Airlines defend overbooking after United incident

“Banning the practice of overbooking will reduce already thin margins, and could reduce connectivity in turn,” IATA said.

Thin margins? On a pre-tax basis, United’s 2016 net profit was $3.8 billion, down 9.5% from $4.2 billion in 2015. Delta Air Lines posted a 2016 net profit of $4.4 billion, down 3% from net income of $4.5 billion in 2015. American airlines are choosing greed over service and treat customers accordingly.

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian defended the practice on Wednesday/ I'm not surprised.....Besides United Airlines, Delta is certainly the next worst airline of them all...no leg space, overbooked, lousy expensive food, all in all, on both United and Delta, the passengers are treated like cattle. Fly a good airline like Air New Zealand or British Air, and wow, you will quickly see the difference. As for their supposed "thin profit margins"....come on, give us a break. Not true.

Speak up, friends and/or representatives of ANA, my favorite airline from YVR to HND. Overbooking is a sin. The seat's been paid for, and if it's empty, who gives a sh*t? Less work for staff, who should bow and say thank you to that empty seat for the sake of their reduced workload.

If airlines were no longer allowed to overbook, fares would likely rise as airlines would have to pass on the costs of more empty seats to consumers

Banning the practice of overbooking will reduce already thin margins

Aren't these two statements contradictory? If fares rise then "already thin margins" will not be reduced.

Overbooking should be banned. The airlines can still sell stand-by tickets on the day if people don't show up.

And let's talk about those fuel surcharges, too.

I've never been on an international flight that had a single open seat.

Lying scumbags.

This was not overbooking. The United flight had a seat for every paying passenger. United threw the passenger off to make room for their own crew. This was the airlines total disregard for their passengers. The lying airlines have now turned this discussion from their poor service to true overbooking. The next step will be to blame all this on "no show" passengers. You see, it's always the paggenger's fault.

Even though this case WASNT about over booking the practice needs to stop, how on earth can an airline say no shows are not profitable, THEY PAID, didn't show up has GOT to equal more profit, the airplane will burn less fuel if weight is reduced, meals etc again ALREADY paid for.....

They might have to toss some meals in the garbage because of no shows, anyone else see how no shows ''cost"" airlines??

And don't give me this crap about business travelers changing flights, they have either bought a PREMIUM ticket to begin with or will have to pay EXTRA for changes made

Airlines looking pretty bad here!!!

how on earth can an airline say no shows are not profitable

I don't think the article is saying that. It's saying that cutting the practice of overbooking would cut into profits, as they are able to sell more tickets than the plane can actually handle, giving a larger profit margin.

Which is why it shud be banned!

Which will result in higher costs to consumers.

I guess it depends how you define 'higher costs'. There may be higher ticket prices, but passengers would just be paying something closer to the 'true cost' of the service. All of the savings you might have made from these 'cheaper' tickets could be wiped out if you are denied boarding even once in your life.

One of the biggest problems we face today is that the true cost of things is often hidden. For example, Uber might be cheaper than a regular cab but it doesn't take account the welfare, unemployment and other state benefits that these lower paid drivers are receiving to bring them up to a living wage. We end up paying, albeit indirectly and at a later date. Government regulations is sometimes necessary to make the market more transparent and provide consumers with accurate information to make rational choices.

All of the savings you might have made from these 'cheaper' tickets could be wiped out if you are denied boarding even once in your life.

Yeah, there need to be better rules as to what the airline is required to do if they bump someone.

Once you are in your allocated paid for seat, you own it. Those who show up late, loose the right to a seat on that flight.

Airlines claim that overbooking helps them to keep fares lower by offsetting losses due to no-shows. If that's the case, the no-shows should be the ones to pay, not those who turn up on time with confirmed tickets. But wait a minute, most airlines also charge exorbitant fees for changing or canceling bookings, so both the shows and no-shows are paying.

Here's an idea for a new law. Airlines should be required to charter executive jets to carry passengers who need to be "re-accommodated" due to overbooking.

"Here's an idea for a new law. Airlines should be required to charter executive jets to carry passengers who need to be "re-accommodated" due to overbooking."

And where do you think that money would come from? (Hint - airline ticket prices)

@Strangerland And where do you think that money would come from? (Hint - airline ticket prices)

So you think proper treatment of paying customers might result in a courtesy/ethical behavior surcharge? Competition keeps the prices down, not overbooking.

Perhaps with tougher consequences, airlines might just stop treating people like cattle, and the overbooking/bumping problem would disappear. They might even start training their staff properly, too, instead of entrusting passenger relations to witless thugs.

What United did was wrong on so many levels.Basically, Dr Dao was beaten severely into giving up a seat that he had paid for. This wasn't a case of overbooking- it was a case of United making a gross error in the way passengers should be treated........