Slashdot Mirror
Airlines Face Crack Down on Use of 'Exploitative' Algorithm That Splits Up Families on Flights (independent.co.uk)
Algorithms used by airlines to split up those travelling together unless they pay more to sit next to each other have been called "exploitative" by a government minister. From a report: Speaking to a parliamentary communications committee, Digital Minister Margot James described the software as "a very cynical, exploitative means... to hoodwink the general public." She added: "Some airlines have set an algorithm to identify passengers of the same surname travelling together. They've had the temerity to split the passengers up, and when the family want to travel together they are charged more." It's an issue that will be looked at by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, launched by the government this week to identify and address areas where clearer guidelines and regulation are needed in how data is used. Passengers first started noticing they were being split up from their party if they didn't pay more for allocated seating in June 2017, with Ryanair most commonly associated with the practice.
Make airline boarding more like the old Southwest system or like a commuter train. Board handicapped people first. Other than that, those who show up earlier get to board first and pick seats first.
Seriously. This is just about the most abusive use of public information that I can imagine.
"Cracking Down" doesn't even approach what needs to be done - the airlines identified should be forced to list all family groups who have travelled together since, I dunno, 1947 and pay back (with interest) all the exploited families.
Anybody not complying should be subjected to something equal to or or worse than public hanging.
Identification of airlines and, perhaps, public shaming just isn't appropriate here.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Things have been changing over the last few years; in general, the trend has been to find ways to offer a lower level of service for less money than what we used to think of as the basic Economy Class fare. This manifests in what some airlines sometimes call "Basic Economy," which has more restrictions and limitations on it than what you think of as Economy. Typically, the two things you lose in Basic Economy are A) The ability to bring on a full-sized carry-on (so everything you bring onboard has to fit under the seat in front of you) and B) Assigned seating.
This is Ryanair: the airline that charges to print boarding passes.
Everything Ryanair does is intended to maximize revenue, since the base price of the tickets is so low.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Corporations don't have to be moral. Too bad for everyone.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What's the problem?
The problem is that left unchecked, corporations will always resort to underhanded tactics to defraud people from their money, which is why government regulation is always required to give a minimum bar of standards. Although I guess that is only a problem if you're a Libertarian with the obligatory reality bypass.
and tell familys that you can pay $50 a seat or if your kids get split they will change you the $150 unaccompanied minor fee.
So what you are saying is that the airlines arent losing enough money? There will be plenty of posts ignoring the fact that airlines lose money.
Except airlines aren't losing money. See: Airlines had second-most profitable year ever in 2017
2017 Net Profit: 15.5 billion
IATA - Another Strong Year for Airline Profits in 2017
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If you don't want to be treated like shit, don't travel on a shit airline.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Besides making them more money?
I would imagine this creates a ton of extra work for the airlines when people who want to switch seats to stay together flood the departure gate attendants. Worse yet are the people who don't notice until they board, and then panic when they are split up.
About 25% of my flights, I get asked if I would switch seats with someone so a family can be together. My policy is never to switch seats unless offered a superior seat, so there's a whole bunch of inefficiency for flight attendants trying to seat families together after/during boarding.
It also can't be a good customer service experience if families remain split up due to lack of options to move people -- the people sitting next to kids might not like it, the people split up don't like it, it drags down employee morale, it's just awful in all kinds of ways.
Found the source of the stats (on page 20):
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/do...
Among the airlines in the survey, Ryanair is the worst offender by far, Emirates and Virgin Atlantic are also splitting up families more than average. The lowest were TUI and Flybe.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Of course this would be Ryanair, the subway of air travel. I can't wait until they actually book standing room only and have people pushing in backwards so the doors can close.
Fixing intentional family split-ups should be part of a bill that gets rid of a number of abusive airline policies that passengers can do nothing about:
1. Fees shall be for features of a flight that are optional, such as meals or a second checked bag, rather than for items that you need on every flight. There shall be no extortionate fees for fixing a name typo or making a schedule change months ahead of time.
2. There shall be a minimum seat width and pitch, as determined by flight safety professionals;
3. All tickets which are non-refundable shall be transferable, with the cost limited to the above non-extortionate name change fee. A seat sold is a seat for which revenue has already been collected. Airlines will discover that no longer having to deal with special exceptions and notes from doctors is well worth the lost revenue from selling the same seat twice.
4. The auction buyback system for oversells shall not be capped or limited in any way. If you really want a seat for that deadheading crew member at the last minute, you have to find a pax willing to give up his seat at the market price.
5. For any ejection or denied-boarding of a passenger not coming under the oversell rule, the carrier must file a report with the FAA detailing the situation and attaching signed statements by all crew and passengers involved. No more ejecting a passenger because "somebody felt uneasy about this person."
6. Passengers shall have unlimited right to film or record confrontations that occur during a flight, with the stipulation that a copy be submitted as evidence with any report the airline has to file in (5).
7. Carriers shall be required to use real math, rather than 'airline math' in calculating rebates for downgrades from higher classes of service that a passenger paid for but which cannot be provided at flight time.
The effect of such a set of minimum service standards will be to push revenue from extra fees, etc. into the base fare. Good, because this is the one number on which airlines compete. The reason for policies like charging people $5000 for fixing a name typo is to pull standard features of a flight out of the base fare, making it look artificially low. If a decently hu,mane level of service adds 20% or so to the base, then we will still be better off. Less air rage and fewer instances of "I'll never fly with you again!"
Not necessarily true. There are plenty of companies, even entire industries, that exist while losing money - generally subsidized because they are either of national importance (ie, steel in the UK) or because they have indirect benefits to the local economy (Tourism is often given substantial subsidies, because tourists also spend heavily at local businesses filling up on exotic food and holiday tat). Airlines, though, are just doing quite well on their own.
In libertarianland, you would be able to fly in modest comfort and for a very low cost. You'd just have to accept that your plane is likely to be held together with duct tape and rubber bands because there are no safety regulations. But it's ok - the airline would get you to sign a waiver saying they are not liable in the event of your death, so problem solved.
So if I marry, and my kids have my name, the flight is more expensive than if,
I spawn kids on a woman, she keeps her name and the kids have random hyphenated names.
Or perhaps adopt kids, who keep their names?
So the LBWTF couple with adopted kids, gets a discount compared to the old fashioned married family.
You wonder why the West is not reproducing.
Unfortunately you're telling me this as a married hetero man. If I knew this 20 years ago I would have been gay and adopted all my children instead. It's just so hard being Hetero having to pay more for kids on airplanes. LBGT have no idea the struggles we go through and the prejudice we face.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They seem to go out of their way to make the entire experience as miserable as possible, and then they seem surprised that they keep losing money. I'm sure most folks would drop an extra 50-100$ if the seats were comfortable and the people working for the airline didn't always seem on the brink of suicide.
I think the airlines, and now retail are an excellent example of what happens when you let the MBAs run all of your decision makings, they screw the customer at every chance to maximize profits until the customer gets sick of it, the company goes bankrupt, and they move on to the next sucker.