BA overbooking - a bad experience

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 1, 5:47 pm, hummingbird wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
Understanding that is part of "growing up".

Lol. An American joker...

You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
of the current airline model

No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown
to be the best way to solve problems like this.

even though many people dread flying
nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
cattle.

Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and
they overwhelmingly turn it down.

If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width;

And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger
demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly
higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what
customer demand makes them do.

The airlines would be happy to have one passenger for a whole 747
paying a million dollars for the flight. But there aren't enough who
will do that. Whenever the airlines have tried increasing seat pitch,
for example, and charging slightly more for it, the passengers beat a
path to their competitor's door in order to save money.

airlines are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays
etc.

There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. Are you ready to
accept that??? How about it they raise prices 10% without any
additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
Which would you prefer?

Actually, in real practice that's pretty much what we have today. Most
tickets are non-refundable; if somebody doesn't show up they forfeit their
airfare, unless they've canceled in advance (in which case they can pay a
charge to rebook on another flight). If they don't cancel and rebook prior
to departure, they forfeit 100% of the fare. So the airline still has the
income and can re-sell the seat to a standby passenger, in effect, double
dipping.

It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.

We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force
obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming
discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off.

And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
*as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?

In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you???

I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
rule on compensation but I have no info on this.

Could very well be.

Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.

Again, airlines have tried to do it differently and the passengers
forced them to change.

All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.

????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard
time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a
month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the
airlines have plenty of passengers.

No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
demanding smaller, cheaper seats.

I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
recourse.
And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
American obsession with them.

I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not
the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline
employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due
largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers
with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't
forced to serve many smaller communities. This is especially evident in the
United States where deregulation has resulted in the failure of legendary
pioneer carriers such as Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, and TWA, and the numerous
bankruptcies of the other legacy carriers - Continental (2x), United, US
Airways (2x), Northwest, Delta, etc., but it also applies to airlines like
Canadian in Canada, Sabena and Swissair in Europe (and possibly, in the near
future, Alitalia), Ansett in Australia, etc. Coupled with less personal
service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on
many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation.

America is far and away the most successful country on the planet
economically. It's people live better than anyone else. Make more
money, take more flights, have bigger houses, drive nicer cars, etc.
The American obsession with the free market is based on the fact that
is WORKS!

I could also rant on about the current situation with Microsoft and its
new Vista Op/Sys.

If someone had a better standard that people were willing to pay for
then MicroSoft would be forced out of business.

For the record I fly
over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.

Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
don't see what that's got to do with it.

You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
experience in flying.

No I did not.

You mean you didn't make this comment to Thur: "If you can't see the
bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
these days: "

"Perhaps he's not aware..."???

Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).

I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
- only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.

So your complaint is that they didn't communicate well? Yeah, that's a
problem.

Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
the airport and ticketed?

Yes.

Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:

Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
comfort. So you get what you pay for.

Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.

Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
doesn't have Business or First?

This is nonsense.

Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat.
Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different
costs. You chose *CHEAP*.

The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
cost in Economy" as you say.

Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
more space so the airlines don't offer it.

IYO. Others may disagree.

Sorry, but it's been proven. Airlines tried. Jet Blue and SouthWest
won by having smaller seats and less service. Other airlines are
forced to change in order to compete.

I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
Business and first are way too expensive.

As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
because of the choice you made.

Who is now behaving like an immature poster?

??? How is that immature? You made a choice. Now you are complaining
about the results of *YOUR* choice.

When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of
service but I rarely receive it.

You "expect"??? You know what the service is. You know you can get
better service if you pay for it. But you won't.

It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
to maximise numbers and profits.

Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
market.

Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is
more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting
customer expectations.

No, it's concerned with running itself as the customers demand they
run it. Customers vote with their wallets every day.

It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
proper travel advice, use a travel agent.

If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it?

A website that sells tickets.

Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
you complain about the service.

More nonsense.

More facts.

I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.

I didn't fly from Sydney.

The plane did.

As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London.
I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I
spoke to several other passengers.

Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
things out.

On Mar 3, 11:17 am, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost said in rec.travel.air:

American Airlines even tried increasing legroom for everyone in coach.
But.... it didn't work.

What do you mean by "it didn't work?"

What was the goal of the increased legroom?

Revenue and profits.

Had the model worked to achieve the business goal then the
organization would not have undid the model.

VS wrote:

In article ,
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:


What carriers have less than 32 inches of pitch in FIRST CLASS?


KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.


I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
refer to American legacy carriers.

Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.

In article .com,
js wrote:

KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.

The seat you refer to is "Europe Select" and is sold as WBC - World
Business Class. It is not a first class seat, it is a business class
seat. It is priced as a business class seat.

Whatever they call it, it sucks. These ``business class'' seats
are worse than what Southwest offers in economy.

The average seat pitch is 31 inches in select. It is also 31 inches
in economy.

Worse than Southwest.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:34:29 GMT, "Jeff Hacker"
wrote:

And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
American obsession with them.

I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not
the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline
employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due
largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers
with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't
forced to serve many smaller communities.

Good! because it means all those younger/newer workforces have jobs,
rather than being unemployed, that's not a bad thing!

Coupled with less personal
service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on
many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation.

You mean you want the government to force passengers to subsidise the
lifestyles of Flight Attendants?

Jim.

In article . com,
js wrote:

Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
33 with 17.2 width.

As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.

Apples to apples idiot - a 319 is not a 737

Apples to apples, economy seats on Northwest are worse than on
Southwest. Seat *pitch* does not depend on the plane, but even if
it did, Whose fault is it that Northwest uses crappy discount French
planes instead of 737s?

the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
^^^^
UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
Contiental FC 38/21
Northwest FC 37/21

Son, is English your native tongue?

No.

So I noticed. You see, son, if I tell you that economy seats on
Southwest are better than SOME airlines' first class, you cannot
object to this by finding a couple of airlines whose first class seats
are better. You'll need to prove that ALL airlines' first class seats
are better than Southwest's economy, and that just ain't true.

And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
than SW? None.

KLM and Air France on European flights.

In article ,
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:

KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.

I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
refer to American legacy carriers.

European airlines are worse than the ****tiest American legacy carrier.
BA offers 31 inches of pitch in economy on 10-hour flights - worse
than Southwest on a 40-minute hop from Dallas to Houston.

Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.

I find it amusing that European carriers offer worse seats and worse
service in their so called ``business class'' or ``first class''
or whatever they call it on intra-European flights than Southwest.

On Mar 4, 6:08 am, (VS) wrote:
In article . com,

js wrote:
Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
33 with 17.2 width.

As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.

Apples to apples idiot - a 319 is not a 737

Apples to apples, economy seats on Northwest are worse than on
Southwest.

No, not across the fleet. Since you cannot compare 737s between the
two, any comparison made requires different airplanes. In the case of
SW, they have one configuration - 32/17

NW, on the other hand flies a half dozen different airplanes and in
different configurations. IN ECONOMY, you can, on NW fly in a 30/17
seat on one of their old DC9 workhorses to as spacious as 34/17.2 on a
747. On the 319, there are seats that provide a 32 inch pitch and are
wider than economy seats on SW. The A330 coach configuration has
32/17.5 - better than SW and on some planes has a 33 inch pitch
(A330-300)

In the absence of apples to apples, you are wrong. Economy seats on
NW are not all worse than economy seats on SW - some are, some aren't.

Problem solved - next?

Seat *pitch* does not depend on the plane,

Seat pitch varies across the fleets and even within an airplane.

but even if
it did, Whose fault is it that Northwest uses crappy discount French
planes instead of 737s?

Considering the A330 on NW consistently provides better accomodations
than the SW 737....


the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
^^^^
UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
Contiental FC 38/21
Northwest FC 37/21

Son, is English your native tongue?

No.

So I noticed. You see, son, if I tell you that economy seats on
Southwest are better than SOME airlines' first class, you cannot
object to this by finding a couple of airlines whose first class seats
are better.

I ask for an example - you can't find one.

You'll need to prove that ALL airlines' first class seats
are better than Southwest's economy,

Nope - I don't have to do anything.

and that just ain't true.

Oh, it is.

And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
than SW? None.

KLM and Air France on European flights.

These aren't first class seats. These are business class seats on
regional jets or F100/F70s.

Play again?

Didn't think so.

js

On Mar 4, 6:11 am, (VS) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:

KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.

I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
refer to American legacy carriers.

European airlines are worse than the ****tiest American legacy carrier.
BA offers 31 inches of pitch in economy on 10-hour flights - worse
than Southwest on a 40-minute hop from Dallas to Houston.

Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.

I find it amusing that European carriers offer worse seats and worse
service in their so called ``business class'' or ``first class''
or whatever they call it on intra-European flights than Southwest.

How often do you get a free cocktail on SW? How about a meal? How
about a full refund?

js

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 06:08:47 -0800 (PST), (VS)
wrote:
And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
than SW? None.

KLM and Air France on European flights.

What first class seats on KLM and Air France have First Class seats?

Are you confusing business class with first class?

Jim.