of the blue (from your perspective), you are told that the computer selected you to be bumped. You say you're sorry, but you can't wait a whole day--you have to be at work. They say, sorry, but you're the stuckee and you'll just have to suck it up (that's what you will hear anyway). You again refuse. They tell you they are going to call the cops to have you removed.

What? Call the cops because I'm sitting in the seat I paid for, minding my own business? I think not! Many people (myself included) respond poorly to arbitrary ultimatums. You tell them, go ahead, believing that no cop would accede to do something so unfair. You can think of a few things you would like to tell the cop about the gate agent, for that matter.

The cop arrives, and tells you that he doesn't care about anything you say, he will remove you by force if necessary. You are thinking, if I get up now, they win, and I'll be doggoned if I'm going to let them get away with this. You are talking to your lawyer or a family member to relay to your lawyer on the phone, while the cops are escalating the situation.

They do not charge you with a crime. They do not arrest you, or read you your rights, or anything like that. They just say they will drag you out if they have to. So, you tell them you'd rather be dragged out than railroaded.

Add to this a memory of persons of your nationality/ethnicity being the victims of aggression of this type in the past, as an influence on your thinking.

Here's the point. It's easy to sit in our comfy chairs and opine about what others should do in the moment of stress. But in the situation, I could see myself doing exactly what he did. I probably would have relented earlier, because being arrested would be a problem for my employer.

Of course, the cops and the airline could also have relented to protect the image of their employer. They did not, and that image was destroyed, even if just temporarily.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:11 am
  #4626  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by Rdenney
Felons have specific removals of rights. But they do not give up the right to due process or assumption of innocence in future situations. Nor does that impose on them the legal requirement to comply with an unlawful request. Nor does that grant the airline or cops the right to demand by force compliance with an unlawful request.
If disputes regarding airline tickets are a contractual issue, how can there be an unlawful request? Would the passenger be required to remove himself from the airline's property and seek damages later?

The legal arguments against removing the passenger are all over the map and quite contradictory. United can (and did) make a bad choice without violating a law or contract.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:15 am
  #4627  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: UA
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Cofyknsult
Is "she" the new United PR consultant hired in panic trying to test the waters in disguise? There is NO WAY this comes from a "Pilot's wife" unless he married a whole law firm, which is not only unusual but also illegal.
She referred to flying in the back or getting left at the gate...as a "pilots wife" on UA???


LOL
TominLazybrook is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:19 am
  #4628  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
In what other industry can a company sell the same unique item to two different people?

Can the company selling tickets to Hamilton for the show on 14 May be able to sell seat 6A to two different people in hopes that one or both don't show up? The example is no different than any airline selling seat 6A to two different people for the same flight. Both the show and the airline seat are a perishable commodity yet who would say its ok for the theater to sell the same seat twice?

Overbooking should be prohibited. If that requires a slight price increase in ticket prices so be it.
Any industry with a high no-show or cancellation rate oversells. That's primarily the travel industry, but also includes restaurants and some medical offices.

If there are limitations on overselling, expect to see more tickets that are fully non refundable.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:19 am
  #4629  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,772
Originally Posted by justinwong
What does JetBlue on a flight from New York to San Francisco offer that is different from what United offers? I mean if overselling is saving consumers all this money, than unless JetBlue offers significantly less (in the form of other consumer benefits) than surely JetBlue which doesn't practice overselling should be charging significantly more than United right?

....
For 2016 (January through September) the IDB rate at United was 0.45 people involuntarily bumped per 10,000 passengers. At Jet Blue the rate was 0.82 in the same period. How do you explain the higher rate (almost double) at JetBlue?
worldtrav is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:20 am
  #4630  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Programs: United Plat and falling
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by porky
I don't buy the oft repeated argument that stopping oversales would increase ticket prices significantly. For instance the figure most quoted for denied boarding is 12 per 100,000 passengers or 0.012%.

Here is a link: https://qz.com/956005/united-ual-pas...or-us-airline/

If airlines were to stop overbooking, we would have to absorb the cost of these empty seats. So if the average ticket price was $300, the average increase would be 0.012% or $0.036. An insignificant amount for the passenger but translates to a nice hefty sum for the airline selling hundreds of thousands of tickets.
No doubt, the airlines do well out of the oversales system. But IMO the question is - does the benefit to consumers of oversales exceed the cost (I don't really care about the airline except for how its operations impact consumers)? There is no way to know without a good study, but we can still guess. In 2015 average US fare was about $375. Taking your figure of 0.012% and the 2015 enplanements figure of 895.5 million - an extra 4.5 cents per fare comes out to about $40 mil. [Edit - it has been pointed out that the 0.012% rate cited by Porky is not the oversales rate but the denied boarding rate, which is surely much lower than oversales. If oversales results in denied boarding 1 out of every 10 times - a conservative estimate, the fare cost of eliminating oversales rises to $0.45 or a total of $400 mil in 2015.] On top of that (and my belief without evidence is exceeding that) is the benefit to the extra accommodated passengers who get to fly on their flight of choice due to oversales. I have no idea what that benefit is, but imagine it also equals $40 mil. [edit - 400 mil]

So a WAG of $80 mil in benefit [edit - 800 mil] relative to what cost? The cost of inconvenience to the IDBed passengers. You'd need a good study to determine it, but we do know roughly the value of IDB compensation. In 2015 there were 46 thousand IDBs. We don't know what compensation they got, but if all of them got the max it would be $62 mil. Clearly they didn't all get the max as airlines game the IDB selection to minimize compensation. So lets guess compensation was half the limit or $31 mil. We then have to ask, how much more than the compensation they got did the inconvenience cost the passengers IDBed? On the United flight in question it has been reported that a passenger volunteered at 1,600. Hardly a good representative sample - the next fight was a good 12 hours later. But as an imagination exercise, lets take that probably high figure as the average loss to the IDBed passenger. If you deduct the max compensation of 1350 from the loss, the net loss is $250 per IDB or 11.5 mil. If the average compensation was half the max the net loss is $43 mil. Even with these conservative assumptions the loss is just not meeting the ticket price benefit and my belief is that the ticket price benefit is less than the accommodation benefit.

We both seem to care about the consumer. I don't think either of us thinks the current system is the best system. Clearly a better system would be forcing the the airlines to up VDB offers till they get a taker and everyone is better off. I'm just saying that my going-in belief is that a well managed oversales system is better for the consumer than a ban on oversales and seats that consumers want flying empty.

Last edited by fischi; Apr 13, 2017 at 9:07 am Reason: revised to reflect an improved esitmate of the oversales rate
fischi is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:25 am
  #4631  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by fischi
No doubt, the airlines do well out of the oversales system. But IMO the question is - does the benefit to consumers of oversales exceed the cost (I don't really care about the airline except for how its operations impact consumers)? There is no way to know without a good study, but we can still guess. In 2015 average US fare was about $375. Taking your figure of 0.012% and the 2015 enplanements figure of 895.5 million - an extra 4.5 cents per fare comes out to about $40 mil.
The rate of IDB is a fraction of the rate of overbooking.
Beckles is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:26 am
  #4632  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by fischi
No doubt, the airlines do well out of the oversales system. But IMO the question is - does the benefit to consumers of oversales exceed the cost (I don't really care about the airline except for how its operations impact consumers)? There is no way to know without a good study, but we can still guess. In 2015 average US fare was about $375. Taking your figure of 0.012% and the 2015 enplanements figure of 895.5 million - an extra 4.5 cents per fare comes out to about $40 mil. On top of that (and my belief without evidence is exceeding that) is the benefit to the extra accommodated passengers who get to fly on their flight of choice due to oversales. I have no idea what that benefit is, but imagine it also equals $40 mil.

So a WAG of $80 mil in benefit relative to what cost? The cost of inconvenience to the IDBed passengers. You'd need a good study to determine it, but we do know roughly the value of IDB compensation. In 2015 there were 46 thousand IDBs. We don't know what compensation they got, but if all of them got the max it would be $62 mil. Clearly they didn't all get the max as airlines game the IDB selection to minimize compensation. So lets guess compensation was half the limit or $31 mil. We then have to ask, how much more than the compensation they got did the inconvenience cost the passengers IDBed? On the United flight in question it has been reported that a passenger volunteered at 1,600. Hardly a good representative sample - the next fight was a good 12 hours later. But as an imagination exercise, lets take that probably high figure as the average loss to the IDBed passenger. If you deduct the max compensation of 1350 from the loss, the net loss is $250 per IDB or 11.5 mil. If the average compensation was half the max the net loss is $43 mil. Even with these conservative assumptions the loss is just meeting the ticket price benefit and my belief is that the ticket price benefit is less than the accommodation benefit.

We both seem to care about the consumer. I don't think either of us thinks the current system is the best system. Clearly a better system would be forcing the the airlines to up VDB offers till they get a taker and everyone is better off. I'm just saying that my going-in belief is that a well managed oversales system is better for the consumer than a ban on oversales and seats that consumers want flying empty. At the same time the calculus is totally dependent on how well airlines manage oversales and IDB frequency. In 2009 IDBs were at an all time high of 67,000. That is pretty close to the back of the envelope break even point above of 86,500.
The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming supply of flights is static. I don't think that is right. If airlines cannot overbook--and in particular if restrictions are placed on their ability to sell options to transport employees as seats on airplanes, than the likely response is an increase in overall supply as more routes are flown. Overbooking is one tool they use to artificially limit the supply of seats in the market.
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:26 am
  #4633  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by sonofzeus
We're still PO'd about the UAL Danish Kroner Debacle.
That has nothing to do with this UA incident, other than to be an example of how the US DOT is inclined to side with US airlines over consumers and only slap the airlines with an insultingly small slap on the wrist even for the airlines' violations of US DOT rules/policies. And the US DOT policies for VDB and IDB really are a sign of the rules being stacked in favor of the airline companies and against consumers in this regard too.

Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 13, 2017 at 8:33 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:27 am
  #4634  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Fiordland
Are these police officers or united airlines private security?

My impression of police officers is their role is to diffuse problem, investigate crimes etc. If they come on board and the passenger says look I have a valid boarding pass, I paid my fair, this airline is not saying they randomly decided I can't fly. I would expect a police officer to go over to the united manager and say "Look he has a valid argument, why are doing this."

If they are private security working for the airline then they are not going to question United management and remove the person.
They were not private security, even though they acted like it. They were airport cops who work for the City of Chicago.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 8:30 am
  #4635  
RJ1
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 622
This was handled very poorly by UA. Its reputation will suffer for some time.
RJ1 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.