Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 1386173)

First of all, I am not making any mistake because I don't pretend to know the airline business. Your mistake, on the other hand, is pretending you know more than the people doing yield management for the airlines. They, as well as other service industries with a fixed and time volatile inventory, overbook because it increases their bottom line based, in part, on the past history of the flight. Airlines could stop overbooking tomorrow if they wanted. To assume they continue doing something that provides no economic benefit is silly. To suggest they should just drop the business model they have today is silly and naive. It is easy to criticize when you don't know the details.

Overbooking is based on statistical modeling. For each flight, they model how many people will actually show up (and yes, many of the no-shows will pay a penalty to use their non-refundable ticket) and by how much they should overbook. Perfect overbooking would result in paying no compensation for voluntary or involuntary bumps but would yield more revenue than if they didn't overbook via a paying customer in every seat (and yes, each seat may have a different price because of their yield management strategy). To suggest that overbooking is a vestige of the past is naive. Yield management with overbooking is a sophisticated optimization problem. They are looking to maximize the revenue for each flight and overbooking is part of the strategy. The point you probably miss is that overbooking only makes sense when you have a statistical expectation of no-shows, which the major carriers apparently do because of business travel (I used to change flights quite often). You can claim that you don't overbook, as part of a marketing strategy to the uninformed, when your client base has a low no-show rate or you lack the yield management capabilities to do it effectively. Why you would care whether an airline overbooks, when considering the very low average involuntary bumping rate of 1 in 10,000, is beyond me.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 1386282)

This entire issue is a no brainer. The man bought a ticket, was assigned a seat, was allowed to board the plane, and was sitting in his assigned seat. United had no justification to do anything, but to let him fly. Overbooking really has nothing to do with the situation. It was too late to bump the man from the flight.

Originally Posted by Paper1 (Post 1384831)

I believe they said flight was overbooked with no takers for a later flight. Picked name by random, according to what I heard. Should airline held up flight until he walked off on his own? Mistake made was letting him back on plane once decision was made. Overbooking is a fact of life, tickets and cancelations would be much more expensive without it.

Originally Posted by suesiegel (Post 1386332)

I expect as others have said that this will cost United a pile of money.

I do find it interesting how poor the news coverage has been.

There was a story that Buffet lost 24 million dollars. I think I heard this on 96.5 FM a right leaning radio station out of Orlando. The stock market has been down about 1% this week and United fell 2%. For Buffet 24 million is petty cash.

United offered any passenger $600 to give up their seat and there were not enough takers. Interesting, which I did not know before the amount they can offer is controlled by the government. Contrary to what some people have said they simply could not offer any more.

As to that, "Doctor," claiming damages. He acted as a spoiled child. He did not think twice about his actions delaying the other ?????? hundred or so people on the plane. As he CRIED about his rights he simply did not care about anyone but himself. The doctor's daughter, I will guess she is about 40 years old spoke at a press conference. I am very skilled at reading people.
I WILL BET THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER FATHER.

Sadly, like the head of BP who publicly accepted guilt for the gulf oil spill the head of United apologized for the action of his employees. Like OBAMA and the dirtbag attys did to BP. BP paid millions for UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. United will likely be destroyed by this GUILTY OR NOT.

Originally Posted by suesiegel (Post 1386332)

United offered any passenger $600 to give up their seat and there were not enough takers. Interesting, which I did not know before the amount they can offer is controlled by the government. Contrary to what some people have said they simply could not offer any more.

As to that, "Doctor," claiming damages. He acted as a spoiled child. He did not think twice about his actions delaying the other ?????? hundred or so people on the plane. As he CRIED about his rights he simply did not care about anyone but himself. The doctor's daughter, I will guess she is about 40 years old spoke at a press conference. I am very skilled at reading people.
I WILL BET THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER FATHER.

Sadly, like the head of BP who publicly accepted guilt for the gulf oil spill the head of United apologized for the action of his employees. Like OBAMA and the dirtbag attys did to BP. BP paid millions for UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. United will likely be destroyed by this GUILTY OR NOT.

Originally Posted by John_W (Post 1386453)

If you're stating facts along with opinions, you should tell the facts correctly. United did not offer cash but offered a voucher for $400 and there was no takers. Then they raised their offer to a $800 voucher and one night in a hotel and they still had no takers. As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

The other misconception is the flight was over-booked. It wasn't over-booked, they had the exact number of seats sold as passengers. The seats to be vacated were for Airline employees traveling on standby. So the airline called in the police to settle a business decision, to remove paying customers so that standby airline employees could have their seat. So the airline might of had the legal right to remove a passenger from an over-booked flight, but the flight was not over-booked. They removed 4 paying passengers for 4 standby employees.

BTW, I take it you have never vacationed in the Florida panhandle or anywhere on the Gulf coast for that matter. The courts have already stated that BP Was Grossly Negligent In 2010 Oil Spill.

Pensacola Beach before BP, one of the most beautiful in the World.

https://beachdoccindy.files.wordpres.../pbgbcrop1.jpg

After BP, would you swim on this beach?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Photograp...OilPier1-L.jpg

Originally Posted by John_W (Post 1386453)

If you're stating facts along with opinions, you should tell the facts correctly. United did not offer cash but offered a voucher for $400 and there was no takers. Then they raised their offer to a $800 voucher and one night in a hotel and they still had no takers. As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

The other misconception is the flight was over-booked. It wasn't over-booked, they had the exact number of seats sold as passengers. The seats to be vacated were for Airline employees traveling on standby. So the airline called in the police to settle a business decision, to remove paying customers so that standby airline employees could have their seat. So the airline might of had the legal right to remove a passenger from an over-booked flight, but the flight was not over-booked. They removed 4 paying passengers for 4 standby employees.

BTW, I take it you have never vacationed in the Florida panhandle or anywhere on the Gulf coast for that matter. The courts have already stated that BP Was Grossly Negligent In 2010 Oil Spill.

Pensacola Beach before BP, one of the most beautiful in the World.

https://beachdoccindy.files.wordpres.../pbgbcrop1.jpg

After BP, would you swim on this beach?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Photograp...OilPier1-L.jpg

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 1386460)

There is a difference between DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping and the fact that there is no DOT mandated compensation for voluntary bumping. The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival. Presumably, United could have offered any compensation for voluntary bumping. Why they chose not to go to a high enough number to get enough volunteers is unclear.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1386525)

This has been mentioned multiple times and is wrong. The regulation specifies a minimum amount the involuntarily bumped passenger should be offered.

Here is the language on involuntary bumping:

More than two hours later than your original arrival time on domestic flights, or more than four hours late on international flights: 400 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $1,350.


That means if you have a ticket that costs $400 the airline instead of being required to give you 4 times, or 1600 only must offer 1350. If your ticket was 300 they must offer 1200 as it is not greater than 1350.

There is no regulation on the maximum they are allowed to offer if they want to get your seat. And you are entitled to a check and do not have to take an airline voucher.

This regulation, of being required to offer 400% of the ticket cost [unless you accept less not knowing the rules] means the airline will deliberately try to identify the lowest cost victim. Say you paid $200 for your seat and I paid $150 for mine. Well if they involuntarily bump you, it costs them $800, but only $600 if they bump me. Guess who will be bumped.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1385954)

What makes this great nation "special," is a free press whereby those with power/money cannot get away with injustices...based on those advantages.

The pen/written word...is the great equalizer for the masses. :ho:

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 1386529)

This has already been addressed. See post #128 and #130. No need to repeat the information.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1386557)

Perhaps I am having a problem with reading comprehension but both post 128 and 130 say that the limit, or maximum, compensation is 1350.

That is wrong, the 1350 is the minimum required for tickets that cost 337.50 or more. There is no maximum. So statements saying or suggesting that the DOT rules limit the amount the airline can offer to 1350 are incorrect. So I believe I am not repeating information already presented, rather I am attempting, apparently poorly, to correct misinformation on the regulations for involuntary bumping compensation.

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 1386587)

You are incorrect to say that there is no maximum. Also, please note that I was misquoted in post #129 and tried to correct the misquote in post #130. I will try again to state the facts.

I find the wording in the Contract of Carriage to be misleading and can possibly be interpreted two ways. For a two hour or greater delay, the compensation is 400% of the one-way fare with a maximum of $1350. That could be interpreted as 400% of a maximum fare of $1350 (in which case the maximum compensation would be $5400 or 4 x $1350) or the maximum compensation is $1350 (regardless of how expensive the one-way fare is). I believe the latter applies and the maximum compensation is $1350. Regardless, there is a maximum. This applies to involuntary bumping only.

Go back at reread the United Contract of Carriage.

Here is summary from my travel folks at work, bold type added by me:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1386657)

Sorry, but this is why I am correcting you. There is no confusion at all in what the DOT regulations mean. My interpretation is correct. Unless the passenger accepts a lowball offer, the airline is required to pay 400% of the ticket price to an involuntarily bumped passenger who is delayed 2 hours. This 400% rule is capped at 1350 [4 x 337.50]. For tickets priced higher than 337.50 the airline is not required to offer 400% of the ticket price, only REQUIRED to pay the 1350. In other words 1350 is the minimum they must pay, again absent the passenger accepting a lower lowball offer.

See the language you have correctly included which is from the DOT website in your post which I enlarged. "the airline must pay you". It is the critical phrase and sets the lowest amount you should expect to receive. For a >2 hour delay the airline MUST compensate you 400% of your ticket price. If that were the stand alone rule and your ticket cost $500, you would be entitled to a minimum of $2000. Clear so far? To limit the airline's penalty required the DOT capped that required penalty instead at 1350.

That means that the airline is not required to offer more than 1350. It does not mean the airline is not allowed to offer more than 1350. If United wishes to say, well the government will not force us to offer more so we never will, that is a corporate choice. The government sets the minimum the consumer is entitled to receive.


Now I see you have cited a friend who works in the business as your source. I will cite the DOT regulation which is very clear.

Oversales
• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
 
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
 
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.

***********
Lastly, Delta has recently announced they are authorizing their personnel to offer higher compensation to induce passengers to be bumped,

If the DOT regulated the maximum that could be offered, this change would be a violation.

and United has changed its policy on when dead head crew members must be at the gate to be accommodated

Originally Posted by John_W (Post 1386669)

Delta Airlines trumps them all. This morning on Today and HLN they said they will now offer up to $10,000 to bumped passengers.

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 1386666)

As I already started, and as is written in the Contract of Carriage, there is a maximum compensation.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1386733)

We can agree that United's contract only offers the ticketed passenger a maximum of 1350 for being involuntarily denied boarding. That is their corporate choice and a business decision. They are in compliance with DOT rules which state that United must pay at least that amount for a ticket priced at 1/4 that amount.

Where we are having an issue is your suggestion that DOT sets the maximum that United or any other carrier can offer to induce a passenger to give up their seat.

I am not the only one who reads your comment as saying the DOT only allows 1350 as the maximum United could give.
. And it was that comment about a federal law setting an "up to" that began this exchange when I wrote a post saying that is an incorrect understanding.

Again here is post 130 from you



The first sentence is true. The airline can offer as little as nothing to induce people to volunteer to give up their seat. The second sentence is wrong in that you claim there is a mandated limit of 1350 for involuntary bumping. You suggest the 1350 is the MOST the airline can offer because that number is DOT mandated. The limit is a bottom limit. It is the minimum United and all other carriers must pay to involuntary denied passengers. Again see the actual DOT language, it includes the word minimum. So United is not bound by regulation to only offer 1350. It can have in its contract any language but the language they chose equates to:

If you are involuntarily bumped the government forces us to pay you 1350 and we will not offer one penny more as that complies with the minimum we get away with.

Once a passenger agrees to any lower [or higher] amount they are no longer being involuntarily bumped so the DOT rules no longer apply. As long as you will agree that the DOT sets the minimum amount due the involuntary bumpee and the airline picks any number which can be any number equal or greater than required, we are done. And this is an issue when people say, well United was only allowed to offer 1350 to try to get people to give up seats. No, United was allowed to offer whatever it needed to offer to get someone to give up its seats. Even in a contract, one side can give more than the contract language stipulates, just not less. It never even offered the 1350 which its own contract says was the amount it would owe for involuntary denial of boarding.

As to what did this accomplish? Airlines now will never force a passenger off a flight for their own convenience. Passengers will be more aware of their rights. Airport security will perhaps train their people better. There may be greater understanding of the need for a functioning Consumer Protection Agency. These are some positive outcomes of a very unfortunate event.

Time for nine and dine

Originally Posted by GatorFan (Post 1386570)

These were not stand by employers. They were a working crew that needed to be flown to destination to work a flight.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 1386699)

This guy was so concerned that he HAD to get back to see patients the next day. My questions are: What about those patients now? Would it not have been much simpler for him to just reschedule instead? Now, they have probably had to seek treatment elsewhere. With his apparent background, they might just be better off. (Just speculating, understand.)

Except for his big lawsuit, what did he accomplish? Whatever he comes out of the lawsuit with, is he going to share with those patients he just had to get back for? My GUESS would be NOT.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1386865)

Wow, some of these responses are analogous to blaming the rape victim...because her dress was too short. :ohdear:

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863 (Post 1386822)

Gee, I may be upset if my flight in Louisville were canceled because no one in Chicago would give up seats for these 4 employees.

Originally Posted by GatorFan (Post 1386879)

United Airlines did nothing wrong. The flight was not oversold...

Originally Posted by Muzik (Post 1386998)

The extra passengers were United employees who were needed at another location.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1387045)

The final chapter will show that this "doctor" will make money. Lots of it.

I think he has a story of his own that has nothing to do with getting back to Louisville and his patients.

I go with what Midwesterner's say about folks sometimes.

That doctor?

He ain't right.

Originally Posted by GatorFan (Post 1387222)

Flught attendants can not sit in cockpit jumpseat. Againt FAA regulations. What kind of plane? Many of the new planes do not have jumpseats. What about weight restrictions?