Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
@PragueAddick you've had lots of sensible, useful advice on this thread and it's good to see that your SIL appears to have been sorted out with a good flight. I would like to offer one extra bit of advice that, although it won't help this time, should make things a whole lot easier when booking flights in future: use a competent travel agent, instead of going direct to an airline.
Two questions: 1) Why? 2) How do you know they’re competent?
@PragueAddick you've had lots of sensible, useful advice on this thread and it's good to see that your SIL appears to have been sorted out with a good flight. I would like to offer one extra bit of advice that, although it won't help this time, should make things a whole lot easier when booking flights in future: use a competent travel agent, instead of going direct to an airline.
Two questions: 1) Why? 2) How do you know they’re competent?
1) It's a commercial thing. If you or I book direct with an airline, they might bump us and risk upsetting one or two individuals. If our booking were to be via an agent, the airline would be less likely to risk that agent's business.
2) In the same way you might choose to do business with any company. Check out reviews, make sure they're members of relevant industry bodies. Satisfy yourself that they've been around a significant period of time. Speak to them...
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
Possibly your mistake, yes.
It depends on the situation and the reason for denied boarding.
If a flight is cancelled after check in then it’s usually automatic. If it’s individual passengers then for process reasons you have to request. It’s not a con or a scam, it’s due process.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
Be lucky to see it in two months. They didnt do any of the other things that SA says is the law ( help with re-booking, refreshments, hotel, transport to/from) either.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
Be lucky to see it in two months. They didnt do any of the other things that SA says is the law ( help with re-booking, refreshments, hotel, transport to/from) either.
One thing airlines tend to be punctual with is the compensation payout once they have received the form from you. I have had to complete the compensation form quite a few times over the years with different airlines, and never waited longer than 7 days for the full amount (compensation, plus any accommodation, transport, food) to be in my account.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
Be lucky to see it in two months. They didnt do any of the other things that SA says is the law ( help with re-booking, refreshments, hotel, transport to/from) either.
One thing airlines tend to be punctual with is the compensation payout once they have received the form from you. I have had to complete the compensation form quite a few times over the years with different airlines, and never waited longer than 7 days for the full amount (compensation, plus any accommodation, transport, food) to be in my account.
Good to hear. I will report. From what I have been reading on the Which website, I presume you were not claiming from Wizz Air.
Thanks, @Chizz. You make some good points again - and re my Mum, of course on the day, I was very grateful that both airports, and the airline, and the London trains all worked at the highest professional level on the day, and that accessing a flight in an emergency is possible for ordinary people in a an efficient transparent way, which was not the case before internet booking became the norm.
Your answer to point 3 illustrates the genuine problem airlines face. But then they should get together and agree steps to dis-incentivise this behaviour. They will be reluctant to of course because they are taking on their highest paying customers; however they are dumping on other passengers in order to deal with the problem caused by people up-front. And btw the people up-front hardly ever pay for themselves. They indeed might be in economy when they go on hols with the family. It's corporate profligacy rather than individual twattishness we are addressing here. Corporate CFOs may well welcome such steps.
Re the first two points, I'm sorry but I have to say that I don't think you've cracked it. It still seems to me that @SomervilleAddick is right. They have set an over-sell limit for themselves and they know when they've reached it. So, as you concede in point 2, do the travel agents. So that info is shareable.
I'm not at all keen on this: You have to decide, however, whether this is merely marketing practice. (Example, if I were the airline, and I had 50 seats priced at £500, I would tell customers that I only had three at that price. Marketing, innit?)
No mate. It is not marketing, at least by normal professional standards. It's the equivalent of a retail display of a special deal on Jaffa Cakes with a big sign saying "offer ends in three days time" and then you find it goes on another two weeks. And since Ryanair can fly you places for the price of about three boxes of Jaff Cakes, don't tell me the comparision is invalid. The correct word for it does begin with "M". Misrepresentation. (Maybe @SporadicAddick may wish to challenge me on that. )
Your question on the issue re who would regulate, well, the compensation scheme was brought in by the European Commissioner for transport. As you know the EU cannot force individual member States to follow even a directive, but in this case all Member States including the UK at the time thought it wasa good diea and adopted it. And the UK has not put it on Rees-Mogg's bonfire. So I think this tightening would be eminently do-able, although we need to get rid of the current Transport Commissioner who is useless, and replace her with someone with a better grip on international travel issues (rail as well as air).
If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.
It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?) 2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
At the end of the day, these airlines should be told if you're going to bump passengers look after the passengers. Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary. Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days. These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
That’s exactly what does happen. It’s the law.
Sorry my mistake . I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
Be lucky to see it in two months. They didnt do any of the other things that SA says is the law ( help with re-booking, refreshments, hotel, transport to/from) either.
One thing airlines tend to be punctual with is the compensation payout once they have received the form from you. I have had to complete the compensation form quite a few times over the years with different airlines, and never waited longer than 7 days for the full amount (compensation, plus any accommodation, transport, food) to be in my account.
July last year we denied boarding on a flight from Edinburgh as the plane had changed, we weren't asked to volunteer but just told we were on standby.
Filled the claim is as soon as I got back, finally got the compensation start of December last year, 5 month wait.
3 November this year we had a flight to Dusseldorf at 11.50, told flight was cancelled at 11.00 and put on the 15.30 flight.
Put in a claim when I got back, been a month now, every couple of weeks I get an email saying how sorry and busy they are. Maybe get the claim about Easter time judging by the previous one.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
Surprised i'm not on a BA no fly list with the amount of claims i've made against them over the years!
Sporadic Addick has already said what i was going to (i was worried about EU261 post Brexit!)
Keep receipts as in addition to the €600 EU261compensation (over 4 hour delay) they are entitled to overnight accommodation, transportation to and from there to the airport, any meals they have before the flight and if they don't have their bags toiletries. I assume they're on another flight?
If BA offer avios or cash ( the EU261 will be cash by law) value the avios at 1p a piece to make a judgement.
There's a form they can fill in and upload receipts on BA.com. i've had the money in my account within 2 weeks before.
Good job for Brexit or that €600 would be significantly less than £540
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
I know what I am getting with Ryanair and Easyjet and they reliably have always got me where I want to go at a price I am happy with without major delays up to now. BA lost my son's case and getting through to anybody was impossible. They couldn't care less. The flight left with no cases on board and the passengers were not told and the crew pissed off and left them to it.
We did get the case back. Fortunately the villa we had rented was close to the airport and we speculatively went back to check day by day. When my son asked about his case the airport worker asked if BA had told him they had it. He said they hadn't and he joked that they might have it then. And thankfully they did but there was no effort or communication about it from BA. It was impossible to speak to anybody apart from one person who said it was not his area and nothing he could do. I will never use them again.
There was a passenger going on a cruise to get married and her wedding dress did not arrive. There were a lot of passengers badly affected and no interest from BA. Your last comment is ridiculous as I have already said I have used Ryanair and Easyjet on many occasions and have been happy with them so from experience I don't need best wishes and some jokey smiley. I know what these airlines are but I thought I was buying premium with BA which couldn't be further from the truth. And there may be statutory obligations but Pragues' sister in law was bumped off in a bad way and if the airline is properly punished for it they might do it better next time.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
But there’s several examples on this thread of that not happening, including the opening post.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
But there’s several examples on this thread of that not happening, including the opening post.
I agree and that’s not acceptable. Passenger rights in the event of delay or denied boarding are clearly set out when booking and when checking in - signs are (or should be) prominently displayed in airports. Quite why that doesn’t happen (from either travellers not seeing it or knowing it or airlines not proactively updating) I can’t comment on…
The price difference between low cost carriers and BA is pretty minimal these days if you fly from London, perhaps some routes are different. If we were to do a BA V low cost airlines horror stories I'll be surprised if BA don't come out a lot better. When they lost my case, they put it on the next flight, ball bags, it was delivered to my door the next day.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
But there’s several examples on this thread of that not happening, including the opening post.
Good to hear. I will report. From what I have been reading on the Which website, I presume you were not claiming from Wizz Air.
Wizz Air make it as difficult as possible to claim from them as we found out when we had a Wizz Air flight to Malaga which arrived over 4 hours late at 1.00am.
When we got home we tried to find out how to claim which proved extremely difficult as you can't call them and talk to a human and it's difficult to find any link on the website.
When Mrs F eventually managed to find the correct link it told her only she could make the claim as she booked the tickets. Fair enough, but if she wanted to claim for me as well she would need a Power of Attorney which of course she didnt have.
In the end we gave up trying to do it ourselves and went to one of the many firms that do it for you (who take 35% for the privilege). Still wasn't straight forward and ended up with just over half of what the scheme said we were entitled to.
Still, we only paid £29 each for the tickets so were quids in overall.
The simple solution IMO would be for things to continue as they are now but for the airlines to compensate volunteer bumped customers to their satisfaction. There will always be a number of passangers happy to stay on a day or whatever in a nice hotel with a nice anount of cash. If the airline fails to find any volunteers on top of the money they pay the bumped passengers they should be charged a high penalty fine with the proceeds going to charity. This should stop them bumping people without trying to see them right which if they get away with will become more and more common.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
There are already statutory obligations that airlines abide by…
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
I know what I am getting with Ryanair and Easyjet and they reliably have always got me where I want to go at a price I am happy with without major delays up to now. BA lost my son's case and getting through to anybody was impossible. They couldn't care less. The flight left with no cases on board and the passengers were not told and the crew pissed off and left them to it.
We did get the case back. Fortunately the villa we had rented was close to the airport and we speculatively went back to check day by day. When my son asked about his case the airport worker asked if BA had told him they had it. He said they hadn't and he joked that they might have it then. And thankfully they did but there was no effort or communication about it from BA. It was impossible to speak to anybody apart from one person who said it was not his area and nothing he could do. I will never use them again.
There was a passenger going on a cruise to get married and her wedding dress did not arrive. There were a lot of passengers badly affected and no interest from BA. Your last comment is ridiculous as I have already said I have used Ryanair and Easyjet on many occasions and have been happy with them so from experience I don't need best wishes and some jokey smiley. I know what these airlines are but I thought I was buying premium with BA which couldn't be further from the truth. And there may be statutory obligations but Pragues' sister in law was bumped off in a bad way and if the airline is properly punished for it they might do it better next time.
A fact about air travel - baggage gets misdirected (very rarely "lost"). Its why there is a large industry dedicated to recovery and repatriation. Its very rarely as a result of airline error - more often it is the airport baggage handling system or the ground handling agents (who I acknowledge are ultimately appointed by the airline)... Aircraft will depart without baggage if getting that baggage on board jeopardises the schedule of that flight. That's the operational reality and I'm afraid if you pack your wedding dress in a case you risk not wearing it at the ceremony (anything you need (wedding dresses, prescription medicine etc) should be carries on, not put in the hold.
I have had bags misplaced by several airlines - BA are one of the best at repatriation based on my experience.
The crew have no responsibility for baggage, nor can they have. They didn't "piss off" as you cant piss off from a job that isnt yours.
We have established that there was a compelling reason why my SIL didn't get any help from the Iberia help-desk that the Iberia call-centre told her to consult, at Gatwick. It does not exist. And that's the underlying issue here IMO. Ryanair started this race to the bottom and that means most of the "legacy" airlines cutting ground support to a minimum to try and reduce their cost base to compete with Ryanair. They have check-in staff and that's it. Since they had plenty of other flights to deal with after that one, they would not have had any time to provide the essential support that @SporadicAddick has detailed as being mandatory. People can pretend to be business-like and say well, that's business, to which I say, no, that's going below the minimum acceptable level, and as usual it has taken regulation to define what that minimum level should be - otherwise it would have continued to be defined by that "business genius" and bell-end O'Leary.
It may be that bumping off is relatively rare and my SIL's experience more rare - I'm reserving judgement on that, especially as others join this thread and share their experiences - but the same issue of de-staffing can be seen more commonly when there are cancellations due to weather or like the recent ATC issues. All the reports sepak of people complaining that there were no staff to help or even tell them what was going on. I still remember the EasyJet flight from Bratislava that was cancelled and the passengers were stuck there a whole bloody week. And to be stuck in Bratislava for a week is not funny. It's even less funny when they belatedly learn that they could have jumped on a train and been in Vienna airport less than an hour🤣. Nobody, sadly, told them that.
In the United States, roughly 34 people are bumped - voluntarily or involuntarily - from flights for every 100,000 passengers (Q1 2023). So, that's once every 3,000 flights. The range in the US is from 89 out of every 100,000 passengers on Frontier (59% were voluntary) to 6 out of every 100,000 passengers on Allegiant (all were voluntary).
Tips for not getting bumped...
1. Have a frequent flyer membership with the airline or alliance you're flying with 2. If you can afford it, avoid the least expensive fare on the flight 3. Take a seat assignment 4. Print your boarding pass
If you consider taking an offer to give up your flight booking, ignore the first offer (which is invariably a cheap one). But, if you take the offer, make sure it's at least as much as the statutory compensation you would get for being bumped involuntarily.
In the United States, roughly 34 people are bumped - voluntarily or involuntarily - from flights for every 100,000 passengers (Q1 2023). So, that's once every 3,000 flights. The range in the US is from 89 out of every 100,000 passengers on Frontier (59% were voluntary) to 6 out of every 100,000 passengers on Allegiant (all were voluntary).
Tips for not getting bumped...
1. Have a frequent flyer membership with the airline or alliance you're flying with 2. If you can afford it, avoid the least expensive fare on the flight 3. Take a seat assignment 4. Print your boarding pass
If you consider taking an offer to give up your flight booking, ignore the first offer (which is invariably a cheap one). But, if you take the offer, make sure it's at least as much as the statutory compensation you would get for being bumped involuntarily.
That advise to not getting bumped sounds similar to checking in wearing a suit as it increases your chance of an upgrade.
In the United States, roughly 34 people are bumped - voluntarily or involuntarily - from flights for every 100,000 passengers (Q1 2023). So, that's once every 3,000 flights. The range in the US is from 89 out of every 100,000 passengers on Frontier (59% were voluntary) to 6 out of every 100,000 passengers on Allegiant (all were voluntary).
Tips for not getting bumped...
1. Have a frequent flyer membership with the airline or alliance you're flying with 2. If you can afford it, avoid the least expensive fare on the flight 3. Take a seat assignment 4. Print your boarding pass
If you consider taking an offer to give up your flight booking, ignore the first offer (which is invariably a cheap one). But, if you take the offer, make sure it's at least as much as the statutory compensation you would get for being bumped involuntarily.
@Chizz helpful advice albeit with slightly unfortunate implications for less than regular travellers . However please note rhat my SIL tried to exercise options 3 and 4. They were specifically denied to her, and only for the leg to Madrid. She had her seat selected on to Sao Paulo but the website told her that it wasn’t possible for the Madrid flight. That gave her a sense sonething was up, and why she arrived 3 hours before boarding. Fat lot of good that did her.
Are you not surprised that Iberia have no customer service desk at Gatwick and would you not agree that such a cost-cutting measure is likely to contribute to the failure to comply with the relevant regulatory measure?.
Comments
- If you take 100 oranges to market, you can sell each orange once. As soon as you sell your 100th orange, you stop.
- If a customer asks you to bring an apple to the market next week, you can do so. And, if you know you will have 100 apples to sell next week, you can do that 100 times, then you stop.
- But if you bring 100 apples to the market next week, pre-sold, and only 90 customers turn up to collect their apples, you end up with 10, unsold apples which you have to transport back home. It costs you money to transport apples back and you can't sell them.
- If that happens, every week, you might decide to sell 110 apples for next week, in the knowledge that around ten people won't turn up to collect their apples, so you will get rid of all 100 apples to 100 people who have paid for them and collected them.
- What happens next week when the 101st person turns up? You give him his money back, reducing your level of profit by a small amount and disappointing him.
- So the choice is either to sell 100 apples, at a higher price (to cover the transport and lost revenues of uncollected apples). Or you oversell by your very best guess as to how many people will turn up and collect their apples, thereby keeping the price as low as possible.
With compensation schemes, airlines pay costs to passengers whom they bump. Those costs are minimised by the airline by very accurate predictions as to how many they are going to need to bump. But the costs are written down by the airline as a cost of doing business. Higher compensation could be introduced. That would, obviously, increase the airline's costs. Where do passenger airlines get the bulk of their revenues? Passengers, of course. So, in order to make higher payments to the least profitable, lowest-value passengers who travel the least, all ticket prices would have to go up. And, of course, if the tickets were increased by the same amount each - as they tend to do when airlines are required to add regulatory charges - then the highest burden of ticket price increase falls on the passengers who can least afford it: those who buy the lowest-value tickets.It is possible, of course, that the EU could legislate for increase compensation payments. But that might not be of benefit to anyone from countries outside the EU (you know, the ones with all the sovereignty).
A couple of questions for you.
1. Why does it matter to you, as a passenger, if the limited-offer fare you buy, which is the lowest-priced fare on the aircraft is subsequently offered to more passengers than you originally thought it would be? Example, you think only six people are going to get the £500 fare, but, by the time the plane takes off, there are 12 people on-board who paid that amount? Do you even check? (In the ba.com example, where the price quoted is only for x more available seats, do you ever check to see how much other people have paid?)
2. Why should airlines disincentivise their highest-paying passengers from buying the most profitable fares on their most lucrative routes? Or, to put the question another way, why would they?
Sort the hotel out for them, transportation to the hotel if necessary.
Drink and meal vouchers and have the compensation money in the passengers bank account within 7 days.
These airlines know they've oversold so when it goes tits look after the passenger properly.
https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/delays-and-cancellations/denied-boarding/
Sorry my mistake .
I didn't realise they'd be putting Pragues sister £520 compensation straight into her bank account.
2) In the same way you might choose to do business with any company. Check out reviews, make sure they're members of relevant industry bodies. Satisfy yourself that they've been around a significant period of time. Speak to them...
It depends on the situation and the reason for denied boarding.
If a flight is cancelled after check in then it’s usually automatic. If it’s individual passengers then for process reasons you have to request. It’s not a con or a scam, it’s due process.
Filled the claim is as soon as I got back, finally got the compensation start of December last year, 5 month wait.
3 November this year we had a flight to Dusseldorf at 11.50, told flight was cancelled at 11.00 and put on the 15.30 flight.
Put in a claim when I got back, been a month now, every couple of weeks I get an email saying how sorry and busy they are. Maybe get the claim about Easter time judging by the previous one.
I prefer Ryanair and Easyjet too. I made the mistake last year of thinking you get a better service with BA and I will never use them again. With the budget airlines, they are generally on time and you know what you are getting.
if you prefer Ryanair to BA then best wishes on your future travels 😁
😉
We did get the case back. Fortunately the villa we had rented was close to the airport and we speculatively went back to check day by day. When my son asked about his case the airport worker asked if BA had told him they had it. He said they hadn't and he joked that they might have it then. And thankfully they did but there was no effort or communication about it from BA. It was impossible to speak to anybody apart from one person who said it was not his area and nothing he could do. I will never use them again.
There was a passenger going on a cruise to get married and her wedding dress did not arrive. There were a lot of passengers badly affected and no interest from BA. Your last comment is ridiculous as I have already said I have used Ryanair and Easyjet on many occasions and have been happy with them so from experience I don't need best wishes and some jokey smiley. I know what these airlines are but I thought I was buying premium with BA which couldn't be further from the truth. And there may be statutory obligations but Pragues' sister in law was bumped off in a bad way and if the airline is properly punished for it they might do it better next time.
Iberia.
When we got home we tried to find out how to claim which proved extremely difficult as you can't call them and talk to a human and it's difficult to find any link on the website.
When Mrs F eventually managed to find the correct link it told her only she could make the claim as she booked the tickets. Fair enough, but if she wanted to claim for me as well she would need a Power of Attorney which of course she didnt have.
In the end we gave up trying to do it ourselves and went to one of the many firms that do it for you (who take 35% for the privilege). Still wasn't straight forward and ended up with just over half of what the scheme said we were entitled to.
Still, we only paid £29 each for the tickets so were quids in overall.
I have had bags misplaced by several airlines - BA are one of the best at repatriation based on my experience.
The crew have no responsibility for baggage, nor can they have. They didn't "piss off" as you cant piss off from a job that isnt yours.
It may be that bumping off is relatively rare and my SIL's experience more rare - I'm reserving judgement on that, especially as others join this thread and share their experiences - but the same issue of de-staffing can be seen more commonly when there are cancellations due to weather or like the recent ATC issues. All the reports sepak of people complaining that there were no staff to help or even tell them what was going on. I still remember the EasyJet flight from Bratislava that was cancelled and the passengers were stuck there a whole bloody week. And to be stuck in Bratislava for a week is not funny. It's even less funny when they belatedly learn that they could have jumped on a train and been in Vienna airport less than an hour🤣. Nobody, sadly, told them that.
Tips for not getting bumped...
1. Have a frequent flyer membership with the airline or alliance you're flying with
2. If you can afford it, avoid the least expensive fare on the flight
3. Take a seat assignment
4. Print your boarding pass
If you consider taking an offer to give up your flight booking, ignore the first offer (which is invariably a cheap one). But, if you take the offer, make sure it's at least as much as the statutory compensation you would get for being bumped involuntarily.
Mistakes / under performing we are quite interolable 😉