Voluntary Bumping

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
...
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.

So what's new here?

It is a simple breach of contract, which, in my juristriction
is a perfectly legal thing to do provided that you are prepared
to refund the harmed party their losses due to your breach.

Why should it be illegal for airlines to breach a contract when
it is perfectly legal for any other business to do so.

tim

hummingbird wrote:

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.

Why? If the seats fly empty, do you think this increases efficiency and
lowers prices?

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.

Do tell us.

tim..... wrote:

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
...

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.


So what's new here?

It is a simple breach of contract, which, in my juristriction
is a perfectly legal thing to do provided that you are prepared
to refund the harmed party their losses due to your breach.

In the US, it is normally part of the contract.
The contract states that overbooking can occur and also desribes how it
is handled.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:39:40 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

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.

That sounds like fraud, especially since it occurs as a matter of
business policy.

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

Possibly but not necessarily so. But in any case, many other
businesses would not be allowed to get away with such practices.

*shrugs*

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:38:42 +0100 'tim.....'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
.. .
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.

So what's new here?

It is a simple breach of contract, which, in my juristriction
is a perfectly legal thing to do provided that you are prepared
to refund the harmed party their losses due to your breach.

Not allowed. If you decide to fly with another airline, your airline
won't refund you the costs even though they've broken the contract.
And overbooking is a matter of airline policy.

Why should it be illegal for airlines to breach a contract when
it is perfectly legal for any other business to do so.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:45:13 -0700 'NotABushSupporter'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird wrote:

No he didn't!

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.

Why? If the seats fly empty, do you think this increases efficiency and
lowers prices?

It's irrelevant because it is based upon what happens under the
existing ticketing system. I said elsewhere that if a pax fails to
show, he could be charged a penalty equal to the lowest priced ticket
on the flight, so the airline wouldn't suffer a loss ... but it would
obviate the need to overbook and cause distress/anger to others.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:49:55 -0700 'NotABushSupporter'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

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.

Do tell us.

I did in another post :-)
Hint: it's to regulate business to prevent such things as anti-trust
behaviour and illegal business practices, including unfair contracts,
market monopolies etc.

hummingbird wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:39:40 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:


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.


That sounds like fraud, especially since it occurs as a matter of
business policy.

It's not like buying bread.
If you don't show up for the flight, the ticket generally still has
value. It does not make economic sense for the plane to fly with empty
seats. Additionally, it also lets more people reserve a seat, otherwise
some people that really wanted a flight wouldn't be able to get it.
I fly 50000 to 75000 miles a year. I have NEVER been involuntarily
denied boarding. I have however, when time permitted, been able to get
bonuses by giving up my seat on an oversold flight. Given the choice,
there is no question which method I prefer. I prefer the airlines keep
the practice of overbooking.

hummingbird wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:45:13 -0700 'NotABushSupporter'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:


hummingbird wrote:


No he didn't!


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.

Why? If the seats fly empty, do you think this increases efficiency and
lowers prices?


It's irrelevant because it is based upon what happens under the
existing ticketing system. I said elsewhere that if a pax fails to
show, he could be charged a penalty equal to the lowest priced ticket
on the flight, so the airline wouldn't suffer a loss ... but it would
obviate the need to overbook and cause distress/anger to others.

So, you think increasing penalties for no shows is better?
Would you charge this for all no shows, or just ones not caused by
misconnections? What about flat tires?