Pretty sure the reason is that we're vastly outnumbered by morons.

Then maybe hang out with other people than socialist.

You're a funny guy, Paul D, I like you. That's why I'll violently expropriate your assets last

Seems like most other industries get around this problem by charging cancellation fees, idk if there's any special reason the airlines can't do the same thing.

Why not the exact opposite? The best airlines in world are government owned/subsidized....the major american airlines complain to the US government that they can't compete with Emirates etc because of free government money.

So if you really think flying is that bad largely cuz capitalism, you should be arguing for government subsidization of major airlines so we can mandate non profitable routes, seat size etc. Its probably the easiest way, given your Dickensian view of what happens when you board a flight, to ensure people of modest means can humanely get from NYC to LA when they really need to.

ITT we learn that slavery was not a feature of the South of Yanklandia because the mesopotamians also had slaves.

This is something that will come out at trial - if this case actually goes to trial - but there could be a great deal of scrutiny into just how "random" the lottery system is in determining who gets booted from a flight. Most of the comments I've heard on radio and television by [purported] "airline industry experts" insist that the selection is "purely random" and is done by a computer. How often (if ever) does the "computer" randomly select a First Class passenger or a frequent flyer for booting? Does the software algorithm automatically exclude "good customers" from being bumped?

I have a feeling United will not want to explain just how "random" their bumping computer is to a jury - which is another reason why this is probably going to get settled out of court.

Your example of a doctors office visit either isn't really overbooking (the doctor doesn't have your money and their supply is elastic) either; explosive diarrhea is potentially a medical emergency (it's the telltale symptom of some intestinal infections that can kill in hours if not treated, google cholera). So literally under any context, your analogy is terrible.

The whole idea that airlines don't "intend" to bump people is obviously a joke. It's part of their business models. 2 posts ago you argued out economy is predicated on it and it's a wonderful thing. Now I'm learning they don't even intend it! Remind me again which side of the debate 'doesn't know anything about economics and business', guy who is simultaneously arguing overbooking is both wonderful and the brilliant schemes of corporate overlords but getting bumped is also in fact mere happenstance?

It's of course part and parcel of the whole debate where United has some self-serving one-side contract coupled with unscrupulous business practices and when their customers are predictably frustrated and lash out at them, they offload the problem to the rental cops who are hired precisely to make sure the contract is enforced. And all of that is the predictable outcome of all of the underlying context of the trade and the principles and assumptions behind it. And then when it goes bad and everyone is upset, we say "whoops, NOT INTENDED." It's one of the favored tools of the propagandist tool box: the predictable, inevitable bad things that come of the result of our behavior is not our 'intent,' seen commonly when American foreign policy results in drones blowing up Afghan weddings controlled by a pilot 5000k miles away in Langley but which the architects and defenders of the policies show up on Sunday news shoes or whatever the **** to declare no one 'intended' the bad things despite the fact military adventuring thousands of miles away from home with robots launching missiles from the sky is a predictably high variance activity and everyone knew from the start there would be dead innocent civilian blood spilled at some point.

Of course I am starting to see why you think this is all wonderful. Airlines magically make airfare cheaper through overbooking but the frustrated customers left in the policy's wake was just an accident with no one to blame.

Internet would be an extreme luxury in such an environment and only truly used as it is now by the very rich. Average utilization is what makes internet access fairly affordable. Middle class people could not afford guaranteed accessibility but mimimums. In the early days of dial up internet lines and bandwidth were sold 10x, 20x or 30x or more, on paper thing margins. So I guess people could have paid $500 a month for dial up internet, it's unkikeky it woukd take off.

It's the same reasons modern day isps work to curtail extreme usage outliers.

I'm not sure people constantly bringing up bereavement availability as the single beneficial aspect of a flawed systen is compelling.

Endemic frustration with airlines due to notoriously bad customer service: pvn not so sure, PLZ QUANTIFY, oh you quantified, well all these belligerent drunk passengers don't count for reasons

Bereavement ticket availability because a gold status million miler type doing a mileage run is home sleeping: obvious and common frequently seen community benefit, hail the status quo

After thinking things through, I don't have a huge problem with the current system in general, seeing as it's supposed to serve the greater good - and likely accomplishes this in general. I just think the airlines should be required to shift to cash incentives, and required to offer the max cash value before anyone gets involuntarily bumped.

The way this went down makes it very clear that the airlines frequently involuntarily bump people without paying the cash value mandated by the regulations. If this wasn't the case, they would have switched to cash and went to the max before calling in the jackboots to drag this guy off the plane.

Paul D: you would get a FAILING grade for on a blue book examination if you don't due a holistic comparative study between volatile goods exceeding supply in the US and Valenzuela, get new friends

I doubt it has gotten better, but the "bereavement policy" at whatever airline I was flying the one time involved generously offering a refundable return ticket at...the same price as on the website.

Would be very curious where pvn developed the notion that airlines are bumping high-status, paying customers from flights so people can see dying relatives.

they do, mostly, since the vast majority of tickets that are sold are non-refundable.

It's not the single beneficial aspect. It's just the one that the people who obviously don't fly very often are most likely to themselves benefit from.

Who said anything about the last minute tickets being cheap? I'm talking about availability. Again, we see how the arguments against overbooking are rooted in the same first-level thinking as the arguments against price "gouging".

Where did I suggest that "high-status, paying customers" are the ones getting bumped (non-rev, space available passengers are on standby and never get technically "bumped")? Generally the guys who take the voluntary bumps are leisure travellers or frequent flyers who actively look for bump opportunities and build slack into their schedules.

Right, dvaut's feeeeewings are just assumed to be infallible by default. The guy who gets anxious when he gets on a plane seems like a pretty solid source here.

My understanding is that it is "random" in the sense that the gate agents don't picking the computer does and it's primary criteria is ticket price. Why refund a $400 ticket when you can refund a $200 one?

Eh, no need to obfuscate the process when some airlines explicitly state that they decide by lowest fare paid being the final bump decider, some last checked in, and some random.

It's wonderful because it results in cheaper tickets for everyone while only running into an issue a minuscule amount of time.

So let me get this straight. Something that occurs 1 out of 16,000 times with the unlucky sap getting rewarded with 4x markup on his ticket is part and parcel of United's master plan to screw over customers, while something that happens many orders of magnitude more often doesn't technically count as overbooking because the doctor collects payment only at the end of the visit. Got it, makes total sense. I'm sure that distinction is very relevant in the quality of the experience for the patient/consumer. Of course you're even wrong about that, many doctors make you pay the copay at check-in, before you know that you're going to be stuck in the lobby for the next two hours.

None for nothing, if they're only refunding tickets 1 in 16,000 times, they're clearly not overbooking aggressively enough. It's obv optimal to book such that half of the time some sap has to take another flight. Shame on United for leaving money on the table and not minimizing prices for the consumer.

Basically, United needs to broaden its bluffing range.

I would edit out grammatical mistakes before posting something like this.

I'm not sure if our airlines just use better algorithms than yours but I've only once been in an overbooking situation and it was in Vegas. Suffice it to say there were plenty of volunteers on that occasion.

Meh. Depends on flight and time. My wife and I fly to LV several times a year on the same SW flight. They're looking for volunteers about 80% of the time, and they always get them because there are multiple later flights to get you in. Same for an AA to chicago flight that I take 3 or 4 times a year - at least half the time they're asking for volunteers. From what I can tell they get them, although a couple of times they've had to bump their offer up a couple of times. Chumps - UA would just beat the crap out of someone and take the seats.

MM MD