Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 335 posts

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#171

Post by linkregister »

ww520 wrote: post #156
pauldino wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've restricted it slightly: now you have to notify them at least 10 minutes before the flight. But still no penalties - I really hope they don't have to do away with that policy since that's the main thing I like about Southwest.

The 10 minutes prior departure cancellation rule is for full refund to the original payment method, i.e. refund to credit card or cash. If you missed the flight without cancellation, you got back SW credit as refund, which has to be used within a year.

For the lowest-price ticket, "Super Web Saver" or whatever, there is no way to get a cash refund for a cancelled flight 24 hours after purchase. You just get the credit for cancelling 10 minutes before departure.

After that, you get nothing. It's in the contract. I think it's only been that way for 2 years or so.

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#172

Post by [deleted] »

Veratyr wrote: post #56
chmaynard wrote: post #16

Southwest Airlines has the best website, best checked luggage policy, best change policy, and now no overbooking. The big four domestic airlines all treat coach passengers like cattle, but Southwest is the least predatory. Edit: Also, consider that Southwest is very profitable despite the fact that they don't have first class or business class sections on their aircraft. Yes, passengers pay different fares. But as fa…

To offer a counterpoint, Southwest also offers the worst boarding procedure, unless travelling alone or with kids. My wife and I were going on vacation and it was impossible to get seats together as we were pretty far back in the assigned line positions and by the time we got on the plane, there were no two vacant seats next to each other. After landing we discovered that checking in at the right time might get us fu…

[deleted]

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#173

Post by ghaff »

mikeash wrote: post #164
thunderstrike wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand how expensive it is to take a taxi that far? Or the fact that taxi/rental car companies usually don't like you going over state lines?

I'm sure it would cost several thousand dollars. Do you think it wouldn't be worth the cost?

It may not have been practical for the flight crew because of hour on duty restrictions. But they could have transported 4 passengers for $1-2 k on a limo.

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#174

Post by [deleted] »

mikeash wrote: post #164
thunderstrike wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand how expensive it is to take a taxi that far? Or the fact that taxi/rental car companies usually don't like you going over state lines?

I'm sure it would cost several thousand dollars. Do you think it wouldn't be worth the cost?

[deleted]

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#175

Post by ransom1538 »

chmaynard wrote: post #16

Southwest Airlines has the best website, best checked luggage policy, best change policy, and now no overbooking. The big four domestic airlines all treat coach passengers like cattle, but Southwest is the least predatory. Edit: Also, consider that Southwest is very profitable despite the fact that they don't have first class or business class sections on their aircraft. Yes, passengers pay different fares. But as fa…

Southwest has never had a fatal accident (as a passenger).

That is damn good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#176

Post by JamesSwift »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #132
lisper wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem isn't overbooking. The problem is not auctioning the seats higher when overbooked. This. Oh so very much this. United could have avoided this whole debacle simply by not imposing price controls on the market for seats when it became a buyer rather than a seller.

Could they have averted disaster with money? It's astounding that there were no volunteers when they offered USD 800 for a seat, 800 dollars is a nice sum. Every single passenger on that airplane thought there was a catch involved, they were getting again 800 dollars in airline vouchers, which everyone knows have big gotchas attached. The airline has a trust problem, which won't improve anytime soon.

Regardless of how heinous it might be to someone that a whole flight turned down $800, I can guarantee there was a number for every single person on that flight that would have averted the disaster. Now some of those numbers were probably much, much higher than others but I guarantee everyone had a number they would have agreed to (barring extenuating family circumstances or the like).

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#177

Post by linkregister »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #112
ewanm89 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is more fuel left in the tank, so there is less on the refill so yes it does save fuel, not much but it does save some. I prefer no refunds for no-show policy myself, that is how it works when I buy a ticket to see a play. Now refundable upto 48 hours before the flight might be even fairer.

The fuel increase is marginal. You still have to burn fuel to carry that fuel to the next airport. And you have to carry the airframe with capacity for that empty seat. The 100 kg for a passenger+luggage is much less than the fractional weight of the plane required to carry them! For some numbers, a 777-200 carries 313 passengers, weighs 135k kg, carries up to 100k kg of fuel, and has a max takeoff weight of about 25…

thousands of kg is probably the most recognizable unit (besides pounds for those of us with archaic units)

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#178

Post by ghaff »

thunderstrike wrote: post #157
mikeash wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have just used a rental car or a taxi. Airline crews don't have to travel by air. The amount of inflexibility displayed by United is breathtaking.

Do you understand how expensive it is to take a taxi that far? Or the fact that taxi/rental car companies usually don't like you going over state lines?

Five hour limo rides are nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe a thousand dollars or two.

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#179

Post by mac01021 »

lucasmullens wrote: post #126
brandonmenc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, boarding speed is not my major complaint - failing to secure an aisle seat, however, is.

Fast boarding speeds lowers their cost. That's one of the reasons Southwest can often be much cheaper than other airlines.

Any time I fly I try to get the lowest possible fare by using priceline/kayak/whatever. Southwest never comes up among the lowest prices.

Re: Southwest to Stop Overbooking as United Uproar Echoes

#180

Post by mjevans »

thunderstrike wrote: post #157
mikeash wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have just used a rental car or a taxi. Airline crews don't have to travel by air. The amount of inflexibility displayed by United is breathtaking.

Do you understand how expensive it is to take a taxi that far? Or the fact that taxi/rental car companies usually don't like you going over state lines?

Right, that's the ballpark of the 'natural ceiling' for how much they should be willing to pay (at maximum) for a solution involving deferring passengers; also in /real money/.
Post reply on HN