Deadheading...would you take the jumpseat?

Seggy said:
For those saying it is 'bad business practice' to oversell flights, do y'all understand that involuntary denied boarding is laid out in the open in the contract of carriage for the passengers? The information is out there.
Click to expand...

They also had the same dance tune playing during the house market boom years ago. The terms were there to read. What is a "bad" business practice, anyway? Everyone has a different view on what makes a good business. Some people want a profit. Some people want innovation. Some people want good customer service. Is it too much to ask that a company I do business with find different ways to entice people to show up for their reservation rather than accept that "futures investment" and take someone else's money in addition, just to get the cash in the bank? It's rather simple, really. Show up or we're charging you. If people are REALLY not making their flights THAT often and it really IS a cash cow, than why are the people that actually show up having to deal with it? Some of that cash then goes to someone when the flight is overbooked. How about instead of taking available seat customers' +X money and then giving it up when the prediction goes bad, we just draw money from the customers who buy a ticket and then don't make it? This practice is the only example I can think of that people support, but wouldn't accept the same principle elsewhere. The ONLY reason is that it brings in cash, but everything else points to dirty business. Would a friend let a friend repeatedly invite too many friends to ride in their car to a ball game for the same reason? No. Would a spouse let their significant other date other people on overnights for because they're not home anyway and really need the companionship? No. Would you let McDonalds sell you a meal they don't have? How about your paycheck? What if the company didn't expect everybody to go over guarantee and didn't have enough cash to make payroll? Based on how airlines do accounting, that could happen for the same reason, but it won't because too many people would be interested in why. The airlines are taking advantage of the wrong people.
 
I completely disagree with my esteemed college from Southwest, we do work in a customer service industry. Good customer service is imperative.

The airlines are not gambling if people show up or they don't. The data mining they use to determine how much to oversell flights is very advanced and very calculated. Once again only ONE airline in the United States doesn't oversell flights that would be JetBlue. They can market that as a customer service advancement but they are just doing their shareholders a disservice on not optimizing revenue. Furthermore, in the past few years, the biggest black eyes to customer service are how IROPS are handled. So while JetBlue may not oversell flights, we have a plethora of legislation because of the way customer service completely failed...

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-tarmac-time-for-a-passenger-bill-of-rights/

New laws were written because of this customer service failure, the founder of the airline was forced out, etc. We don't see outside organizations calling for new rules on involuntary denied boarding, now do we?
 
kellwolf said:
If that's the case, why do airlines have to solicite volunteers so often? If the projections were accurate, they should have it down by now. As it is, nearly every flight I operated last summer was in "an oversold situation." If the projections were on, then why were gate agents handing out vouchers at all? I can see soliciting them because it's oversold just in case, but if the software is so spot on as you claim, they shouldn't have to actually issue the vouchers.
Click to expand...


Agreed, try to pay your mortgage with an airline voucher. Or replacing the revenue that you lost at that sales meeting. Or the hours you didn't bill a customer because you were stuck at the airport. Vouchers aren't worth much, they aren't cash. They have limited time value (they expire). They bring in revenue (you have to buy a ticket to use them). They are more like a discount coupon.

People are uninformed, and don't realize what a bad deal it is for them to volunteer. Carriers should be required to disclose how much they would pay if no one were to volunteer, it would be a more fair transaction.

I've only been denied boarding a few times recently, but I am also the HVC that is in theory the least likely to be denied boarding. Yet it still happens. Hell, even full-fare Y tickets aren't worth it anymore, because the very thing that gave them value (flexibility) no longer exists. When I buy a Y-fare through ATL on a Monday/Thursday/or/Friday, it may not have any penalties to change it, but that is moot, because when I try to change it, all other flights are invariably oversold.
 
When I was based in Vegas, the Saturday night red eyes to the Sunday night/morning red eyes were always oversold yet we always ended up always having seats available. Why? Passengers always missed their flights from being hung over, being in the hospital from alcohol poisoning, or actually winning money and the casinos pay to have their stay extended.

Answer this question for my drunkenbeagle, don't the airlines have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize revenue? If they know people aren't going to show on a Vegas red eye to the East Coast, shouldn't they maximize their revenue?
 
Seggy said:
I completely disagree with my esteemed college from Southwest, we do work in a customer service industry. Good customer service is imperative.

The airlines are not gambling if people show up or they don't. The data mining they use to determine how much to oversell flights is very advanced and very calculated. Once again only ONE airline in the United States doesn't oversell flights that would be JetBlue. They can market that as a customer service advancement but they are just doing their shareholders a disservice on not optimizing revenue. Furthermore, in the past few years, the biggest black eyes to customer service are how IROPS are handled. So while JetBlue may not oversell flights, we have a plethora of legislation because of the way customer service completely failed...

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-tarmac-time-for-a-passenger-bill-of-rights/

New laws were written because of this customer service failure, the founder of the airline was forced out, etc. We don't see outside organizations calling for new rules on involuntary denied boarding, now do we?
Click to expand...

I may not be a big art fan because I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I don't care if a computer said it's ok or if the passenger in 13B accepts the voucher. If I paid for a ride to San Fran on a particular Wednesday at a particular time and I can't get on because that particular flight didn't fall in with the sophisticated software's prediction, I'm not going to be happy. Again, just because studies were done and programs were written, does not make it ok. The reason they get away with it is most people are flexible, especially when money is flashed in their face. I gotta ask, are most of the airlines in the passenger moving business or the make as much money as possible business? Sadly, the answer is the latter. This kind of philosophy is fraud elsewhere. These airlines are walking the line and they know it. Do a study. Buy a good computer model. Disclose that it's a reservation and not a guaranteed seat. Offer money, etc.

I don't agree with the practice because of how they choose involuntary bumps. The people who lose in that case didn't necessarily do anything wrong and as far as I'm concerned, they are paying for "statistics show..." Of course, most people are ok with it because most people are flexible, most people like free stuff more than their reservation and there's a disclosure and a very sophisticated program keeping things oiled. I'm not one of those people, Mark. I'm not easily swayed and my time means a lot to me. I'm glad to know that JetBlue would listen. That is a pleasant surprise. Another reason I should seriously look at them.
 
If my taking the jumpseat got someone else where they were going, absolutely. Didn't care who they were, where they were going, rev or non-rev. Put 'em on, let's go.
 
Seggy said:
When I was based in Vegas, the Saturday night red eyes to the Sunday night/morning red eyes were always oversold yet we always ended up always having seats available. Why? Passengers always missed their flights from being hung over, being in the hospital from alcohol poisoning, or actually winning money and the casinos pay to have their stay extended.

Answer this question for my drunkenbeagle, don't the airlines have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize revenue? If they know people aren't going to show on a Vegas red eye to the East Coast, shouldn't they maximize their revenue?
Click to expand...


All companies have a responsibility to do what is best for their shareholders. But that isn't their only responsibility. Giving customers what they paid for comes first. Taking care of employees comes first. Repaying debt comes first. Shareholders are at the very end of that list. For a CEO, not paying shareholders a dividend might piss them off or get them fired. Not making payroll or defrauding a customer can put them in jail.

Providing a superior product, which they can charge a premium for, is generally a good way to do so provide value to investors. While management may work for the shareholders, the customers and bondholders are the folks you need to keep happy in any business. Treat them poorly, and shareholders are out all of their money, and management loses their jobs. If the customers aren't happy, they don't buy, company goes bankrupt, game over.

At least for me travelling through Vegas, I would usually book the redeye (because it was cheaper), and standby (for free) for the earlier flight.

And I don't have a problem with overselling flights, it is the lack of disclosure to customers that bothers me. If you sell me a ticket for $2,000, it would be nice to know if it was already oversold by 10 and my chances of getting on were slim. (I may know how to find that out, but most customers do not)
 
drunkenbeagle said:
In every company I've ever run, the IRS thought that they came before paying shareholders anything :)
Click to expand...

Aw, that's cute, and dodges the issue well, but isn't likely applicable to the discussion at hand.

How many shareholders did you have besides yourself in those companies?
 
jtrain609 said:
Aw, that's cute, and dodges the issue well, but isn't likely applicable to the discussion at hand.

How many shareholders did you have besides yourself in those companies?
Click to expand...

In one of the companies I ran (3 owners) we had only about 20 shareholders in the private company. IRS always got their money first. Yes it pissed off shareholders one year when they didn't get the dividend they expected, with it ending a change in the BOD and the loss some shareholders.
 
jtrain609 said:
How many shareholders did you have besides yourself in those companies?
Click to expand...


Never more than 2 owners.

Still though, I stand by my point, companies that have happy customers willing to pay a premium are better for shareholders than crummy companies that the treat customers poorly and can't grow profits. Which companies would you prefer to own stock in 10 years ago - SWA or AMR? Apple or Dell? IBM or HP?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Never more than 2 owners.

Still though, I stand by my point, companies that have happy customers willing to pay a premium are better for shareholders than crummy companies that the treat customers poorly and can't grow profits. Which companies would you prefer to own stock in 10 years ago - SWA or AMR? Apple or Dell? IBM or HP?
Click to expand...

A CEO making the decision that happy customers add to the bottom line, and thus providing a benefit to the shareholders is a world different than saying that a CEO has any responsibility to the customers being happy. The responsibility of the fiduciary always lies with the actor for whom they serve.
 
Seggy, I don't think these expensive metrics are working anymore. Customer complaints are on the rise faster than they have in years. One of the reasons? More people being denied boarding than in the past. If the metrics were as good as you and ATN claim, well, then they'd solicit volunteers because the flight was oversold but wouldn't really need them. Reality says that's not the case. In fact, the report out today says the projections are apparently failing miserably as bumping is up 17%. (Sourece: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/08/us-airlines-complaints-idUSL2N0CV1OZ20130408 ). If the computers were so awesome, wouldn't it be at least staying consistent?

As for the Valentine's Day Massacre at jetBlue, airlines make mistakes. Ours was growing too quickly, and it bit us. If you think that legislation came about solely because jetBlue failed on the tarmac, well, I've got some bridges to sell you. It's because customers in general are fed up with poor customer service at airlines.
 
jtrain609 said:
A CEO making the decision that happy customers add to the bottom line, and thus providing a benefit to the shareholders is a world different than saying that a CEO has any responsibility to the customers being happy. The responsibility of the fiduciary always lies with the actor for whom they serve.
Click to expand...


I agree, though the CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to debt holders as well.

If it were only a duty to shareholders, management would be paying special dividends and defaulting on debt far more often than they already do. (which is pretty often already). And CEOs do need to ensure at least some sort of customer satisfaction. If you piss off every customer, very quickly there is no more business to be a CEO of.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I agree, though the CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to debt holders as well.

If it were only a duty to shareholders, management would be paying special dividends and defaulting on debt far more often than they already do. (which is pretty often already). And CEOs do need to ensure at least some sort of customer satisfaction. If you piss off every customer, very quickly there is no more business to be a CEO of.
Click to expand...

By protecting the corporation, you protect the share holders, which is where your responsibility lies. If the corporation goes bankrupt due to default, the shareholders are injured.
 
jtrain609 said:
A CEO making the decision that happy customers add to the bottom line, and thus providing a benefit to the shareholders is a world different than saying that a CEO has any responsibility to the customers being happy. The responsibility of the fiduciary always lies with the actor for whom they serve.
Click to expand...
Lawyers (present company excepted) are terrible, terrible people.

Carry on. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top