Airline does it better

[Bill Greenwood]

Everyone knows about the problem with Dr. Dao being injured when foricibly removed from a United ( Republic ) flight when the plane was full and airline wanted his seat for employees to ride free. And how the CEO mishandled the response, saying the employees had do the right thing.

There is another incident, this time on American and this time the statement and treatment from the mangement is much better.
A lady was in the front row with 2 babies, and a stoller, when a male flight attendant jerked to stroller away from her, apparently rudely enough that other passengers, a lady and a man, spoke up and told he that he almost hit the baby. The male passenger and the male steward got into a heated talk that almost came to blows with the flight attendant telling the passenger to hit him. Meanwhile the Mother was crying and asking for her stroller back. Some strollers fold small enough to fit in an overhead and larger ones have to be checked. This Mom was from Argentina and may not have understood that her stroller could do a gateside check, and may have thought she was going to lose it, we dont really know as the story is not detailed on that point.
The pilot even came out to try to calm the male flight attendant down, and things finally did calm. The airline then did what United didnt do. They upgraded the Mom and 2 babies to first class, with an apology and suspended the flight attendant.

We can only guess at the details but it may be that the male flight attendant was in a hurry to get the plane going and got frustrated with the stroller and went over the line of polite customer service. Obviously a crewman jerking a stroller away from a Mom with 2 babies is never going to be the right way, and the airline recognized and tried to correct it.

[DRGT]

Better, but I would suggest a few more steps. I have found the better the employer treats its employees, the better employees will treat the customers. AA needs to do a root cause analysis - looking at its training, policies, employee incentives, etc to determine why the employee's behavior was inconsistent with their expectations. It's too easy to blame the employee when their behavior isn't aligned with the image the employer wishes to portray. AA needs to follow up to determine not only if this is a behavior pattern by this employee, but other employees as well.

[Bob Dingley]

I have not flown on this type AC, so i'm just asking: is the front row exit row seating? If so, it would be a much different deal.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know if the front row is exit seating, don't think Ive ever seen a plane where it was. Probably not or the lady with babies would not have been assigned that seat.
But it makes no difference, any passenger is due courteous treatment especially a Mom. The crewman should politely help her fold the stroller and put in the overhead or Politely explain it is large and do the gate baggage check for her. Not jerk it out of her hand.
Lots of airline people are po ed at the companies , loss of pensions etc. but that is not due to any passengers. Go picket the CEO at headquarters or his house, but don't be rude to customers. If the airline alienates customers and business falls off, employees suffer also.

You can imagine what a passenger organized boycott of an airline could do.

[Bill Greenwood]

The passenger deserves polite treatment no matter what row they are in, and probably was not an exit row or they would not have assigned it to a Mom with babies.

[Bob Dingley]

... probably was not an exit row or they would not have assigned it to a Mom with babies.
I don't have that much confidence. After we landed, customer service came to fetch the old gal in the exit row....with a wheel chair. You bet I wrote it up and sent it to the carrier.
Bob

[CDS]

Everyone knows about the problem with Dr. Dao being injured when foricibly removed from a United ( Republic ) flight when the plane was full and airline wanted his seat for employees to ride free. And how the CEO mishandled the response, saying the employees had do the right thing.

Bill, the airline employees weren't just out to "ride free." They were crew members (from Republic as I understand it) and missed their original deadheading flight, so they were then rescheduled to deadhead on the now notorious flight where Dr. Dao was physically dragged off the plane by the Chicago Department of Aviation Police. You do understand what "deadheading" is, don't you? It's part of life for airline crew members to get them to another location in order to work/fly another flight. If they don't get to the destination, then the passengers on that flight will be without a crew and the airline will be blamed for that, won't they?

So as Republic saw it, it was better to remove 4 passengers than as many as 76 the next day. How would you feel if you were one of the 76?

And no, I don't work for Republic.

[Floatsflyer]

You do understand what "deadheading" is, don't you? It's part of life for airline crew members to get them to another location in order to work/fly another flight. If they don't get to the destination, then the passengers on that flight will be without a crew and the airline will be blamed for that, won't they?

So as Republic saw it, it was better to remove 4 passengers than as many as 76 the next day. How would you feel if you were one of the 76?

And no, I don't work for Republic.

Nonsense, absolutely unadulterated nonsense. I don't give a flying fadoo about the airline and their deadheading or any other thing they need to do that is only about their own operational objectives and self-interest. And neither should you. None of my concern as a paying customer. I buy a seat, sit down, fly me to my destination, don't misbehave. Passengers have not entered into any other contract with the airline above and beyond that.

Please stop being an apologist for bad behaviour and horrific corporate policy. Your turn as victim could be next. Then we'll ask you your own question, "How would you feel..."?

[Bob Dingley]

I recall that recurrent training for commercial operators always had an hour on slips and falls. Time to regroup and slip in some classroom time on customer relations.

[CDS]

Nonsense, absolutely unadulterated nonsense. I don't give a flying fadoo about the airline and their deadheading or any other thing they need to do that is only about their own operational objectives and self-interest. And neither should you. None of my concern as a paying customer. I buy a seat, sit down, fly me to my destination, don't misbehave. Passengers have not entered into any other contract with the airline above and beyond that.

Please stop being an apologist for bad behaviour and horrific corporate policy. Your turn as victim could be next. Then we'll ask you your own question, "How would you feel..."?

I'm not apologizing for the behavior of the Chicago Department of Aviation Police. I think they went too far.

Again - look at the facts (do you dispute them?) - Republic needed those 4 crew members at the destination or they'd inconvenience up to 76 passengers on a flight the next morning. In your business, which is the lesser of the two evils? Inconveniencing 4? Or 76?

The Dr. Dao flight was a perfect storm of circumstances and I agree that the airline botched their initial response BIG TIME. But one more question - where I come from, it's not legal to refuse the orders of a law enforcement officer (as Dr. Dao apparently did). Is that legal in your area?

And did you know that Dao exited the airplane and then ran back on, telling the police they'd have to drag him off?

I've never been a fan of overbooking and have long thought that the airlines should treat reservations just as hotels do. That is, if you make one and don't cancel, you pay for the flight or room anyway. And in that way - no overbooking, but charged regardless - you'd own the seat. Are you OK with that?

[cluttonfred]

CDS, please delete your posts. One of our employees needs the forum space.

[DaleB]

There are other ways to get crew members from point a to point B without throwing paying customers off the plane. If the airline needs to send them via car, train, bus, or air taxi, that's a cost of doing business. If you run an airline, then you'd bloody well better make sure you have enough aircraft, crew, and facilities to run that airline. If you don't, things will go badly for you and you will get no sympathy from me. I understand it may be a low margin business, but nobody forced anyone to start an airline and it's not like the factors were not known well in advance. I get really tired of businesses running a shoestring operation and then crying when it bites them in the ass and expecting to put it all on someone else.

[CDS]

There are other ways to get crew members from point a to point B without throwing paying customers off the plane. If the airline needs to send them via car, train, bus, or air taxi, that's a cost of doing business. If you run an airline, then you'd bloody well better make sure you have enough aircraft, crew, and facilities to run that airline. If you don't, things will go badly for you and you will get no sympathy from me. I understand it may be a low margin business, but nobody forced anyone to start an airline and it's not like the factors were not known well in advance. I get really tired of businesses running a shoestring operation and then crying when it bites them in the ass and expecting to put it all on someone else.

Interesting post, Dale. Thank you.

Yes, the cost of deadheading crew members is well known and understood. And sometimes, for a variety of reasons - weather, maintenance, ATC, etc. - deadhead plans change. Have you completed ALL of your flights on time with NO delays for any reason? Of course not and so it is within the airline industry; it's a very complex effort and in my opinion, the industry has done a poor job of communicating that fact. Think of it this way - everything has to go right for a flight to operate on time, but only one problem is necessary to delay one.

[CDS]

CDS, please delete your posts. One of our employees needs the forum space.

? I don't understand your post - can you please elaborate?

[DaleB]

Interesting post, Dale. Thank you.

Yes, the cost of deadheading crew members is well known and understood. And sometimes, for a variety of reasons - weather, maintenance, ATC, etc. - deadhead plans change. Have you completed ALL of your flights on time with NO delays for any reason? Of course not and so it is within the airline industry; it's a very complex effort and in my opinion, the industry has done a poor job of communicating that fact. Think of it this way - everything has to go right for a flight to operate on time, but only one problem is necessary to delay one.Yes. All true. And also immaterial. You run an airline, you know the risks and how to mitigate them. There are some pretty basic rules of business. One of them is, if you screw something up (and sometimes even if you don't) it's going to cost you money. Tough deal. Those are YOUR problems, not your customers'. The expenses of dealing with them are costs of doing business. You build that into your pricing. If you try to get too cheap or too clever it always comes back to bite you. Got yourself in a bind and need to move a crew, but your plane is all full of passengers that PAID you for your PROMISE to transport them? Hey, you're in the airline business. Find another plane, or swallow your corporate pride and put them on another carrier. Rent a car. Hire a taxi. Don't screw your customers and then try to pretend it's not your fault.

[cluttonfred]

? I don't understand your post - can you please elaborate?

Sir, if you don't delete your posts to make space in the forum for our employees, we'll have to call security and have you forcibly removed.

[martymayes]

Yes. All true. And also immaterial. You run an airline, you know the risks and how to mitigate them. There are some pretty basic rules of business. One of them is, if you screw something up (and sometimes even if you don't) it's going to cost you money. Tough deal. Those are YOUR problems, not your customers'. The expenses of dealing with them are costs of doing business. You build that into your pricing. If you try to get too cheap or too clever it always comes back to bite you. Got yourself in a bind and need to move a crew, but your plane is all full of passengers that PAID you for your PROMISE to transport them? Hey, you're in the airline business. Find another plane, or swallow your corporate pride and put them on another carrier. Rent a car. Hire a taxi. Don't screw your customers and then try to pretend it's not your fault.

So when weather causes delays and overwhelms the ATC system, forces unsustainable reroutes, causes delays of unknown duration, shuts down airports, this is all the airline's fault for not planning ahead? Air transportation has evolved from a service for the affluent to economical mass transit for everyone. Free market pricing has driven prices lower than it cost to drive ones own private car between city pairs and flying is safer! There has to be a profit in there somewhere or nobody will do it. Most people are surprised when they learn what the average markup is on an airline ticket. There is very, very little profit.

A travel is certainly free to buy his transportation through a luxurious charter operator if they want red carpet treatment. Forcing the airlines to provide steak and champagne for McDonalds prices is not very realistic in a "free" market.

[CDS]

Sir, if you don't delete your posts to make space in the forum for our employees, we'll have to call security and have you forcibly removed.

Ah, thank you, Fred. I'm not an employee of the airline that was involved. Am I still allowed to comment anyway?

[Floatsflyer]

So when weather causes delays and overwhelms the ATC system, forces unsustainable reroutes, causes delays of unknown duration, shuts down airports, this is all the airline's fault for not planning ahead?

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.

[CDS]

Yes. All true. And also immaterial. You run an airline, you know the risks and how to mitigate them. There are some pretty basic rules of business. One of them is, if you screw something up (and sometimes even if you don't) it's going to cost you money. Tough deal. Those are YOUR problems, not your customers'. The expenses of dealing with them are costs of doing business. You build that into your pricing. If you try to get too cheap or too clever it always comes back to bite you. Got yourself in a bind and need to move a crew, but your plane is all full of passengers that PAID you for your PROMISE to transport them? Hey, you're in the airline business. Find another plane, or swallow your corporate pride and put them on another carrier. Rent a car. Hire a taxi. Don't screw your customers and then try to pretend it's not your fault.

Again, thanks for the reply, Dale.

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. 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).

Again, I don't agree with how the Chicago Department of Aviation Police handled the matter - it's upsetting to me, too.

Further, the "PROMISE" (your words) of air transportation is conditional; that is, it's not a guarantee (granted most people are too lazy or hurried to read the contract). For example, about a year ago, I was removed from a flight on a regional jet (on a paid ticket) as the forecast at the destination required an alternate airport. The fuel required to reach that alternate meant that two passengers had to be removed and I was one of those two.* Did I throw a childish tantrum? No, I got off the airplane and traveled on the next flight.

*Do you understand weight restrictions? At one time or another, it happens on all airlines (the 50 seat regional jets seems especially prone to them).

[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.

[DaleB]

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.I must respectfully disagree. It was a routine failure that only caught any attention because of the incredibly incompetent, blundering response. Everyone was shocked by how it ended, but most were not shocked by how it started.

My point remains: These incidents are not caused by random chance, or bad luck, or unforeseeable circumstances over which the airlines have no control. The factors are well known, they are statistically predictable, and the airlines are simply not interested in doing anything about the situation and will not do anything about it unless forced.

[martymayes]

The airlines are following gov. rules originally written by the CAB back in the 50's with regard to overbooking and involuntary bumping of passengers. They all followed the same rules for years and years, now some marketing types are convinced they can capitalize off recent social media outrage by promising passengers they will never do that. Gotta hand it to the marketing guys, they know exactly what consumer buttons to push!