United Airlines customer service

[RJM62]

Are you kidding? You think the airline industry is the only industry that's allowed to overbook? Why do I have to wait in a doctor's waiting room until 2:45 when I have a 2:00 appointment? Because he overbooks his time. Why when I get to a restaurant for my reservation at 7:00, do I have to wait 30 minutes to be seated. Why isn't my table ready? Why is there someone sitting at the table I reserved at my reservation time? They overbook their tables.

Every industry that deals with capacity management, especially those who have a high probability for their customers to cancel at the last moment overbook to ensure best optimization of their resources. In fact, I'd say the airlines are the industry that has the most regulation about their overbooking procedures. There's even a poster here who sells "bandwidth" who wrote earlier that he overbooks his "bandwidth" to his customers. He stated that if all his customers wanted to use all the bandwidth available to them at the same time, he would not be able to provide it to them.

No, not quite. The customers would get what they paid for. I'd just have to pay through the nose upstream for the overage.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

I think I may have a stuck key...

 

[Sluggo63]

You must be kidding, not me. Both of your examples are time based, where the needs of a patient, or a diner, are not uniform. Some patients end up having more time (some less) with the Doctor than anticipated. Some diners take longer than expected to eat and pay, and leave. But you still get to see the doctor, you still get to eat a meal, same day, near the same time. If you try to reserve or show up at a restaurant that is fully booked, they will tell you they won't be able to get you in. They don't take your order, and CHARGE you for the meal and then tell you to come back another day to eat it. If you try to make a doctors appointment and they are fully booked they tell you. If they let you "book" you might be delayed but you are assured you will eat, or in the case of the Doctor, be seen. That day. Your analogy would only work if they booked you knowing they couldn't see you, charged you for it, then let you show up and told you to go home. Is this really so hard? And there's that too...restaurants, doctors EVEN if they did (but they don't) you still could drive home and forget about it. Not so when you are stranded in another city, state, or country and told someone else is taking the seat you payed for.

I agree that the analogies are not exact, but a lot closer than you are saying. You're using worst case for the airlines and best case for the doctors/restaurants. The vast majority of oversold bumps are taken care of voluntarily (offering money/vouchers in addition to still traveling to you destination, just at a later time). That's a win-win. The airline moves all it's passengers, some people get rewarded for going later.

As far as involuntary bumping, there was a 0.0049% involuntary denied boarding rate in 2016. These passengers were given (Federal Law) 400% of the fare paid for the ticket (up to $1,350) and flown to their destination later. Most get there, same day just later. Sucks if you're one of the 0.0049%, I get that.

As far as the doctor's and restaurants... two real life examples. My wife and I were going to NYC for dinner and a show for her birthday. Dinner reservations at 6:00, curtain at 8:00. 7:15 rolls around and still not seated. Got plenty of apologies, no compensation, no free meal... Grabbed a slice of pizza and went to the show. Happy Birthday!

Doctor's appointment at 3pm. Made the appointment one month in advance. Left work early to get to the doctor's office (lost wages) had to pick up the kids at 4:30. Figured it would work, after all, I had an appointment at 3:00. 3:30 I was thinking I was going to have to reschedule. Talked to the receptionist and the next available appointment was 3 weeks out. 3:45 got taken back to an exam room... doctor will be right with you... 4:00 I'm making calls to get the kids picked up. My wife had to leave her work early (more lost time) to get the kids.

You get bumped, and you may have to wait one or more days and travel is a lot more disconcerting when that happens.

I agree, it is... but (I don't have stats) I'd bet that 90%+ of bumps get the passenger there same day.

The plot of "the Producers" was conmen selling more than 100% interest in a play, then trying to find a dog of a play so no profits...and they went to jail.

Are you using the plot of "The Producers" as the legal framework for your argument

Travel is far more critical.

It sure is. Doctors and restaurants aren't dealing with global weather systems, complex mechanical machines which break, duty limits, etc...

They sell some of the same seats twice. Taking money from both potential passengers. If a passenger that paid doesn't show up (their supposed reason for doing this) and has a non refundable ticket it's free cash. If the passenger does have a refundable ticket, the customer paid WAY more for it, they still give the seat to the other one and took enough from sucker #1 that they come out ahead. If both show up, one of them gets screwed. That is not ok, but somehow they get to do it. Which is why this incident was specially bad, it wasn't overbooked, but they decided to let their employees steal seats from paying passengers. They didn't even care to offer cash, and they took someone that made it through all the hurdles, got into his seat, did nothing to warrant expulsion, and told him to scre off.

If you don't see the problem with that I sure can't help you.

Airlines don't "double-dip". Unless you have to sit on someone's lap, you are paying for a seat that you are sitting in. They are maybe double booking the time that you're sitting in your seat (just like restaurants: you'll get your reserved table, just not right now. Airlines: you'll get your seat to Des Moines... just in two hours.)

I know they aren't exactly the same, but they are close. Cheers!

 

[Sluggo63]

No, not quite. The customers would get what they paid for. I'd just have to pay through the nose upstream for the overage.

Rich

I was actually curious how that would work. I know you said you'd have to eat the overages, which I understand, much like the airlines would have to pay off the customers in incentives and penalties. What I don't know, and I'm curious about, is that if all your customers wanted all their bandwidth, is it available to them or would there be a delay while you made the changes to get them their bandwidth. I know nothing about it, but is it as simple as the bandwidth is there and you just have to pay to use it, or is there something like you'd have to work on getting more bandwidth and you'd have to tell your customers that they can have their bandwidth next week after all the changes are made?

 

[Caramon13]

Part of the problem is the trivialization of air travel. The same can be applied to really any instance where there aren't any other "viable" options from getting to point A from point B quickly.

Supply and demand at its peak.

I agree with the Mike Rowe post a while back that people are starting to think flying is a "right" instead of a "privilege". There is no "right to fly". At best, there is a "strong possibility to fly".

I can't remember which post I saw, but the basic idea was: "How do I know for sure that I'm going to XXX City?" and the answer was, when you are in XXX City.

At some point the airlines may have to seriously dumb down the entire purchase process for a ticket. To the point of actually printing on the ticket "this ticket does not guarantee you the right to fly". Here in FL, they are actually putting a bill up for consideration to print "WARNING: GAMBLING CAN BE ADDICTIVE." on lottery tickets. Because we're apparently too stupid to understand that.

This is fast becoming a nation of self-entitled children that need to be handheld through every little detail. Everything needs a label and everything needs to explained to a person like they are a three year old because god-forbid we actually take the time to understand things anymore.

No Johnny..this is an apple, you eat it, but be careful to read the label about seeds because you know, we wouldn't want a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the food industry for not telling you there are seeds in apples. We also don't want you to sue the farmer because, how dare he put seeds in apples without notifying anyone.

Idiocracy, anyone?

 

[RJM62]

I was actually curious how that would work. I know you said you'd have to eat the overages, which I understand, much like the airlines would have to pay off the customers in incentives and penalties. What I don't know, and I'm curious about, is that if all your customers wanted all their bandwidth, is it available to them or would there be a delay while you made the changes to get them their bandwidth. I know nothing about it, but is it as simple as the bandwidth is there and you just have to pay to use it, or is there something like you'd have to work on getting more bandwidth and you'd have to tell your customers that they can have their bandwidth next week after all the changes are made?

No, there would be no delay or disruption for the clients. I'd be billed for the excess at much higher rates than had I'd purchased it in advance, but the clients wouldn't even know about it. It would just be an accounting thing between myself and my upstream provider, not any sort of technical thing that would affect their service.

Neither do the clients lose availability if they occasionally exceed their own bandwidth quotas. That sometimes happens when, for example, a construction company is bidding on an unusually big job and blueprints and AutoCad files are being sent back and forth. The server would send me a notice that the client had busted their cap, but their service wouldn't be affected.

If the client's excess use were an ongoing thing, I might tell them that they needed to buy a bigger package. But if they were otherwise trouble-free clients who reliably paid their bills, I'd be more inclined to silently upgrade them to a bigger "custom" package for free. The upgrade would be seamless. The clients wouldn't even know they were upgraded unless they very carefully read their invoice. The package name would be changed to something like "Custom-[client-account-number]".

Bandwidth is cheap when purchased in advance. With proper planning, it's a trivial expense compared to all the other costs of running a business. I'd rather keep a good customer than pester them over pennies.

Rich

 

[Sluggo63]

I always oversell hosting, for example, because I know that the vast majority of clients will never use as much storage or bandwidth as they bought. But if enough of them do, then I have to either upgrade my upstream resources purchases or pay exorbitant overage fees to accommodate the total demand. That's life.

Neither do the clients lose availability if they occasionally exceed their own bandwidth quotas. That sometimes happens when, for example, a construction company is bidding on an unusually big job and blueprints and AutoCad files are being sent back and forth. The server would send me a notice that the client had busted their cap, but their service wouldn't be affected.

Ok. I think I got it. Forgive me for my ignorance, though.

So, say you have 10 clients and you sell them each service that includes 20 mbps data speed and 1 TB storage. You buy from the upstream provider the capability for 100 mbps data and 5 TB storage banking on all 10 of your clients not using their bought capacity, and 99% of the time the get what they need. But if all 10 users needed the 20 mbps and their whole 1TB storage, you'd be able to provide it to them immediately with no noticeable degradation to their operations? Did I understand that correctly?

 

[MadseasoN]

Part of the problem is the trivialization of air travel. The same can be applied to really any instance where there aren't any other "viable" options from getting to point A from point B quickly.

Supply and demand at its peak.

I agree with the Mike Rowe post a while back that people are starting to think flying is a "right" instead of a "privilege". There is no "right to fly". At best, there is a "strong possibility to fly".

I can't remember which post I saw, but the basic idea was: "How do I know for sure that I'm going to XXX City?" and the answer was, when you are in XXX City.

At some point the airlines may have to seriously dumb down the entire purchase process for a ticket. To the point of actually printing on the ticket "this ticket does not guarantee you the right to fly". Here in FL, they are actually putting a bill up for consideration to print "WARNING: GAMBLING CAN BE ADDICTIVE." on lottery tickets. Because we're apparently too stupid to understand that.

This is fast becoming a nation of self-entitled children that need to be handheld through every little detail. Everything needs a label and everything needs to explained to a person like they are a three year old because god-forbid we actually take the time to understand things anymore.

No Johnny..this is an apple, you eat it, but be careful to read the label about seeds because you know, we wouldn't want a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the food industry for not telling you there are seeds in apples. We also don't want you to sue the farmer because, how dare he put seeds in apples without notifying anyone.

Idiocracy, anyone?

Using your logic the airlines will also need to allow cancellation up to boarding time with no penalty. Because me paying them in advance then showing up for the flight is not 'their right'.

The flight ticket is a contract. When I purchase that ticket I select my seats and the time of departure. That alone is evidence that passengers want to be somewhere on a certain day at a certain time and the airline is offering/agreeing to that service.

 

[jordane93]

Using your logic the airlines will also need to allow cancellation up to boarding time with no penalty. Because me paying them in advance then showing up for the flight is not 'their right'.

The flight ticket is a contract. When I purchase that ticket I select my seats and the time of departure. That alone is evidence that passengers want to be somewhere on a certain day at a certain time and the airline is offering/agreeing to that service.

They already do that. They just charge more for that seat/ticket. The cheapest tickets are the ones with the harshest rules.

 

[weilke]

The flight ticket is a contract. When I purchase that ticket I select my seats and the time of departure. That alone is evidence that passengers want to be somewhere on a certain day at a certain time and the airline is offering/agreeing to that service.

Unless they want your seat. Then its a one way trip down the aisle.

 

[RJM62]

Ok. I think I got it. Forgive me for my ignorance, though.

So, say you have 10 clients and you sell them each service that includes 20 mbps data speed and 1 TB storage. You buy from the upstream provider the capability for 100 mbps data and 5 TB storage banking on all 10 of your clients not using their bought capacity, and 99% of the time the get what they need. But if all 10 users needed the 20 mbps and their whole 1TB storage, you'd be able to provide it to them immediately with no noticeable degradation to their operations? Did I understand that correctly?

Basically yes, at least for total transfer and bandwidth. Storage might or might not be more complicated depending on the server configuration.

Rich

 

[mscard88]

United is getting a bad rap due to code sharing. The flight was manned by a Republic crew and the deadheading crew were also Republic employees. United gets a black eye for a Republicvscrew-up.

No doesn't work that way Bob. I flew 24 years for ASA/ExpressJet carrying Delta passengers. EVERYTHING we did was directed by Delta. IOW Delta's rules. If my company (ASA) wanted the Delta contract, they complied. When I retired we provided pilots, FAs, and had our own mechanics, along with the GO folks such as management, scheduling, dispatch, etc. In this case, as been pointed out, the United GA called "security" to remove the passenger, and unfortunately it got very ugly. It usually doesn't.

All airlines deadhead crews to work other flights. It's a mess when there's a big weather event that closes and/or delays flights, especially so with the airline hub system, and can take days to sort out and get back on schedule. Speaking for myself, I hated deadheading and would much rather flown the plane myself.

 

[RJM62]

Basically yes, at least for total transfer and bandwidth. Storage might or might not be more complicated depending on the server configuration.

Rich

I might add that even those rare clients who have "unlimited" storage still have an invisible soft limit and a much bigger hard limit. I get notices from the server software when they come close to their soft limits so I can upgrade them. They don't even know it happened, nor even that the limits existed. They're just tools for me to better budget individual and total storage needs.

Rich

 

[mscard88]

New United bump procedure.

 

[MadseasoN]

They already do that. They just charge more for that seat/ticket. The cheapest tickets are the ones with the harshest rules.

You're moving the goal post. So if you pay more do you now have the right to fly'?

 

[jordane93]

You're moving the goal post. So if you pay more do you now have the right to fly'?

I was just pointing out that you can cancel your flight even up to boarding if you pay more for the seat. The cheaper fare often has the most restrictions

 

[LongRoadBob]

Part of the problem is the trivialization of air travel. The same can be applied to really any instance where there aren't any other "viable" options from getting to point A from point B quickly.

Supply and demand at its peak.

I agree with the Mike Rowe post a while back that people are starting to think flying is a "right" instead of a "privilege". There is no "right to fly". At best, there is a "strong possibility to fly".

I can't remember which post I saw, but the basic idea was: "How do I know for sure that I'm going to XXX City?" and the answer was, when you are in XXX City.

At some point the airlines may have to seriously dumb down the entire purchase process for a ticket. To the point of actually printing on the ticket "this ticket does not guarantee you the right to fly". Here in FL, they are actually putting a bill up for consideration to print "WARNING: GAMBLING CAN BE ADDICTIVE." on lottery tickets. Because we're apparently too stupid to understand that.

This is fast becoming a nation of self-entitled children that need to be handheld through every little detail. Everything needs a label and everything needs to explained to a person like they are a three year old because god-forbid we actually take the time to understand things anymore.

No Johnny..this is an apple, you eat it, but be careful to read the label about seeds because you know, we wouldn't want a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the food industry for not telling you there are seeds in apples. We also don't want you to sue the farmer because, how dare he put seeds in apples without notifying anyone.

Idiocracy, anyone?

People all over mention that "it's a privilege not a right", but while I agree it isn't a "right" it also very much is NOT a privilege either. Look up the word. It's a special advantage or benefit given to someone.

Flying commercially is COMMERCE, not a privilege. It has then rules and regulations it has to follow. If you do not violate any of the rules as a customer, they offer a ticket for sale, you pay, you get a ticket. Anyone with the cash can buy it.

Of course, it's a weird industry. You can pay 1,200 bucks for a seat, and be sitting next to someone that bought their ticket for 600 bucks. Actually I'm surprised that airlines, in the rare instances where they let people on board and then need to force a customer off, don't go after the ones that paid the least first.

You're viewpoint on lawsuits is a meme. Look around your neighborhood, how many trampolines do you see in neighbors backyards? There is an industry that has an easy PR job convincing people that lawsuits are out of control. Those trampoline makers wouldn't dare make and sell them if that were the case. How easy a lawsuit would those be? Kids get hurt all the time on them. If it were as you think nobody would dare sell them.
Many USE the so called out of control lawsuit thing to avoid doing things they don't want to do anyway, but in reality it is not out of control and is the only real tool anymore for redressing wrongs, and even then as it is today it is far too risky to take on larger corporations...they win.

Anyone can sue for anything, but frivolous lawsuits get thrown out most times early on. Plus they cost so much they are not viable if they really have no merit..just my opinion.

 

[LongRoadBob]

I agree that the analogies are not exact, but a lot closer than you are saying. You're using worst case for the airlines and best case for the doctors/restaurants. The vast majority of oversold bumps are taken care of voluntarily (offering money/vouchers in addition to still traveling to you destination, just at a later time). That's a win-win. The airline moves all it's passengers, some people get rewarded for going later.

As far as involuntary bumping, there was a 0.0049% involuntary denied boarding rate in 2016. These passengers were given (Federal Law) 400% of the fare paid for the ticket (up to $1,350) and flown to their destination later. Most get there, same day just later. Sucks if you're one of the 0.0049%, I get that.

As far as the doctor's and restaurants... two real life examples. My wife and I were going to NYC for dinner and a show for her birthday. Dinner reservations at 6:00, curtain at 8:00. 7:15 rolls around and still not seated. Got plenty of apologies, no compensation, no free meal... Grabbed a slice of pizza and went to the show. Happy Birthday!

Doctor's appointment at 3pm. Made the appointment one month in advance. Left work early to get to the doctor's office (lost wages) had to pick up the kids at 4:30. Figured it would work, after all, I had an appointment at 3:00. 3:30 I was thinking I was going to have to reschedule. Talked to the receptionist and the next available appointment was 3 weeks out. 3:45 got taken back to an exam room... doctor will be right with you... 4:00 I'm making calls to get the kids picked up. My wife had to leave her work early (more lost time) to get the kids.


I agree, it is... but (I don't have stats) I'd bet that 90%+ of bumps get the passenger there same day.

Are you using the plot of "The Producers" as the legal framework for your argument

It sure is. Doctors and restaurants aren't dealing with global weather systems, complex mechanical machines which break, duty limits, etc...

Airlines don't "double-dip". Unless you have to sit on someone's lap, you are paying for a seat that you are sitting in. They are maybe double booking the time that you're sitting in your seat (just like restaurants: you'll get your reserved table, just not right now. Airlines: you'll get your seat to Des Moines... just in two hours.)

I know they aren't exactly the same, but they are close. Cheers!

We'll just have to disagree. I don't see it as close at all.
You have one airplane going to a destination. Say it has 100 seats. If they sell 105 places on the plane, five people who paid, just like everyone else, in advance and made plans are not getting on that flight.

You're restaurant and Doctor stories don't equate at all. Both cases you planned AS IF you expected to have zero delays. Restaurants book to capacity, but then if you call they warn that they are at capacity. Doctors won't make appointments when they know they cannot see you that day. You are talking about DELAYS.

Passengers accept delays. Or at least experienced passengers know they happen. Weather, mechanical, etc. that isn't the issue. The issue is simply you paid, you were allowed to board, and in this case it wasn't even overbooked (that would have been taken care of at the gate right? It was anticipated because they KNOW who checked in and got boarding passes), but they decided at the last minute apparently to take paying passengers off for staff.

This would be equivalent to you booking a table at 8:00 p.m. Getting there in time, but the restaurant decided to let the cooking staff that isn't working that night have your table for a free meal. Except it isn't because though disappointed, you didn't pay them up front for the table, so it is a lot worse.

And there are certainly other restaurants, or worst case food at home. Passengers have no such option always. i believe in this case, there were no other flights they could get on, and that meant overnighting, hoping for a flight the next day. I think most people see United as making some VERY bad decisions here, and also being arrogant and cheap. They could have offered cash, for the inconvenience they created for their customers. A volunteer is way more preferential than forcing a customer off.

the issue with obeying commands, as many point out, this was not a safety issue, this was use of that authority to bully, to save money and disregard for the customer.

 

[Caramon13]

People all over mention that "it's a privilege not a right", but while I agree it isn't a "right" it also very much is NOT a privilege either. Look up the word. It's a special advantage or benefit given to someone.

Flying commercially is COMMERCE, not a privilege. It has then rules and regulations it has to follow. If you do not violate any of the rules as a customer, they offer a ticket for sale, you pay, you get a ticket. Anyone with the cash can buy it.

Of course, it's a weird industry. You can pay 1,200 bucks for a seat, and be sitting next to someone that bought their ticket for 600 bucks. Actually I'm surprised that airlines, in the rare instances where they let people on board and then need to force a customer off, don't go after the ones that paid the least first.

You're viewpoint on lawsuits is a meme. Look around your neighborhood, how many trampolines do you see in neighbors backyards? There is an industry that has an easy PR job convincing people that lawsuits are out of control. Those trampoline makers wouldn't dare make and sell them if that were the case. How easy a lawsuit would those be? Kids get hurt all the time on them. If it were as you think nobody would dare sell them.
Many USE the so called out of control lawsuit thing to avoid doing things they don't want to do anyway, but in reality it is not out of control and is the only real tool anymore for redressing wrongs, and even then as it is today it is far too risky to take on larger corporations...they win.

Anyone can sue for anything, but frivolous lawsuits get thrown out most times early on. Plus they cost so much they are not viable if they really have no merit..just my opinion.

Right on privilege. I guess my point was that regardless of what it is, people are starting to treat it as an integral part of their personal/business lives as if there are no other options. Once that happens, no matter how benign the intentions its a "right" simply because they rely on it so heavily.

eg...I have a right to freedom, I have a right to earn money for my family, that involves flying so that means I have a right to fly! <sigh>...

 

[LongRoadBob]

Right on privilege. I guess my point was that regardless of what it is, people are starting to treat it as an integral part of their personal/business lives as if there are no other options. Once that happens, no matter how benign the intentions its a "right" simply because they rely on it so heavily.

eg...I have a right to freedom, I have a right to earn money for my family, that involves flying so that means I have a right to fly! <sigh>...

Yes, agreed. It's just that phrase is used so often and it really is wrong. But one does have the expectation that a contract will be fulfilled, and honestly, usually it all goes well. It's those cases where it doesn't that people start thinking their rights are being infringed. People get weird about rights they just assume they have, but by the same token there is sort of unwritten agreement by tradition that we know we can be bumped, but generally when you make it to your seat you are assured (unless voluntarily giving up your place, or in the event of problems) that of the plane is taking off you are on it. They know this, which is why they try to make sure they bump folks at the gate. It is much more of a problem to get them to gather their things and leave the plane, especially when they haven't done anything to warrant it.

One thing I really wondered, if they explained to the passenger what he was entitled to in compensation which would be cash. That might or not have helped. it wouldn't be the vouchers, it would be cash and to be put up if overnighting etc.

 

[paflyer]

We'll just have to disagree. I don't see it as close at all.
You have one airplane going to a destination. Say it has 100 seats. If they sell 105 places on the plane, five people who paid, just like everyone else, in advance and made plans are not getting on that flight.

You're restaurant and Doctor stories don't equate at all. Both cases you planned AS IF you expected to have zero delays. Restaurants book to capacity, but then if you call they warn that they are at capacity. Doctors won't make appointments when they know they cannot see you that day. You are talking about DELAYS.

Passengers accept delays. Or at least experienced passengers know they happen. Weather, mechanical, etc. that isn't the issue. The issue is simply you paid, you were allowed to board, and in this case it wasn't even overbooked (that would have been taken care of at the gate right? It was anticipated because they KNOW who checked in and got boarding passes), but they decided at the last minute apparently to take paying passengers off for staff.

This would be equivalent to you booking a table at 8:00 p.m. Getting there in time, but the restaurant decided to let the cooking staff that isn't working that night have your table for a free meal. Except it isn't because though disappointed, you didn't pay them up front for the table, so it is a lot worse.

And there are certainly other restaurants, or worst case food at home. Passengers have no such option always. i believe in this case, there were no other flights they could get on, and that meant overnighting, hoping for a flight the next day. I think most people see United as making some VERY bad decisions here, and also being arrogant and cheap. They could have offered cash, for the inconvenience they created for their customers. A volunteer is way more preferential than forcing a customer off.

the issue with obeying commands, as many point out, this was not a safety issue, this was use of that authority to bully, to save money and disregard for the customer.

Excellent summation, Bob, especially your final sentence.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

One thing I really wondered, if they explained to the passenger what he was entitled to in compensation which would be cash. That might or not have helped. it wouldn't be the vouchers, it would be cash and to be put up if overnighting etc.

I have personal experience with Delta on an involuntary bump, where vouchers were presented with no mention of a cash alternative.

I imagine their internal documentation would note that the customer willingly accepted compensation in the form of a voucher in lieu of cash.

 

[paflyer]

I have personal experience with Delta on an involuntary bump, where vouchers were presented with no mention of a cash alternative.

I imagine their internal documentation would note that the customer willingly accepted compensation in the form of a voucher in lieu of cash.

Vouchers are toilet paper. The regs should be changed to hard cash only as comp.

 

[Larry in TN]

I have personal experience with Delta on an involuntary bump, where vouchers were presented with no mention of a cash alternative.

If you have described this accurately, it is a violation of 14 CFR 250 and could (should?) be reported to the DOT.

14 CFR 250 requires that the airline first ask for volunteers. The amount and form of compensation paid to volunteers is completely unregulated. The a passenger agreed to volunteer in exchange for a package of pretzels then that's okay.

If there are not enough volunteers then passengers are selected for involuntary bumps based on the carrier's established priority system. The carrier is required to have this priority system and they are required to use it. The minimum compensation for the involuntary bump is spelled out in 14 CFR 250 and must be in cash/check. No vouchers.

There are also requirement regarding the information that must be provided to potential volunteers and those who are involuntarily bumped.

 

[Palmpilot]

Right on privilege. I guess my point was that regardless of what it is, people are starting to treat it as an integral part of their personal/business lives as if there are no other options. Once that happens, no matter how benign the intentions its a "right" simply because they rely on it so heavily.

eg...I have a right to freedom, I have a right to earn money for my family, that involves flying so that means I have a right to fly! <sigh>...

In summarizing many years of case law, the Supreme Court concluded that there is a right to travel, and that it must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. (See Shapiro v. Thompson.)

I think we have a right for decisions about who is allowed to fly and who isn't to be made justly and appropriately, i.e., not arbitrarily.

These rights may only affect government action, however - I'm not sure.

 

[paflyer]

In summarizing many years of case law, the Supreme Court concluded that there is a right to travel, and that it must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. (See Shapiro v. Thompson.)

I think we have a right for decisions about who is allowed to fly and who isn't to be made justly and appropriately, i.e., not arbitrarily.

These rights may only affect government action, however - I'm not sure.

Another in a long line of crap decisions not based on the actual matter that brought the action.

 

[Palmpilot]

Another in a long line of crap decisions not based on the actual matter that brought the action.

Why is it crap? Are you saying that it's wrong to apply general principles based on precedent?

 

[wsuffa]

Nader is a buffoon.

Actually, in this case he's probably right. I won't take vouchers for a bump because they often carry too many restrictions and limitations. They certainly won't let me ride over to MDW and take a WN flight when AA cancels at ORD. Cash will. I might have to deal with TSA issues for a last minute cash purchase, but I can use the cash on any airline, or use it to rent a car or buy a train ticket.


Can't do any of those things with a voucher. I've seen vouchers offered that can only be used on the basic, most discounted ticket or have destination restrictions. When taking an offer at the gate, you often can't learn enough and the gate agents often don't know. Even many of the phone agents won't know until they pull up the voucher when you try to use it.

Vouchers are toilet paper. The regs should be changed to hard cash only as comp.

Cash or check (or equivalent) is supposed to be required for invols. If United didn't offer that, they were in violation.

 

[paflyer]

Why is it crap? Are you saying that it's wrong to apply general principles based on precedent?

Yeah, I have a problem with precedent but obviously I'm overruled. Case law promulgates a decision made on a specific set of circumstances (ex Roe v Wade) and applies it to broadly to everyone else. This is called "legislating from the bench."

In the cited case, the outcome is that anyone can plop themselves into a location that gives them free stuff paid for by the taxpayers.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah, I have a problem with precedent but obviously I'm overruled. Case law promulgates a decision made on a specific set of circumstances (ex Roe v Wade) and applies it to broadly to everyone else. This is called "legislating from the bench."

What about the Ninth Amendment? How are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution to be recognized?

 

[dmspilot]

A right to travel means that you have the ability to travel without government interference. It does not mean that an airline is obligated and required to transport you somewhere.

 

[deonb]

Cash or check (or equivalent) is supposed to be required for invols. If United didn't offer that, they were in violation.

But that's invols again. Airlines go straight from "voluntary for vouchers" to "involuntary for cash".

Why not try "voluntary for cash" first?

 

[Palmpilot]

A right to travel means that you have the ability to travel without government interference. It does not mean that an airline is obligated and required to transport you somewhere.

I assume that would depend on contractual obligations, among other possibilities.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

If you have described this accurately, it is a violation of 14 CFR 250 and could (should?) be reported to the DOT.

14 CFR 250 requires that the airline first ask for volunteers. The amount and form of compensation paid to volunteers is completely unregulated. The a passenger agreed to volunteer in exchange for a package of pretzels then that's okay.

If there are not enough volunteers then passengers are selected for involuntary bumps based on the carrier's established priority system. The carrier is required to have this priority system and they are required to use it. The minimum compensation for the involuntary bump is spelled out in 14 CFR 250 and must be in cash/check. No vouchers.

There are also requirement regarding the information that must be provided to potential volunteers and those who are involuntarily bumped.

I wish I would have at the time. I (and most air travel consumers) was not educated enough to know the details of the COC when it occurred. Happened before Comair flared out.

Note the bold below. I was handed a voucher after being removed from my seat on a flight due to a similar situation as United. Customer service was almost as bad, but I exited before they called for security. There might have been small print language on the back of the voucher, but there was no verbal communication of that option made to me.

As mentioned by another poster, the voucher was toilet paper and was never used. Oh, and the business event I was supposed to fly to was missed as well. I have refused to fly them since.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.9

Method of Payment
Except as provided below, the airline must give each passenger who qualifies for involuntary denied boarding compensation a payment by cash or check for the amount specified above, on the day and at the place the involuntary denied boarding occurs. If the airline arranges alternate transportation for the passenger's convenience that departs before the payment can be made, the payment shall be sent to the passenger within 24 hours. The air carrier may offer free or discounted transportation in place of the cash payment. In that event, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions on the use of the free or discounted transportation before the passenger decides whether to accept the transportation in lieu of a cash or check payment. The passenger may insist on the cash/check payment or refuse all compensation and bring private legal action.​

 

[dmspilot]

I assume that would depend on contractual obligations, among other possibilities.

Agree, but entering into a contract is voluntary on both sides.

 

[wsuffa]

But that's invols again. Airlines go straight from "voluntary for vouchers" to "involuntary for cash".

Why not try "voluntary for cash" first?

Some of them go straight from "voluntary for vouchers" to "involuntary for vouchers" and fight all they can to avoid making cash payment. Some of the gate agents either don't know or don't claim to know about the law.

And yes they should try cash payment, but they won't. For most airlines, the "cash payment" for IDB comes out of the refunds or central accounting office and may take weeks to get.

You are subject to the fine print on the vouchers, which typically specify lowest fare. Even if that contains material limitations that will cause you to pay cash to the airline for use of the voucher (add-ons such as luggage, seat assignment, etc).

For an example of where it's headed, look at the policies for redemption of frequent flyer miles on BA. To use FF miles, you still must pay "YQ" surcharges which may total hundreds of dollars. It could be $500 or more in "cash" plus a lot of frequent flyer miles to fly roundtrip on BA (plus the nasty UK departure taxes). All in all, you might do better to just purchase a "cash" fare either on BA or another airline to fly to the UK rather than using frequent flyer miles. They've been doing it for years, and it even includes cashing in AA miles for a BA "award" ticket.

Now replace "frequent flyer award" with "voucher" and you'll get a gist of where this is headed. It's why I won't accept vouchers. The "house" always wins.

 

[Palmpilot]

Agree, but entering into a contract is voluntary on both sides.

I'm not sure whether that's always true. For example, would a common carrier be legally allowed to turn away passengers based on their race or ethnicity?

 

[deonb]

It's why I won't accept vouchers. The "house" always wins.

And it's also why they don't get volunteers. There is no excuse for involuntary bumping if they didn't make an honest effort first to find volunteers. They're skirting the intent of the law.

 

[WannFly]

time to talk about this again.... they reached a settlement, good dr received truck load of $$ and the good CEO took the whole responsibility.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/new...es-dao-settlement/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

 

[Palmpilot]

time to talk about this again.... they reached a settlement, good dr received truck load of $$ and the good CEO took the whole responsibility.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/new...es-dao-settlement/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

The justification for Dr. Dao's removal from the flight has been questioned, but I'm wondering if this settlement is going to make it less likely for passengers to be removed in cases where there is a clear safety or security risk.