Airline does it better

[CDS]

Please don't deflect from the issue being discussed to make some kind of lame argument that is not relevant to the discussion. The point being made is what airlines do or don't do when it comes to taking full responsibility for circumstance behaviours they have absolute CONTROL over.

One, the airline followed the protocol that has been used millions of times. And the airline has accepted responsibility for the outcome, even though it was the Chicago Department of Aviation Police that injured the passenger (no one from the airline touched him - do you realize that?).

Did you know that Dr. Dao exited the airplane and then ran back on (likely a security violation) and told the police that they'd have to drag him off? Are you endorsing that behavior?

Is it legal in your hometown to refuse the order of a police officer? For example, if you get pulled over while driving and the officer asks you to step out of the car, can you tell him "No" and expect no repercussions? Can you? - I'd appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

[martymayes]

Please don't deflect from the issue being discussed to make some kind of lame argument that is not relevant to the discussion. The point being made is what airlines do or don't do when it comes to taking full responsibility for circumstance behaviours they have absolute CONTROL over.

How does one have absolute CONTROL over something that has a gov. regulation attached to just about every aspect?

[DaleB]

Unfortunately, voluntary and involuntary bumping of customers is commonplace - it happens every single day and it generally does not involve deadheading crew members. And that's one of the reasons I'd like to see overbooking end.

Me too. The fact that it's a common practice doesn't make it right. Again, this is a practice that the airlines voluntarily adopted to maximize their profits. I'm sure it has been quite effective at making them more money (not a bad thing) at the occasional expense of severe inconvenience to their paying customers. And, since the regulations have been written with a lot of influence from carriers, the rules are almost 100% in their favor - leaving very few rights to the passengers. Again, the fact that they managed to get the rules written for their benefit doesn't make it right.

But even in that case, due to delays (ATC, weather, maintenance, crew rest, etc.), over-bookings will still occur. And so passenger involuntary denied boardings can and will still occur. It's like renting a room to a tenant - if you have reason to ask the tenant to leave and that tenant then refuses to leave despite multiple requests, at what point do you call the police? Can you please answer that one question (it's not rhetorical).

That's a spurious argument, but I'll answer it anyway. If your tenant has paid you for the use of your room, you generally can't ask him to leave just because you want to use the room for your in-laws. Now, sure, you can write a lease that explicitly says you CAN do so, but if you do -- and take advantage of that clause to toss paid tenants out on their butts regularly -- you could expect that pretty soon no one would rent a room from you. Too bad all the OTHER landlords have the same terms. Put another way, if a hotel chain had a track record of routinely telling checked-in guests to get out of bed, pack their stuff and leave because one of the desk clerks wanted that room, they'd probably be out of business before long. And yet some people seem to think that airlines doing the same thing is somehow just fine. Like it's somehow unavoidable, because no one can plan for things that don't go perfectly. If an airline let its jets run out of fuel because they failed to allow a reserve (hauling extra fuel costs money, you know) people would think it's terrible. But do the same thing with seats? You get a what-can-you-do shrug.

You seem to be either missing or ignoring my point. You ask if I understand weight restrictions and weather delays. Yes, I do, and I don't even operate an airline. So why is it that these things seem to catch them by surprise? They are perfectly capable of taking them into account when selling seats on scheduled flights. They consistently fail -- no, more like refuse -- to do so, and expect the passengers to bear the burden of that refusal. Would it not be a better idea to plan for these factors and let the passengers bear the cost of that improved business practice by paying a few dollars more for a ticket? I'd gladly pay an extra ten bucks a leg to know that the flight isn't overbooked. We've been in a race to the bottom of the barrel for years now, and I don't know how much closer we can get.

Anyway... there's my take on it. I know you probably disagree, and I'm probably not going to change your mind. I know you're not going to change mine. And, sadly, I know that nothing either one of us (or anyone else here) has to say on the subject will make the slightest bit of difference in the airlines' shoddy business practices, because once again -- the rules are tailored for them and they'll take advantage of that fact until we're all long gone.

[CDS]

... So why is it that these things seem to catch them by surprise? They are perfectly capable of taking them into account when selling seats on scheduled flights. They consistently fail -- no, more like refuse -- to do so, and expect the passengers to bear the burden of that refusal. Would it not be a better idea to plan for these factors and let the passengers bear the cost of that improved business practice by paying a few dollars more for a ticket? I'd gladly pay an extra ten bucks a leg to know that the flight isn't overbooked. We've been in a race to the bottom of the barrel for years now, and I don't know how much closer we can get.

Anyway... there's my take on it. I know you probably disagree, and I'm probably not going to change your mind. I know you're not going to change mine. And, sadly, I know that nothing either one of us (or anyone else here) has to say on the subject will make the slightest bit of difference in the airlines' shoddy business practices, because once again -- the rules are tailored for them and they'll take advantage of that fact until we're all long gone.

DaleB, again, thanks for the reply. You wrote, "So why is it that these things seem to catch them by surprise?" If you can predict the weather, maintenance, ATC delays (radar outages, for just one example or runway closures for another), etc., with perfect accuracy, you'd be very, very, very rich! Just like everyone else, the airline industry doesn't know months, weeks - or even days - in advance of what conditions might produce weight restrictions or result in late over-bookings.

In theory, the airline industry could set aside a number of seats that would normally go unsold to allow for re-accommodating passengers and/or crew members who have mis-connected for various reasons. Let's say 10 percent...? Unlike most, you've offered that you'd be willing to pay more for a ticket. However, the vast majority of passengers have shown over and over and over and over and over (ad nauseum) again that price is the only factor in selecting a flight - thus the rise of Ultra Low Cost Carriers list Spirit and Frontier. I do blame in part the industry for creating that situation. That is, airline seats are now a commodity - Airline A is just like Airline B and Airline C, etc.

And what happens when that unsold reserve (my arbitrary 10 percent) isn't enough? My hometown airline airport is subject to weather phenomena that are still not fully understood and all too frequently beyond expectations (forecasts).

Airline travel is a mass transit system and every mass transit system has it's shortfalls. Which is why I wonder why more people don't take advantage of general aviation.

Please understand that I'm not saying that the airline system is perfect, it isn't. Unfortunately, the doctor's actions have made the situation worse - I'll forecast that more "sit-ins" will now happen and that the industry will be forced to delay or cancel more flights (affecting even more passengers) as a result.

[Bill Greenwood]

Nonsense to CDS and Marty, these recent airline incidents of throwing passengers off had nothing to do with weather or maintenance,ATC nor of any security issue.
By that I mean the Dr. Dao case,the Mom with the stroller, the family of 4 with the infant in a safety seat, and maybe a few others. If it was weather, it is unlikley United would within about a week already made a settlerment, I'd guess in the $millions with Dr. Dao. And they also promised to change their operating methods and not put employees who want to fly free ahead of paying passengers who have already boarded. One red flag, the United ceo said that in overbooking situations, they give priority to the highest fare paying passengers. Southwest says their priority is in order of boarding which seems fairer to me, and SW also says they are not going to routinely overbook flights.

[Bill Greenwood]

CDS, is it legal to refuse the order of police? Sure if the order is unlawful. Lets say the "police" dont want any witnesses to their assualt on a passenger and tell the other passengers to turn off cell phone cameras. That is not a legal order,. We wouldnt even have a factual view of many incidents if it wasnt for cell phones these days and car cameras and vest cameras. And just to add a fact,those who assaulted Dr. Dao are not police, despite the logo that they had been told not to wear.
In the testimony of 4 airlines before the House, none of the execs coulld recall any passenger EVER been forcifly dragged off a plane like Dr. Daounless it was a safaty item.
And polilce belive it or not have limits in the US,they are not the unquestioned and absolute final authority. And if you think the airline was in the right, why didnt they go to court?
As for the crew that wanted to fly for free, who was in the wrong? Who arrived late as opposed to Dr, Dao and his wife. Who caused the problem? Who if anyone deserved to be beaten? And finallly if the gate person had offered some real value, not a minimu $800 voucher, for perhaps $2500 they might well have found one more volunteer to give up a seat and solved the problem.Instead they saved $800 probably paid $5 million or so and got millions$ of negative publicty as well as attention of regulators.

[CDS]

Nonsense to CDS and Marty, these recent airline incidents of throwing passengers off had nothing to do with weather or maintenance,ATC nor of any security issue.
By that I mean the Dr. Dao case,the Mom with the stroller, the family of 4 with the infant in a safety seat, and maybe a few others. If it was weather, it is unlikley United would within about a week already made a settlerment, I'd guess in the $millions with Dr. Dao. And they also promised to change their operating methods and not put employees who want to fly free ahead of paying passengers who have already boarded. One red flag, the United ceo said that in overbooking situations, they give priority to the highest fare paying passengers. Southwest says their priority is in order of boarding which seems fairer to me, and SW also says they are not going to routinely overbook flights.

I was wondering if you'd pipe in, Bill.

I don't believe I or Marty said that the doctor or incidents were related to "maintenance,ATC nor of any security issue" (sic). I believe the questions were about hypothetical scenarios - ones that happen every day, by the way - instead.

I'd estimate that the airline made a settlement with the doctor to try to get it out of the media, even though it was the Chicago Department of Aviation Police who injured him. And last I'd read, four of their officers were still suspended over their actions.

Do you understand what deadheading is? Did you read the earlier posts? Would it have better for Republic (as I understand it, the four deadheading crew members were two Republic pilots and two of their flight attendants) to inconvenience up to 76 people the next morning if that crew (the 4) wasn't in position than to inconvenience/remove the 4 already seated passengers out of O'Hare? What would you think if you were one of 76?

Deadheading is a very common fact of life for airline crews and the costs and logistics are generally well understood. In the Dao case, the Republic crew missed their original deadhead flight and was then placed on the "incident flight" by Republic's Crew Scheduling after the flight had already boarded - an admittedly unfortuante situation. I can't explain why Republic wasn't aware of that need before the boarding began. You may have noticed their silence in this matter.

Aren't you a business man, Bill? Which is the lesser of the two evils? Inconvenience 4 passengers by removing them or inconveniencing 76 the next morning?

[CDS]

And just to add a fact,those who assaulted Dr. Dao are not police, despite the logo that they had been told not to wear.
In the testimony of 4 airlines before the House, none of the execs coulld recall any passenger EVER been forcifly dragged off a plane like Dr. Daounless it was a safaty item.

My understanding if different; that is, the Department of Aviation Police are trained and sworn officers (though not "regular" Chicago P.D.).

An NO ONE has justified their actions, including the City of Chicago which has suspended the four officers that were involved. What they did - injuring and dragging the doctor - is upsetting to everyone, I believe.

Are you suggesting it was an illegal order from the police to the doctor to ask him to exit the airplane?

Also, you wrote, "Who if anyone deserved to be beaten?" No one! Who has condoned a beating? By the way, I believe the doctor was injured when he refused to leave his seat (the second time) and he hit his face on the armrest as the police dragged him out of the seat. Do you consider that a beating?

[DaleB]

DaleB, again, thanks for the reply. You wrote, "So why is it that these things seem to catch them by surprise?" If you can predict the weather, maintenance, ATC delays (radar outages, for just one example or runway closures for another), etc., with perfect accuracy, you'd be very, very, very rich! Just like everyone else, the airline industry doesn't know months, weeks - or even days - in advance of what conditions might produce weight restrictions or result in late over-bookings.

I'm not saying anyone can predict any of those things with absolute accuracy. However, to think that an entire industry with decades of statistical data can't (and doesn't) know what a safe allowance would be -- should they choose to make such an allowance -- is, in my humble opinion, more than a little naive. So here I was, thinking you had very skillfully managed to miss my point completely...

In theory, the airline industry could set aside a number of seats that would normally go unsold to allow for re-accommodating passengers and/or crew members who have mis-connected for various reasons. Let's say 10 percent...? Unlike most, you've offered that you'd be willing to pay more for a ticket. However, the vast majority of passengers have shown over and over and over and over and over (ad nauseum) again that price is the only factor in selecting a flight - thus the rise of Ultra Low Cost Carriers list Spirit and Frontier. I do blame in part the industry for creating that situation. That is, airline seats are now a commodity - Airline A is just like Airline B and Airline C, etc.

But you didn't. Bravo. I submit that an airline delivering even very marginally better service than its competitors would have absolutely no trouble filling every seat available. Even the "set aside" seats could be filled with standby flyers. The demand is there, if anyone would bother to provide the supply. There's just a very slightly narrower profit margin, and American companies tend to be bound and determine to never look past the next quarter's earnings statement -- even if it kills them (which it has, in the case of most airlines).

Let's look at this from another angle. Let us substitute, say, fuel, in place of seats. Let's say that in the pursuit of squeezing the last drop of snot out of the buffalo on the nickel, the airlines carefully calculate fuel down to the last pound, and as a result those "unpredictable" events result in fuel starvation and a the occasional airliner plunging into suburban neighborhoods a few miles short of their destination. Would we stand for that? Absolutely not. Would some airlines DO it, if the settlement numbers worked? Sad, but probably -- yes. But we don't have that problem, because the carriers have been forced to leave a considerable margin of safety so that we never have to worry about such a thing happening (the Gimli Glider notwithstanding). Well, the things that affect fuel burn and reserve are the same ones that affect scheduling and capacity... yet we are willing to accept routine failures in that regard? I submit that if the airlines wanted to (or were forced to by regulation) they could fix their capacity issues. They simply choose not to do so, because they can, and because most people get where they're going more-or-less when they're supposed to, so there isn't enough backlash to impact their bottom line.

[CDS]

I'm not saying anyone can predict any of those things with absolute accuracy. However, to think that an entire industry with decades of statistical data can't (and doesn't) know what a safe allowance would be -- should they choose to make such an allowance -- is, in my humble opinion, more than a little naive. So here I was, thinking you had very skillfully managed to miss my point completely...

But you didn't. Bravo. I submit that an airline delivering even very marginally better service than its competitors would have absolutely no trouble filling every seat available. Even the "set aside" seats could be filled with standby flyers. The demand is there, if anyone would bother to provide the supply. There's just a very slightly narrower profit margin, and American companies tend to be bound and determine to never look past the next quarter's earnings statement -- even if it kills them (which it has, in the case of most airlines).

Let's look at this from another angle. Let us substitute, say, fuel, in place of seats. Let's say that in the pursuit of squeezing the last drop of snot out of the buffalo on the nickel, the airlines carefully calculate fuel down to the last pound, and as a result those "unpredictable" events result in fuel starvation and a the occasional airliner plunging into suburban neighborhoods a few miles short of their destination. Would we stand for that? Absolutely not. Would some airlines DO it, if the settlement numbers worked? Sad, but probably -- yes. But we don't have that problem, because the carriers have been forced to leave a considerable margin of safety so that we never have to worry about such a thing happening (the Gimli Glider notwithstanding). Well, the things that affect fuel burn and reserve are the same ones that affect scheduling and capacity... yet we are willing to accept routine failures in that regard? I submit that if the airlines wanted to (or were forced to by regulation) they could fix their capacity issues. They simply choose not to do so, because they can, and because most people get where they're going more-or-less when they're supposed to, so there isn't enough backlash to impact their bottom line.

DaleB, again, thanks for the reply.

I've been writing from a perspective of "what is"; your approach seems to be more of "what should be." While I'd like to see some changes in the airline industry, I suspect your ideas are too far removed from reality to ever have a chance to be incorporated unless Congress gets involved. Given their history, that could make things even worse.

You wrote about "routine failures" - I wouldn't call the Dao incident routine. Rather, it was a "perfect storm" of circumstances in which multiple parties performed and behaved poorly. I do hope the industry sees this as an opportunity and finds a way to improve upon it's short-comings.