Voluntary Bumping

hummingbird wrote:

I don't agree with that premise. The current ticketing system was
introduced by airlines, not passengers. Airlines do things which are
in their own interests, not the passengers' interests. People accept
the current system because mostly they don't know any better.

It is the ticketing system I want, if it reduces the prices for the
tickets I buy. It makes no sense to not overbook, unless you make an
unused ticket worthless.

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:01:10 +0100 'tim.....'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:15:11 -0700 '
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

On 17 Jun, 12:53, hummingbird wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:42:53 -0400 'DAVE BEEDIE'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Will be connecting thru LHR at Christmas on British Airways.
Any advice on how to increase chances of being bumped voluntarily.
Also what type of compensation do BA normally offer,cash, free
roundtrip
tickets etc.
Would appreciate any info .

When BA tried to bump me late February on a Bangkok to London
journey they offered:

1.a night in an airport hotel+breakfast (time unlikely permitted it).

2.a flight to Hong Kong the following morning to connect to London.

3.about sterling equivalent of 250 pounds by way of a special card
which they said "could be used in most ATMs". hhmmm.

In hindsight I should have taken it...

I used to regularly get offered inducements on short Euro pond-
hoppers. I booked early but was always travelling on the Friday
evening flight.

The dosh sounded attractive but I really couldn't be bothered as I
would be travelling out again the following week and even re-routing
with indirect flights seemed like too much hassle.

Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook
flights at all, save unforeseen breakdowns etc.
When a passenger buys a ticket, that should form a contract of
travel for the date/time specified.

I am certain that you will find, it is the punters who don't
want to make this commitment. The airline would just
love to be in a world where ever single one of their full
fare passengers lost their fare if they didn't turn up for
their flight. The reality is they would sell few full priced
tickets if this were the rule.

The current farce is entirely of the airlines' own making.

Because it's the one that the passangers that contribute the
airline's profits want.

I don't agree with that premise. The current ticketing system was
introduced by airlines, not passengers. Airlines do things which are
in their own interests, not the passengers' interests. People accept
the current system because mostly they don't know any better.

Really?

Let me give you an analogy.

Three or four years ago, DB (railway) abolished their
annual discount card for frequent purchasors of full fare
changable tickets and replaced it with the possibility of
pre-booking tickets for specific trains at larger discounts.

They thought that this was going to be a huge hit and result
in more revenue.

They got many complaints from their best customers, the
business travellers, who didn't like the necessity to pre-book
so much that they stopped going by train and went by other
modes. Train use (and revenue) dropped dramatically and
DB had to go back to the old system of flexible ticketing
because that IS what their BEST customers actually wanted.

Now, I think that this scales to refundable air tickets. You
might still think differently

tim

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:12:38 -0700 'NotABushSupporter'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird wrote:

I don't agree with that premise. The current ticketing system was
introduced by airlines, not passengers. Airlines do things which are
in their own interests, not the passengers' interests. People accept
the current system because mostly they don't know any better.

It is the ticketing system I want, if it reduces the prices for the
tickets I buy. It makes no sense to not overbook, unless you make an
unused ticket worthless.

There is no evidence that the current system reduces ticket prices
over any other system.
I'm sure that if a ticketing system was introduced which excluded
the risk of you being bumped by applying no-show penalties to other
passengers for not catching their flights, you'd like that one too.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:57:23 -0700 'NotABushSupporter'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird wrote:


Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook
flights at all, save unforeseen breakdowns etc.
When a passenger buys a ticket, that should form a contract of
travel for the date/time specified.
The current farce is entirely of the airlines' own making.

I suspect you don't have a clue why overbooking is a good thing.

Some reasons.

1. Not everybody makes flights. If airlines didn't overbook, planes
would fly with empty seats that could have been filled by passengers
that needed them.

Irrelevant.

2. IDB is rare. Usually, if for some reason more people showed up than
there were seats for, the airlines finds enough volunteers to give up
their seats.

Irrelevant.

Would you be willing to trade overbooking for not being able to have
value in your ticket if you miss a flight? Would you trade it for higher
fares?

Irrelevant.

Every comment you've made is based upon the existing ticketing system
and how it operates, which entirely misses my point.

I suspect you don't have a clue why overbooking is a bad thing.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:53:13 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

:Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook

Feel free to start your own airline.

Or try to convince an existing airline that your approach will help them make
more money.

:flights at all, save unforeseen breakdowns etc.
:When a passenger buys a ticket, that should form a contract of
:travel for the date/time specified.

Subject to the denied boarding rules, as in the contract.

:The current farce is entirely of the airlines' own making.

Because they think that they can make more money that way.

The full fare changeable ticket makes them a lot of money.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:59:33 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:53:13 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

:Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook


Feel free to start your own airline.

Or try to convince an existing airline that your approach will help them make
more money.

You don't seem to know what the purpose of government is
in a capitalist society.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:20:42 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

:On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:59:33 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
:posted this onto rec.travel.air:

:On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:53:13 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

::Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook

:Feel free to start your own airline.

:Or try to convince an existing airline that your approach will help them make
:more money.

:You don't seem to know what the purpose of government is
:in a capitalist society.

Certainly do.

"Keep out of the way".

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:41:37 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:20:42 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

:On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:59:33 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
:posted this onto rec.travel.air:

:On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:53:13 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

::Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook

:Feel free to start your own airline.

:Or try to convince an existing airline that your approach will help them make
:more money.

:You don't seem to know what the purpose of government is
:in a capitalist society.

Certainly do.

"Keep out of the way".

Wrong. It's to regulate ...but not unnecessarily.

In message hummingbird
wrote:

I suspect you don't have a clue why overbooking is a bad thing.

There is one, and only one reason; it means the airline is selling
something that, under certain circumstances, they cannot provide.

The flipside is that it definitely does increase an airline's revenue,
which translates into lower prices across the board.

*shrugs*

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

In message Binyamin Dissen
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:53:13 +0100 hummingbird wrote:

:Personally I think that airlines should not be allowed to overbook

Feel free to start your own airline.

Or try to convince an existing airline that your approach will help them make
more money.

In fairness, Westjet doesn't overbook at all, and happens to be
profitable too.

All tickets are changeable right up until a couple hours before the
flight too.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?