Back to Squawk list
  • 18

United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger incident (UAL)

Here are the changes: Limit use of law-enforcement to safety and security issues only. Do not force customers seated on the plane to give up their seat involuntarily, unless safety or security is at risk. Increase customer compensation incentives for voluntary denied boarding up to $10,000. Establish a customer solutions team to provide agents with creative solutions such as using nearby airports, other airlines or ground transportation to get customers to their final destination. Ensure… ( Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Highflyer1950 7
I've never liked the idea of overbooking a flight just to fill the no-show seats. With better computer programs, on line check-in and non-refundable fares, this process has outlived it's usefulness as a revenue tool. Even full fare ticketed passengers who don't show, have already paid for the seat even if it goes empty and they take another earlier/later flight....the airline gets paid. Equipment down guage will still cause issues but that is the business.
Scott Campbell 1
I guess you could be right - maybe,... with alll the discounters they could better manage filling up planes.
But SWA doesn't have large wide bodies, and that may be harder to fill every day of the week.
AWAAlum 0
I wonder if I'm reading it wrong, or I don't entirely understand the your scenario, if a full fare ticketed pax who doesn't show, has already paid for the seat and it goes empty, then takes a different say the airline gets paid. Well, yes, but only once - and this pax has taken two seats for the price of one. I think. Am I missing something? (I'm sooooo confused.)
John Barton -1
The full fare passenger who catches a later or earlier flight won't fit on a flight that's already full, and is lower priority than a passenger with a ticket for that later (or earlier) flight.

They're not taking two seats, in that case - they're leaving an empty seat behind on a potentially full flight, and taking an empty seat on a potentially empty flight. If the 'alternate' flight is full, they don't bump someone already on-board to fly.

They take the "same" seat, just on a different aircraft than their original flight.
Scott Campbell 3
I've flown United for over 15 years almost weekly, American, Alaska, and SWA.
And I've seen problems at all 4, but I'm always impressed that the any airline of any magnitude pulls it off. Overbooking will not end for any airline, in fact when they add or return service to destinations, they have to drop the fares and overbook while attempting to grow the new service. After years of Regional only service to BUR, ONT, EUG, & MFR they've returned with full service.
And filled aircraft by advertising, beating the competition in price, and yes overbooking.
djames225 1
Actually SWA announced it is ending its practice of overbooking..and a few other airlines are re-thinking their policies on the issue
This entire incident could have been avoided.
The airline knew way ahead of time that a flight crew would be needed Louisville, and should have booked seats for them on a flight not so crowded.
The images of the Security police dragging Dr Dao off the aircraft will NEVER go away, but live in perpetuity.
As will whatever the big settlement was--too bad the airline cannot be forced to announce what it was forced to pay.
For sure those images classic. But a lot of us see them as showing someone so dumb that they think the police will just go away if they don't comply with police commands. That is not the way it works.
djames225 2
What is funny is that second line was already in their "COC" that an FA will only make you give up the seat, if already boarded and seated properly, in the event of security or safety issues.
alfsoto 2
not enough United. just end over overbooking flights...
I have a simple solution, don't overbook a flight.
John Cotton 2
Exactly. That's why I love JetBlue.
Overbooking is basically airline fraud..if you dont actually have a spare seat to sell
John Barton 2
I would disagree, in that the airlines have HUGE amounts of historical data about how each flight performs - they have the data to know exactly how many tickets they sell for each flight, and they know exactly how many no-shows they get for each flight, and can take a calculated risk, given that data.

i.e. with a 100 passenger plane, 5% of the time 100 passengers show up, 45% of the time 99 passengers show up, 45% of the time 97 passengers show up, 5% of the time 96 passengers show up.

If you sell 101 tickets for this flight, 50% of the time, you'll fly with a full plane, 45% of the time, you'll have 1 or 2 open seats, but only 5% of the time (between 15 and 20x per *year*), you'll have to ask for a volunteer to fly at a later time, and have to absorb the expense that brings with it.

If you're going to go down the fraud line - I think non-refundable, non-changeable fares are essentially fraud. Pay a few hundred dollars for a tickets and..."What's that? You were in a car crash on the way to the airport and are in the hospital? Ha ha ha ha! I mean...oh, so sorry. No, we're keeping your money. Get well soon!"
enjoy you bonus while it lasts
Well they will end up in chapter 11 again if they treat there passengers like that again
There must be something fundamentally wrong with airline operations if you cant make a profit on a near full flight or are management are trying to pump up bonuses :)
John Barton 1
What's fundamentally wrong with airline operations is...the passengers.

An airline that treats their customers well is not rewarded with customer loyalty.

Airline travel has become commoditized, and the casual consumer (who flies 1-5 times per year) is concerned only with price. We may have flown Delta for 5 years, but if AAL cuts the price of the ticket $10, we jump ship en-masse.

You see it all the time going the other way - UAL raises the ticket price of, say, DEN-SFO by $10. Then AA matches the $10 increase. DL, F9, and SWA stick to their guns. 5 days later, UAL and AA step in line and lower the fare to match because nobody's buying their tickets at the "hope to break even on the flight" price.
Mandy Porter 1
Is it wise announcing their top incentive for voluntary denied boarding? Maybe I have less faith in humanity than is called for, but I would imagine people would hold out for a higher "payday" knowing how high the airlines are willing to go to get your seat.
Just a PR stunt. They have no intention of paying $10k.
Scott Campbell 2
Well no, because some can be bought for less, me for instance around 500 if I'm not going home.
You bet. And why would the airlines change much right now; the're making more money than ever.
AWAAlum 0
Clearly I'm missing the point. Sorry. But it seems to me if a pax books and pays for a seat and then doesn't show it's paid for and the airline loses nothing. Matter of fact, if they resell the seat, that pax inadvertently has blessed the airline with double what the seat originally sold for. What am I missing? (Pls excuse any typos, etc., since I'm sitting outside and the sun is making it difficult to view the screen.)


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..