TICKET OVERSALES/BUMPING FINAL SUMMARY

Who Participated in the Ticket Oversales/Bumping Discussion?

Ticket Oversales/Bumping generated a lot of discussion.  99 comments were made on this post:

  • 75 comments by 61 users
    (2 comments were gathered by site administrators from the site feedback page, and added to this post by the moderator.  No username was associated with these comments.)
  • 24 comments by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers.  Eight commenters identified themselves as belonging to another interest group: three as researchers/experts, one as working for a U.S. air carrier, one as working for a travel agent or Global Distribution System (GDS), and three as unspecified “other.”

From September 13 to September 19, the Draft Summary was available for review.  Four users made comments. During this period, the Regulation Room team reviewed the comments on the Ticket Oversales/Bumping issue post again; as a result of this review, some additional detail has been added to this summary.

Better Information for Air Travelers

No commenter who addressed the issue is satisfied with the manner in which airlines disseminate overbooking and bumping information.  A variety of suggestions were made for giving travelers better warning and more complete information about options:

  • Airlines should warn consumers in advance of the possibility of being bumped and also ask passengers at the time of booking a ticket if they are willing to be bumped.  This possibility should be prominently disclosed on ticket sales websites and should be printed on itineraries, boarding passes, etc.  Some commenters would like to have notices about possible bumping posted in airports.
  • Some commenters favor a requirement that consumers get advance notice (e.g., 24 hours before the flight) if their particular flight is likely to be significantly oversold so that they can decide whether to make other plans; however, one commenter points out that airlines often don’t know whether bumping will be necessary until passengers check in, or not, for the flight.
  • Announcements should be made to passengers awaiting boarding as soon as the airline knows there may be an oversale situation.  To give passengers time to consider how to respond, they should be clearly informed of their options, including the amounts of compensation paid and the alternate travel accommodations the airline will make for passengers who volunteer or are involuntarily bumped.  One commenter suggests that information about an oversale situation should also be posted on airline TV monitors.  Another asks for handouts outlining bumping rules and passenger rights to be available at the counter in English and multiple languages.
  • Airlines should also tell passengers what system will be used to resolve the oversold situation (see next section).

Methods of Handling Oversold Flights and Transparency

Commenters agree that the airline’s first step in handling an oversold situation should be asking for volunteers.  Many believe this step will often be enough to solve the problem, especially if the airline has announced in advance the various compensation and accommodation rights.  However, one commenter, who is particularly concerned about discouraging oversales on routes on which a carrier has a virtual monopoly, argues that compensation for volunteers should be the same as for those involuntarily denied boarding.

If enough volunteers do not step forward in response to the gate agent’s request, one commenter commends the Wall Street Journal article suggesting an auction system in which airlines would offer passengers on overbooked flights a gradually rising reward for giving up their seat.  Another commenter suggests that airlines should bump based on the date passengers purchased their tickets, with later purchasers being bumped first.

Whatever method is used to select those who will be denied boarding, passengers should be informed of the selection criteria.  Commenters who addressed the issue agree with DOT’s suggestion that this information should include notice to passengers in danger of being involuntarily bumped of their situation, in enough time for them to decide whether to volunteer and take advantage of the higher compensation.  Additionally, a few commenters complain that airlines do not always follow existing regulations in this area and want to see more rigorous enforcement.

Compensation and Caps

Most commenters who addressed the current system of bumping compensation oppose caps.  About half of these commenters support compensating bumped passengers at 200% of the ticket price.  Some see this as appropriate to deter airlines from overselling.  Other commenters say that full ticket value is sufficient but the airline must also compensate bumped passengers for intangibles and/or housing.  (One commenter suggests full ticket value plus $100).  A handful of commenters support the cap policy with automatic periodic adjustment for inflation.  One commenter considers a $400 cap sufficient; this commenter fears that the higher caps will give travelers a windfall and thinks that $400 is a fair average of a one-way fare.

A few commenters are concerned that compensation based on ticket price will incentivize airlines to bump those who paid the lowest prices.  Several commenters worry that travelers with frequent-flyer tickets will be bumped first, making it important to settle the issue of compensation for zero-fair ticketholders (see below).  Some commenters suggest paying all bumped passengers a uniform compensation amount high enough to deter airlines from overselling and then bumping people with relatively inexpensive tickets.

One commenter argues that airlines should waive any cancellation fees if a bumped passenger chooses not to travel on another flight; if airlines are unwilling to waive restrictions and give a full refund to bumped passenger with a nonrefundable ticket, then they should be allowed to bump only passengers traveling on refundable tickets.  A few commenters support imposing additional monetary penalties on airlines that bump passengers repeatedly, with one suggesting that compensation should double for repeated bumping on the same flight for three or more weeks in a row.

One commenter is willing to accept a voucher as compensation but the others who addressed this issue supports a requirement that airlines offer the option of compensation in cash, noting that vouchers can be very difficult if not impossible to use.  One commenter points out that bumped passengers may not have check-cashing privileges in the area; credit card credit would be the most secure solution, but only if the credit is immediately accessible to the passenger.

Finally, one commenter proposes that airlines should not be allowed to charge passengers until they are on the flight.  That way, bumped passengers would not need to be compensated because they would not have paid the airline yet.

Small Aircraft

Most commenters who address the issue argue that aircraft size should be irrelevant to applying the bumping compensation rules, and strongly resist exempting the smallest aircraft.  One commenter points out that airlines are increasingly relying on regional carriers who fly smaller planes in smaller markets.  One commenter points out that it is usually more difficult to rebook in these situations; another expands on this point, drawing on his/her experience that in small airports served by small regional carriers, getting bumped can mean not getting to the traveler’s destination the same day or even the next day, which can cost the traveler lost vacation time, etc. in addition to compensable expenses.

A handful of commenters go further and urge DOT Department of Transportation  to prohibit oversales on small-aircraft flights because bumping is likely to be more disruptive to travel plans on routes that use small planes than routes covered by larger aircraft.  One commenter points out that there are less likely to be no-shows on these flights, given the number of business/full fare travelers.  Instead of overselling, airlines should use standby lists to deal with no-shows. Another commenter suggests that if oversales are not banned, at least they should be more limited.

Only one commenter would not apply the normal bumping compensation rules to small flights.  Typically, a smaller connecting flight will be either close to home, or close to the destination, where the traveler may opt for a rental car or taxi instead.  Therefore, this commenter suggests that compensation be based on what the alternative travel options are.

Banning Overselling

About a dozen commenters urge DOT Department of Transportation to ban airlines from overselling any flights.  In addition to the expense and plan disruption caused by being denied boarding, these commenters see oversales as a fundamental breach of the airline’s commitment to them—something that does not occur in other transportation contexts.

Two commenters disagree.  One would allow the current practice to stand because prohibiting overselling would lead to an increase in airline ticket prices and adversely affect everyone.  The other would not outlaw the overselling but would reduce the current level of oversales.

Several commenters strongly object to airlines’ practice of simultaneously selling many tickets that are nonrefundable and overselling seats.  To prevent airlines from getting a windfall, two commenters would require airlines to sell only fully refundable tickets if they are going to oversell seats.  Another would go in the opposite direction: prohibit overselling but reduce no-shows by making all seats non-refundable with no credit (like concert tickets).  At a minimum, airlines should be permitted to bump only travelers holding refundable tickets.  One commenter questions how no-shows hurt airlines: the airline has already sold the seat and will save fuel costs flying with less weight.

Various other methods of balancing airlines’ and passengers’ interests were suggested:

  • require airlines to keep 1-2 seats unoccupied on every flight to accommodate bumped passengers (or emergency personnel)
  • allow airlines to sell up to 5% of all tickets sold (or 5% of total seat capacity of the flight, whichever is less) as special standby seats not subject to the bumping compensation rules
  • offer reduced rate fares the day of the flight to fill empty flights with flexible travelers

Finally, one commenter suggests that, at the very least, passengers on international connections should not be bumped because of these flights are more expensive and more difficult to change.

Treatment of Zero Fare Tickets

All commenters who address the issue agree that zero-fare ticket holders should be compensated if bumped, although there are different views of the appropriate form.

The majority say that these passengers should get frequent flyer miles because that is how they paid for the ticket; proposals include double the miles the passenger paid or, recognizing that these travelers may have bumping-related expenses that miles will not address, miles plus cash to cover lodging and food.  Three commenters say that the bumped zero-fare ticket holder should have be given the option of miles or cash compensation; one proposal for the latter would use two times the prevailing market price at the time of the flight.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

Register





      Click to read the Terms and Conditions & Statement of Consent

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Register

Agreement

Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Site Use/Community Guidelines and Statement of Consent

Please read this document carefully. Because The Regulation Room is part of a research program at Cornell University, you will be asked to agree to the following terms and conditions of site use and consent to participate in the research of which this site is a part.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Regulation Room: Technology to Support Citizen Understanding and Participation in Regulatory Policymaking

This site is part of a research study in how citizens can become more effective in helping government craft better regulations. It is being conducted by researchers in the Cornell University Law School, Computing and Information Science program, and Scheinman Institute for Conflict Resolution, in cooperation with the federal agencies whose proposed rules are featured on this site.

What the study is about

This study uses existing and new technologies and methods to help people develop and communicate their preferences about federal regulatory policy. A moderated discussion environment allows users to learn the details of a federal rulemaking, discuss specific parts of the agency’s proposal, and react to what others’ say about it Our goal is to contribute to the existing research on electronic rulemaking by (1) constructing a large scale public participation web environment; (2) observing group and individual behavioral tendencies in that environment; and (3) developing natural language processing methods to assist in analysis of the information submitted.

Content submitted to the site may be extracted, summarized, and analyzed. At the close of the official comment period for the regulation, summaries and analyses, as well as all content submitted to this site, will be offered to the federal agency developing the rule, to assist them in their decision making.

You may read the site without participating in the study. To do this, we require no information from you.

To participate in discussion of proposed rules, endorse, or otherwise add content to the site, we require you to register. This involves picking a username and password, providing an email address, and agreeing to these terms and conditions. We will use your email only for the following purposes, and will in no event provide it to any other person or entity: (1) password recovery; (2) notices relating to comments you submit or to site events that are significant to continued participation in the discussion; (3) request to participate in a survey about your experience using the site. You may opt out of receiving such notices and/or may decline to participate in the survey. If you chose to register, you’ll have the option of including your real name and a brief bio. You’ll also have the option of making your real name and bio publically viewable. Providing your real name, including a bio, and making either of these public are entirely voluntary.

What we will ask you to do

We encourage users to participate in the rulemaking process by discussing issues in rule, raising questions, and responding to other users’ reactions. Our researchers will summarize this discussion and you will be able to suggest changes to that summary. You may also be able to respond to polls about the rule. The final summary of discussion will be submitted by our researchers to the federal agency for inclusion in its decision-making process. You may have the opportunity to join with other users in drafting joint comments in addition to this summary. You will have the opportunity to “sign on” to such comments drafted by other users. These joint comments will also be submitted to the agency by our researchers. We will not report to the agency any individually identifying information that is not publicly available on the site.

Short web-based questionnaires will appear when you submit content to our site. When you initially register, you be asked about your experience in participating in federal rulemakings and about the nature of your interest in that rule. This information will help us determine the effectiveness of the site and may be used in summarizing and analyzing the discussion for the agency. We may contact you using the email address you provide to ask you about your experiences using Regulation Room and how these experiences relate to your usage of the internet for other purposes and your other experiences with government participation. Response to any questions for this purpose is completely voluntary.

Risks and benefits

The goal of the project is to improve communication between government regulators and the public for the purposes of creating regulation that better meets the needs of the public at reduced cost. Individuals would generally participate because they are interested in more effective regulation, reduced cost, or both.

The principle risk of participation is that an individual might choose to provide sensitive personal information even though we do not require such information and warn users against including such information. The Profile page allows users to provide their real name and a brief bio, and to make both publically viewable. Users might include other personal data, such as address, telephone number, employer, and social security number. This information could then be viewed and used by others.

We will attempt to keep web site server log data and optional web survey data protected against public disclosure.

Compensation

There is no compensation for participating.

Taking part is voluntary

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to reply to any emails, and your participation or withdrawal will not affect your current or future relationship with Cornell University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.

Modification of Terms and Conditions of Use

Cornell University reserves the right to revise these Terms and Conditions of Use at any time by updating this page. Your continued use of the site constitutes your agreement to comply with such revisions, so you should visit this page from time to time.

PRIVACY NOTICE

In any sort of report we make public and/or provide to the Federal agency we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you unless you have elected to make such information publicly visible on the site.

Please note that material you post on Regulation Room is provided voluntarily; it will be publicly visible on the web site and might be publicly disclosed in a rulemaking docket.

SITEUSE/COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

We welcome your use of our site and participation in our research. To keep the experience a positive one for all our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By submitting content to this site, you are agreeing to the following rules:

You are fully responsible for the content you post. You may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates someone else’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, you may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.

We may monitor user-generated content and we reserve the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that, in our sole judgment, violates these rules. Repeated violation of these rules may result in your being banned from the site.

By posting material to this site, you represent that you have the legal right to reproduce, adapt, display, and distribute this material to others. Neither Cornell University nor any other person or entity responsible for this site will be responsible for posted information that may infringe on a third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.

We may summarize and/or republish the content of your comments. By posting you agree that your comments may be summarized, analyzed, and republished online and in print.

You may use this site only for non-commercial purposes. This site prohibits any actions to solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity.

You may not interrupt, or attempt to interrupt, the operation of the site in any way. Unauthorized use or modification of any information stored on the site may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution under federal, state and local law. You may not to use the site to carry out any unauthorized alteration of any data or information on the site or to conduct any activity that infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, service mark or other rights of any person or entity. You may not restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying any service conducted on the site.

Cornell University reserves the right to limit or deny your access to the site or take other appropriate action if you violate any provision of these Guidelines, or if you conduct any activity that violates the rights of any person or entity or that we in our sole discretion deem unlawful, offensive, threatening, abusive, or potentially harmful or malicious.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

If you have questions about these provisions, this site or the research program it is part of, you can contact Mary Newhart, Executive Director, Cornell e-Regulatory Research Initiative, mjn3@cornell.edu, 607-255-3660.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 607-255-5138 or access their website at http://www.irb.cornell.edu/. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously through the Ethicspoint website or by calling toll free at 1-866-293-3077. Ethicspoint is an independent organization that serves as a liaison between the University and the person bringing the complaint so that anonymity can be ensured.

If you agree to these terms and conditions, we will e-mail you a link to a copy of this consent form for your records.

This form will be kept by the researchers for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB September 30, 2009; revisions on February 19, 2010, April 12 2010, February 16, 2011, and August 18, 2011.

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

I have read the above information, I am at least 18 years of age, I agree to these Terms and Conditions and Site Use/Community Guidelines, and I consent to participate in the research program of which Regulation Room is a part.

Add Feedback

Thank You

Image
Home
Rule Home
Profile Tutorial
Issue Post

Login

Forget password?
Submit
Search

Search