RugbyRebels

Just wondering if this excellent business idea could be rolled out to other areas.

I was thinking that if you go out for pizza with friends, a restaurant could serve 1 pizza short in the hope that enough people in the restaurant leave a slice to create an extra pizza?

I might sell my house on the basis that the childless couple buying can't use 3 bedrooms at once, so I can also sell it to another couple and a single person at the same time.

Any other ways to leverage this business acumen?

In tourism there is a percentage of cancellations with reservations management deciding to gamble on this. Add the staffing issues and yeah... they fecked up. It's Illegal in Europe, strong fines and obligation to find a correct replacement of at least similar standard. Same goes with hotels.

Adder wrote:In tourism there is a percentage of cancellations with reservations management deciding to gamble on this. Add the staffing issues and yeah... they fecked up. It's Illegal in Europe, strong fines and obligation to find a correct replacement of at least similar standard. Same goes with hotels.

I understand they had let staff travel on that flight....and the doc was kicked off to allow a staff member to stay on. If so, doubly outrageous.

From what i hear, overbooking is bog standard in USA, but illegal in Europe, whilst happening but rarely elsewhere.

This flight though, wasn't overbooked, they had the right number of passengers sitting in the right number of seats; they just then wanted to fly 4 members of staff, so wanted rid of 4 passengers, tried to bribe them (with airmiles, only from that airport, and only valid for 4 months...). Which is apparently entirely legal and entirely ethical stateside, including forced eviction for no reason whatsoever.

Mind it also seems to be the case that peaceful non-compliance​ with someone "in a position of power" IS escalation so that physical force is entirely justified and right, and your own fault. Who h looks more like the dictionary definition of "abuse of power" to me, but hey, apparently i need a new dictionary.

I've also seen it positted that he must have been asking for trouble because he called his lawyer whilst security were on their way, and therefore may have been up to no good.

Banquo wrote:

Adder wrote:In tourism there is a percentage of cancellations with reservations management deciding to gamble on this. Add the staffing issues and yeah... they fecked up. It's Illegal in Europe, strong fines and obligation to find a correct replacement of at least similar standard. Same goes with hotels.

I understand they had let staff travel on that flight....and the doc was kicked off to allow a staff member to stay on. If so, doubly outrageous.

4 staff. The 4 that were thrown off (1, in an almost literal sense) were replaced by United Staff. The doctor refused because he claims he had patients to attend to the next day, and got a knuckle sandwich for his troubles.

They triply fucked up when Munoz, their CEO, sent out a shockingly tone-deaf memo praising staff for how they handled the situation which got leaked within seconds, and then a far more tone-deaf bullshit statement about how upsetting the incident was for United staff, and the unfortunate circumstances in their "re-accomodation" efforts with Dr Dao. Quadruply so, when they issued a public apology only after their share prices plummeted and now quintuply by booting a couple on their way to a wedding.

Edit: and sextuply so, when they tried to boot a first-class traveller and threatened him with handcuffs because "someone more important just turned up." You can't make this shit up.

I imagine this is what their PR people look like right now.

If we want airlines not to overbook we'd need to agree to pay more for flights. When one observes where growth is in the industry it's not obvious people will be willing to pay more. Which doesn't mean airlines shouldn't show more care around not allowing people to board, and that compensation should be agreed in advance. I'll also contend I'd happily be dragged off a flight for whatever compensation United are about to pay out

So why aren't flights more expensive in Europe?

Besides, IIRC the figure quoted* for the frequency of bumping passengers is about 0.008%, so presumably the price rise would be about 0.01%, whilst also allowing the airlines extra profit (those poor dears, they need all the help they can get).


* Dunno how accurately, and don't care anything like enough to go hunting, given that it doesn't affect me at all.

United is a fucking dinosaur that hasn't moved with the times. Domestic air travel is vital to all manner of industry in the USandA and there should be consumer protection in place of bashing passengers off seats that the airline wants at the last minute. Government regulation was wiped out for air travel recently. It's not all bad though. A few years back I got on the wrong two prop flight from Missoula to Jackson hole and ended up in Idaho. The nice people at bumfuck airlines spotted me a fresh ticket to Wyoming and in the layover one of the stewards got me in on an Idaho winter festival where I helped get the family horses ready for a haul-a-dude-on-skis-behind-skittish-horse event. Fantastic blue sky winter day out in the open under the shadow of the Tetons finished up with chewing tobacco, bourbon and bullshit around a fire. Good times.

It seems a pretty straight-forward fix to mandate an on-board/at check-in auction to give up your seat. There's going to be a point where enough passengers will accept money (+ a replacement flight) to give up their allocated seat that the problem is solved without the use of heavies physically dragging customers off their paid-for seat.

Banquo wrote:

Adder wrote:In tourism there is a percentage of cancellations with reservations management deciding to gamble on this. Add the staffing issues and yeah... they fecked up. It's Illegal in Europe, strong fines and obligation to find a correct replacement of at least similar standard. Same goes with hotels.

I understand they had let staff travel on that flight....and the doc was kicked off to allow a staff member to stay on. If so, doubly outrageous.

Probably needing flight crew for another plane to be able to take off. Very strange that they weren't prepared in the first place. The fact they weren't prepared could be due to quite a number of reasons.

Working in Hotels, we would usually be screwed by someone forgetting to close one of the reservation systems. Not a very nice thing to handle when you are the night receptionist.

Spy wrote:It seems a pretty straight-forward fix to mandate an on-board/at check-in auction to give up your seat. There's going to be a point where enough passengers will accept money (+ a replacement flight) to give up their allocated seat that the problem is solved without the use of heavies physically dragging customers off their paid-for seat.

That's exactly what other airlines do, and is apparently standard practice (publicly) for United. It requires fore-knowledge though (like 102 passengers checking​ in for a 100 seat flight)

Adder wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Adder wrote:In tourism there is a percentage of cancellations with reservations management deciding to gamble on this. Add the staffing issues and yeah... they fecked up. It's Illegal in Europe, strong fines and obligation to find a correct replacement of at least similar standard. Same goes with hotels.

I understand they had let staff travel on that flight....and the doc was kicked off to allow a staff member to stay on. If so, doubly outrageous.

Probably needing flight crew for another plane to be able to take off. Very strange that they weren't prepared in the first place. The fact they weren't prepared could be due to quite a number of reasons.

I believe that was exactly the case... for the following morning.
The maths was that the flight crew were needed at the destination 12 hours (or so) later, (whilst the Dr had patients to see 12 hours later).
Instead of sending the flight crew by road (5 hours) or train (??? hours) it was decided to manhandle a paying passenger on the last leg of his return journey from Vietnam (? - might have been China) and put him up in a hotel overnight and fly him home the following day, a mere 6 hours late for work with $800 dollars worth of airmiles he'd be unlikely to be able to use.

IIRC they disembarked Dr Dao, then re-embarked him having told him that he wouldn't be getting home tonight, then beating him up because he didn't want to give up his seat anymore.

Its difficult to see this as anything other than a con by the industry (and I normally stick up for businesses). If the airline has sold the seat in advance then they will have payment for it, or at least a deposit and the ability to collect the rest in the event of a no-show. If they are therefore a passenger or 2 down on what they expected, then they will still have a full set of air fare collected. There is something very underhand about this, and despite EU law, it seems from a report in the Times today that EasyJet has done something very similar, minus the casual violence.

First for reassignment: Fatties

Second: Ginga people.

Third: The Welsh

morepork wrote:First for reassignment: Fatties

Second: Ginga people.

Third: The Welsh

Nothing like a bit of casual racism

morepork wrote:First for reassignment: Fatties

Second: Ginga people.

Third: The Welsh

I'd have those with left wing tendencies before gingers. They are used to moaning and would thus be used to it.

Removing fat people is a fair shout.

As a frequent traveller, I would add a test at the gate. If you can't, unaided, lift your carry-on high enough to put it in the locker, it gets taken off you and put in the hold.
And anyone wearing sandals and/or shorts outside of the months of June, July or August gets punted.

morepork wrote:First for reassignment: Fatties

Second: Ginga people.

Third: The Welsh

Has Hammy upset you?

Stones of granite wrote:As a frequent traveller, I would add a test at the gate. If you can't, unaided, lift your carry-on high enough to put it in the locker, it gets taken off you and put in the hold.
And anyone wearing sandals and/or shorts outside of the months of June, July or August gets punted.

Who wants to wear shorts on a flight anyway, it's not normally that warm on the actual flight

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:As a frequent traveller, I would add a test at the gate. If you can't, unaided, lift your carry-on high enough to put it in the locker, it gets taken off you and put in the hold.
And anyone wearing sandals and/or shorts outside of the months of June, July or August gets punted.

Who wants to wear shorts on a flight anyway, it's not normally that warm on the actual flight

but still strangely common at all times of year.

I think that the airline is entirely within its rights to determine who they carry and should reserve the right to refuse passage to unwanted passengers at any stage during the process of moving them from A to B, using whatever force is necessary no matter how disproportionate.

In my view the most appropriate time to have ejected this clearly belligerent and (as it turns out) inconveniently litigious Chinaman with his dubious medical qualification would have been 20 minutes after take-off!

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I think that the airline is entirely within its rights to determine who they want to carry and should reserve the right to eject unwanted passengers at any stage during the process of moving them from A to B.

In my view the most appropriate time to have ejected this clearly belligerent and (as it turns out) inconveniently litigious Chinaman with his dubious medical qualification would have been 20 minutes after take-off!

He lost two teeth! He's going to have to spend hours of practice zeroing his spitting aim back in.

Stones of granite wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I think that the airline is entirely within its rights to determine who they want to carry and should reserve the right to eject unwanted passengers at any stage during the process of moving them from A to B.

In my view the most appropriate time to have ejected this clearly belligerent and (as it turns out) inconveniently litigious Chinaman with his dubious medical qualification would have been 20 minutes after take-off!

He lost two teeth! He's going to have to spend hours of practice zeroing his spitting aim back in.

He was in his 50s. After 50 years of chewing betel nut there wouldn't have been a tooth left in his head worth the name - and I'm sure the rapacious fecker will soon be able to afford to have shifts of Chinamen spitting for him round the clock.

Stones of granite wrote:As a frequent traveller, I would add a test at the gate. If you can't, unaided, lift your carry-on high enough to put it in the locker, it gets taken off you and put in the hold.
And anyone wearing sandals and/or shorts outside of the months of June, July or August gets punted.

Absolutely this. I'd also time people for getting through security. If they don't approach the scanners with belt off and phone is jacket/bag then they go straight to the top of the list to be offloaded. Also anyone who wears shorts and then decides it's cold at their destination and decided to unpack whilst still in a queue should be taken back to their country of origin and be made to start again.

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:First for reassignment: Fatties

Second: Ginga people.

Third: The Welsh

Nothing like a bit of casual racism

The Welsh are not a race. They are more of a peculiarly 'genetically concentrated' breed within an otherwise diverse Celtic genus.

All the same, I'd agree with you that it is unfair to deny them air passage, for if you did how else would Katherine Jenkins get to the NSE shows for our brave boys in the Arabian Gulf.

switchskier wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:As a frequent traveller, I would add a test at the gate. If you can't, unaided, lift your carry-on high enough to put it in the locker, it gets taken off you and put in the hold.
And anyone wearing sandals and/or shorts outside of the months of June, July or August gets punted.

Absolutely this. I'd also time people for getting through security. If they don't approach the scanners with belt off and phone is jacket/bag then they go straight to the top of the list to be offloaded. Also anyone who wears shorts and then decides it's cold at their destination and decided to unpack whilst still in a queue should be taken back to their country of origin and be made to start again.

I like these suggestions. You could televise it, combining that fecking awful programme about SleazyJet with Wipeout and we could all have a laugh as some spindly wee knacker from Rotherham keeps getting knocked off the security line up.

Get Theresa May to compare it and you might even keep Zhivago happy!