Airlines flaunt rules: Overbooking flights ought to benefit passengers as well

 

Editorial
Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:53 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Counter-intuitively, overbooking the seats on commercial flights is good practice for an airline and beneficial for passengers – so long as it is handled properly.

In a business as fraught with uncertainty as air travel, selling more tickets than there are seats available is rational. On a flight with 200 booked, typically 10 will be “no shows” – for reasons ranging from traffic congestion en route to the airport or a late-running connecting flight to the vagaries of ticketing that can make a return ticket cheaper than a one-way.

Double-booking seats is a good way to ensure planes fly as full as possible, which should be welcomed for reducing per-passenger impact on the environment while keeping fares low. It also as the unintended, but nevertheless useful, consequence of helping people with an urgent need to travel to find space on flights that are, theoretically at least, already full.

In the US, when an airline predictions of no-shows goes awry and there is a surplus to Seattle, the scenario is normally handled pleasantly and positively: gate staff just keep on raising the bidding until there are enough volunteers prepared to fly later. If the promise of $200 and a flight this evening doesn’t secure enough willing folk, then how about $300 or a guaranteed upgrade to first class?

The European Commission’s rules on passengers’ rights were sensibly designed to encourage this kind of good behaviour across Europe. The rules obliged carriers to seek volunteers before offloading anyone against their will, and force them to buy seats on a rival’s flights if necessary to get people where they need to be.

But the system is not working. The Independent has seen numerous examples where these rules are not followed – with passengers not only distressed about missing a business meeting, holiday or family event, but also misled about their entitlement. This is poor customer service, and bad business.

These practices give a bad name to a sensible and useful process that should have public support for minimising waste in the aviation industry.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in