Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She/he makes some very valid points, however, regarding customer service and empathy. Many situations could be fixed with a touch of empathy but the powers that be have made it clear to gate agents that if they delay a flight for assisting a customer above and beyond, they may face termination.
Additionally, there are bonuses tied to on time performance so middle managent is incentivized to threaten lower level employees. Lower level employees are also part of an on time bonus program (about $100/mo) so they try to get the flight out on time sometimes regardless of whether it's the right thing or not.
Herb and Gordon seemed to get it. The rest of these CEOs don't.
And smaller stations often get shafted when it comes to on-time statistics with these incentives. It can be as simple as pushing the flight out as scheduled and leave paying passengers behind so the numbers look good.
A hub like DFW, LAX, or ATL having a few delays is statistical noise. A small station that has 4 flights per day, with one always late, is only running a 75% on-time operation. Those numbers unfairly threaten the employees at that airport.
Since you are anointing yourself an expert on the airlines, perhaps you should check the departure boards when there is a forecast snowstorm of 6 inches or more. Perhaps you forgot about the days long snafu in ATL just a month or so ago due to thunderstorms. Passengers were stranded for days. It was national news for days.
So, your contention is there were never weather-related cancellations and backlogs prior to the Passenger Bill of Rights? You sound like King George--"this 'America' thing, with their stupid Bill of Rights, is going to have LOTS of HORRIBLE unintended consequences. The people have spoken. They just didn't realize what they were signing up for, and now its too late."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campfires
They were stranded because Delta preemptively and reactively cancelled almost everything.
This is precisely what people are complaining about. The airline takes a situation that calls for judgment (for example, do we have to cancel everything to the west coast? what about to Europe? can some flights be delayed instead of cancelled?) and uses a bludgeon instead. PREEMPTIVELY Cancel EVERYTHING? REALLY? And you think we should reduce regulation on those who show such poor judgment?
OP I think it's time for a career change for you, you are burned out.
But my question is about overbooking. If passengers don't show why do you need to fill those seat and overbook? You still get the no shows money they paid for their ticket. There is no cancellation with returned ticket money that I have ever found. Fly with the seat empty if you get that money. Stop disrupting everyone else's plans.
So, your contention is there were never weather-related cancellations and backlogs prior to the Passenger Bill of Rights? You sound like King George--"this 'America' thing, with their stupid Bill of Rights, is going to have LOTS of HORRIBLE unintended consequences. The people have spoken. They just didn't realize what they were signing up for, and now its too late."
This is precisely what people are complaining about. The airline takes a situation that calls for judgment (for example, do we have to cancel everything to the west coast? what about to Europe? can some flights be delayed instead of cancelled?) and uses a bludgeon instead. PREEMPTIVELY Cancel EVERYTHING? REALLY? And you think we should reduce regulation on those who show such poor judgment?
Socprof,
Of course there were weather related cancellations prior to the Passenger Bill of Rights. It's just that there were far fewer since the airlines would do everything they could to maintain schedule integrity and get paying passengers where they wanted to go.
It's simply basic financial math. The airlines have determined it's cheaper to cancel most flights than to risk the fines the Passenger Bill of Rights entails. They are in the business of making a profit so they aren't using a bludgeon or trying to penalize the pax in any way. It's what the actuaries have told them is the correct decision to make during SWAP. They obviously would fly the flights to maximize revenue if it made financial sense when fines per passenger are $27,000.
My aircraft holds about 160 folks. That's over $4,000,000 in fines per flight/aircraft on a 737/A320/MD90 (I think there's a cap on total per flight of only $3,000,000 though...?) Do you see now why it's a smart business decision to simply cancel? We don't make anywhere near that kind of money on a lowly narrow body flight. We could easily be fined over $400,000,000 per day in a severe weather event in a single hub. The event in Atlanta lasted 3 days. $1,300,000,000 is a lot of money to lose. That's the entire yearly profit in a great year. Sorry..., that's what happens when the public lets emotion drive law making. Unintended consequences...
Last edited by Campfires; 06-02-2017 at 04:26 PM..
OP I think it's time for a career change for you, you are burned out.
But my question is about overbooking. If passengers don't show why do you need to fill those seat and overbook? You still get the no shows money they paid for their ticket. There is no cancellation with returned ticket money that I have ever found. Fly with the seat empty if you get that money. Stop disrupting everyone else's plans.
I see the problem. You're buying the wrong ticket. The cheap tickets you're buying are non-refundable. There are fully refundable tickets. It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think. Again, it's a financial decision. By overbooking, the airline makes more profit. If the ability to overbook is removed by regulation, the airlines will make up for the lost profit by raising the ticket prices. Again, the discomfort of the few is passed on to everybody. Unintended consequences...
...By overbooking, the airline makes more profit. If the ability to overbook is removed by regulation, the airlines will make up for the lost profit by raising the ticket prices. ...
Which is precisely what some of us are advocating. As an aeronautical engineer, I realize the complexity and risk of getting a machine to take off, fly and land safely. It is nothing short of miraculous that such endeavors happen so many times daily, all over the world, with accidents being so rare, that they make the world news.
But there is a fundamental tension in the triangle of (1) turning a profit, (2) cutting costs/prices, and (3) running a smooth/comfortable/safe operation. Ticket prices are going to have to rise - considerably. This would be necessary if airlines were for example to be mandated by law to operate at lower load-factors (which I think is a good idea).
If everything is just-in-time, 100% capacity, maximum-optimum-supreme, things will break. Nerves will be frayed, people will get irate (crew or passengers), problems will arise. Your flight control system is quad-redundant, is it not? Well, that adds weight, complexity, cost. It reduces flight range, or passenger capacity. But we do it anyway. Similar redundancy needs to be built into flight operations - yes, at higher cost.
You want fines for airlines cancelling flights now? Seriously...? Welcome back to the law of unintended consequences.
As to speaking with this irate lady, what did you want me to say? "Ma'am, they have made repeated announcements that the airplane is delayed for MX and there will be an update in 30 minutes." The gate agents already said that. Do you honestly believe a deadheading employee has the slightest idea what may be wrong with the plane and how long it will take to fix? Even if I did, what would happen if my estimate turned out wrong? Yep, here we go again with another airline employee "LYING" to us.
You see, with the entitled attitudes so prevalent in American society today, there's no winning. Indeed, no good deed goes unpunished.
What you COULD say is "It's really frustrating to have to wait, isn't it?" That way you are acknowledging her anxiety without offering excuses or taking responsibility.
I see the problem. You're buying the wrong ticket. The cheap tickets you're buying are non-refundable. There are fully refundable tickets. It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think. Again, it's a financial decision. By overbooking, the airline makes more profit. If the ability to overbook is removed by regulation, the airlines will make up for the lost profit by raising the ticket prices. Again, the discomfort of the few is passed on to everybody. Unintended consequences...
So, here's a solution. The airlines already sell refundable (R) and non-refundable (N) tickets. My solution is that if you buy an N ticket, the airline MUST honor the ticket, you cannot be bumped. (The reasoning is that if you've given them the money and said "Even if I flake, keep the money," so they should be forced to offer the service to you if you show up.) You, however, can blow off the flight--you just lose the full cost of the ticket.
On the other hand, in my proposal R-tickets sell at the same price as N tickets. If you buy an R ticket, you agree to allow the airline to bump you, because you've preserved your flexibility at no extra cost. You would have the right, however, to pay an extra premium for "insurance," said insurance removing you, too, from the list of bumpable passengers.
In this system the airline will know long before the flight how many seats are available for bumping. At some point close to the flight (or when it reaches capacity) they can then sell O-class (over-book) tickets to people, first buy, first in line for the seat. Those people are basically gambling that one or more seats will open up. They get a seat if it opens, but otherwise they have to wait for a seat to come free. Perhaps such tickets would be valid for some period of time (24 hours, 48 hours, something). Airlines could text such ticket-holders to let them know their chances for getting on a flight before they head to the airport.
In this system no one gets anything other than what they paid for. No airline ticket is a hidden lottery ticket. No would-be passenger is dragged off a plane for wanting to go home. And no one need hold a seat auction at the Gate.
If everything is just-in-time, 100% capacity, maximum-optimum-supreme, things will break. Nerves will be frayed, people will get irate (crew or passengers), problems will arise. Your flight control system is quad-redundant, is it not? Well, that adds weight, complexity, cost. It reduces flight range, or passenger capacity. But we do it anyway. Similar redundancy needs to be built into flight operations - yes, at higher cost.
I'm one of those people who actually actively likes overbooking situations because my preferred airline is often v. generous with terms as they try to eliminate involuntary denied boarding. And there are far more people like me out there willing to take the bump than are willing to not only pay more per ticket but also significantly reduce the chance for additional thousands in vouchers or Amex gift card 'if my travel plans are flexible'
I see your plan as horrible and nit to be implemented under any circumstance.
Of course there were weather related cancellations prior to the Passenger Bill of Rights. It's just that there were far fewer since the airlines would do everything they could to maintain schedule integrity and get paying passengers where they wanted to go.
It's simply basic financial math. The airlines have determined it's cheaper to cancel most flights than to risk the fines the Passenger Bill of Rights entails. They are in the business of making a profit so they aren't using a bludgeon or trying to penalize the pax in any way. It's what the actuaries have told them is the correct decision to make during SWAP. They obviously would fly the flights to maximize revenue if it made financial sense when fines per passenger are $27,000.
My aircraft holds about 160 folks. That's over $4,000,000 in fines per flight/aircraft on a 737/A320/MD90 (I think there's a cap on total per flight of only $3,000,000 though...?) Do you see now why it's a smart business decision to simply cancel? We don't make anywhere near that kind of money on a lowly narrow body flight. We could easily be fined over $400,000,000 per day in a severe weather event in a single hub. The event in Atlanta lasted 3 days. $1,300,000,000 is a lot of money to lose. That's the entire yearly profit in a great year. Sorry..., that's what happens when the public lets emotion drive law making. Unintended consequences...
I think the fundamental difference of opinion is summarized in the sentence in bold. You (and some others) keep writing about what are (short-term) smart business decisions. Others (including me) keep writing about what are (long-term) effects of such decisions.
The long-term effect of preemptively cancelling flights to avoid fines is NOT going to be less regulation, happy passengers, and profitability. The long-term effect is going to be MORE regulation that will stagnate or lower profits for the simple mathematical fact that a function maximized with constraint cannot exceed the value of that same function maximized without constraint.
Behind the claims of the people looking long-term is a sense that airlines think they're in the transportation business. What they are really in is the connection business. Thus, they compete against inter-city busses and rail. But they also compete against cellphones, skype, and video-conferencing. The long-term threat they face is that as those three become normative for long-distance connection, they are going to find their customers draining away. They should be pre-empting that by deepening people's affinity for them. They're doing the opposite. That short-term business model can work for a long time. Then, it just stops working. When that happens it will be too late.
Reaching the end of that path is not a certainty. But signposts that we are on that path would be increasing passenger-experience centered regulation. We've started to see such signs. The question is, will the airlines get the message and stop thinking ONLY short-term? (e.g. let's solve this problem today by having someone drag a passenger off the plane. Or, let's solve the problem now by preemptively cancelling all flights!) Or will they short-term themselves into greater and greater regulation and then eventually into oblivion? We'll see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
