By downgrading to a smaller plane, they probably saved well over 800x14 = $11,200 in operating costs. At least they were decent enough to share somewhat generously. Did they also make up some lame excuse about the larger plane having "mechanical problems," or have they moved past this polite white lie?
Another interesting phenomenon is the variable price per seat. Tickets sold for a flight at one time, or through a particular channel, can vary as much as 600% from tickets sold at other times or places.
It's mostly about accepted practice. We the travelling public generally accept the abuse, so it continues to get ratcheted up until we start physically abusing gate attendants and stewardesses - that's when they know they've maximized profits.
Full seats don't make money, sold tickets make money. If they could sell 200% of the seats and get away with it, they would. As it is, I think the actual percentage of no-shows runs 5-10% (depends on route, season, etc.), they study this carefully and oversell by 7-12% matching the predicted rate of no-shows and exceeding by a calculated amount. The "bumped" are accommodated on available space in other airlines, or wherever/however they most cheaply can be enticed off the plane.
Many people just don't show because they're flakes, they don't have to fall ill, they can change their minds about travel at the last minute (thank you non-transferrable tickets), or miss their cab to the airport, or stranger twists of fate that just mean they miss the plane.
There's almost always willing volunteers to take the perks of being bumped, so it's very rare that overbooking burns someone.
Now, late flights, cancelled flights, etc. - that burns large numbers of people all the time. My least favorite "trick of the hub" is when you are booked on an earlier homebound connecting flight that isn't full, so it gets cancelled while you are sitting at the gate (usually some entirely transparent BS about a maintenance problem with the plane, please don't lie to us, just come out and admit that you're doing it for higher profits) - but "you're in luck" there's a later flight with enough room for everyone, so we're consolidating your flight into theirs. No meal vouchers, no compensation whatsoever, you get home 3 or 4 hours late and either eat food from the concourse or go hungry.
The thing about overbooking is that a certain percentage of paying passengers don't show up. When you talk about groups of 100 people or more, this behavior is virtually guaranteed to be observed on every single flight, it's a well studied and predictable phenomenon. As the article says, the most profitable overbooking rates involve regular over-over bookings where a few non standby passengers get bumped.
The thing that bothers me about post-deregulation flying isn't the overbooking, it's the damned full planes with seats made for people who are 5'8" tall with 38" shoulders. When you are 6'1" with 42" shoulders, this is damn inconsiderate of basic animal needs for space.
They've been doing this since I started flying in the 1980s - if you're flying on popular routes, you can regularly score free perks by giving up a few hours of your time to take a later flight. I've only taken maybe 5 or 6 of these "bumpings" over the decades (if nobody volunteers to get off, then the schlub in the jetway gets to take the later flight), and I've never been delayed to my final destination by more than 3 hours.
In the old days, it was a free round trip ticket to anywhere - but like most things that fly out of airports, it's been getting worse as time goes on. The last one I volunteered for was a $100 travel discount... that's hitting my threshold for "no thanks."
The problem is: you're describing a rule by minority. That's not likely to win a popular vote, much less the kind of majority required to make such a drastic modification to the constitution.
That age used to be 25, until I turned 25, then they raised it to 30. When I turned 30, I got my first major accident/insurance claim from a hit and run driver in a stolen car. This myth that insurance rates go down is just that: mythical.
Go to Texas where "your honor, I plead not punishable for manslaughter on account of I've got a rich daddy" not only flies, but can be cited as case law.
The amusing part is that we most likely have accidentally stalled the onset of the next ice age, which would have been the natural climate progression. While I think this anthropogenic phenomenon is a good thing, we do need to understand and begin to control it before we get too much of this good thing.
Maybe we can practice artificial magnetic field replacement - a series of superconducting coils.... if we get it right here, it could be really useful on Mars.
The main problem with investing in Uber is that it is so well known that it will likely get a higher valuation than it is truly worth, given the risk of failure. So, I won't likely be investing. But, many people will.
The safer thing to invest in are all the companies that will benefit from Uber's robot driver ramp up and probable failure.
Actually, their soul sucking jobs are stopping them from retraining. If you spend 12 hours a day waiting on fares, you can't be studying or practicing other skills.
if they can pull this driverless thing off it will be better for so many people. Taxi drivers can retrain and get better jobs, and the clueless volunteers who drive for Uber can stop giving away the equity in their car for 90% return in fare payment - after expenses.
What better jobs? They've all been automated away.
Someone has to fill the gas tanks and/or plug in the charger cables on the driver-less UBERs.....
And design and build the driverless cars, and service them, and recycle them, and administrate, regulate and inspect the businesses that do these things. In a future world, every automated taxi might be inspected by a human operator for quality control as often as three times a day... they won't be out there risking their lives and interacting with the public, but they could be checking the cleanliness and safety of the vehicle and holding it to a higher standard than today's taxis. In that same future world, you could choose which cab you hail based on its user ratings - auto-cabs that show up reeking of vomit and dog urine and/or vibrating harshly under braking or with dysfunctional climate control, would probably get less business.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking about recent statements like: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...
By downgrading to a smaller plane, they probably saved well over 800x14 = $11,200 in operating costs. At least they were decent enough to share somewhat generously. Did they also make up some lame excuse about the larger plane having "mechanical problems," or have they moved past this polite white lie?
Another interesting phenomenon is the variable price per seat. Tickets sold for a flight at one time, or through a particular channel, can vary as much as 600% from tickets sold at other times or places.
It's mostly about accepted practice. We the travelling public generally accept the abuse, so it continues to get ratcheted up until we start physically abusing gate attendants and stewardesses - that's when they know they've maximized profits.
Full seats don't make money, sold tickets make money. If they could sell 200% of the seats and get away with it, they would. As it is, I think the actual percentage of no-shows runs 5-10% (depends on route, season, etc.), they study this carefully and oversell by 7-12% matching the predicted rate of no-shows and exceeding by a calculated amount. The "bumped" are accommodated on available space in other airlines, or wherever/however they most cheaply can be enticed off the plane.
Many people just don't show because they're flakes, they don't have to fall ill, they can change their minds about travel at the last minute (thank you non-transferrable tickets), or miss their cab to the airport, or stranger twists of fate that just mean they miss the plane.
There's almost always willing volunteers to take the perks of being bumped, so it's very rare that overbooking burns someone.
Now, late flights, cancelled flights, etc. - that burns large numbers of people all the time. My least favorite "trick of the hub" is when you are booked on an earlier homebound connecting flight that isn't full, so it gets cancelled while you are sitting at the gate (usually some entirely transparent BS about a maintenance problem with the plane, please don't lie to us, just come out and admit that you're doing it for higher profits) - but "you're in luck" there's a later flight with enough room for everyone, so we're consolidating your flight into theirs. No meal vouchers, no compensation whatsoever, you get home 3 or 4 hours late and either eat food from the concourse or go hungry.
The thing about overbooking is that a certain percentage of paying passengers don't show up. When you talk about groups of 100 people or more, this behavior is virtually guaranteed to be observed on every single flight, it's a well studied and predictable phenomenon. As the article says, the most profitable overbooking rates involve regular over-over bookings where a few non standby passengers get bumped.
The thing that bothers me about post-deregulation flying isn't the overbooking, it's the damned full planes with seats made for people who are 5'8" tall with 38" shoulders. When you are 6'1" with 42" shoulders, this is damn inconsiderate of basic animal needs for space.
They've been doing this since I started flying in the 1980s - if you're flying on popular routes, you can regularly score free perks by giving up a few hours of your time to take a later flight. I've only taken maybe 5 or 6 of these "bumpings" over the decades (if nobody volunteers to get off, then the schlub in the jetway gets to take the later flight), and I've never been delayed to my final destination by more than 3 hours.
In the old days, it was a free round trip ticket to anywhere - but like most things that fly out of airports, it's been getting worse as time goes on. The last one I volunteered for was a $100 travel discount... that's hitting my threshold for "no thanks."
That age hits everyone differently. I know 60 year olds who still haven't grown up as much as some 14 year olds I knew back in the day.
The problem is: you're describing a rule by minority. That's not likely to win a popular vote, much less the kind of majority required to make such a drastic modification to the constitution.
Deciding on when to commit your country to war would seem to be at least as important as how to tax the population.
That age used to be 25, until I turned 25, then they raised it to 30. When I turned 30, I got my first major accident/insurance claim from a hit and run driver in a stolen car. This myth that insurance rates go down is just that: mythical.
Funny thing, some of the loudest conservatives I know are not only eligible, but drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits.
If you shout loud enough, nobody wants to argue with you.
Go to Texas where "your honor, I plead not punishable for manslaughter on account of I've got a rich daddy" not only flies, but can be cited as case law.
The amusing part is that we most likely have accidentally stalled the onset of the next ice age, which would have been the natural climate progression. While I think this anthropogenic phenomenon is a good thing, we do need to understand and begin to control it before we get too much of this good thing.
Appropriate user name... I prefer the magnetic shoe inserts, aligning... something, who knows, they just make me feel good.
Just yell about it loudly on political radio broadcasts - that will make people believe whatever you want them to.
If losing the ozone layer was bad....
Maybe we can practice artificial magnetic field replacement - a series of superconducting coils.... if we get it right here, it could be really useful on Mars.
So, only worry if you don't live underwater or don't have fur to protect you...
Somebody watched Blade Runner too many times.
The main problem with investing in Uber is that it is so well known that it will likely get a higher valuation than it is truly worth, given the risk of failure. So, I won't likely be investing. But, many people will.
The safer thing to invest in are all the companies that will benefit from Uber's robot driver ramp up and probable failure.
Doesn't mean they're bad, or evil, just typical.
Taxi drivers can retrain and get better jobs
If retraining and getting a better job is an option for unemployed taxi drivers, why isn't it a good option for employed taxi drivers?
Because employed taxi drivers are employed? What are they going to pay the landlord and the grocer with while they retrain?
Actually, their soul sucking jobs are stopping them from retraining. If you spend 12 hours a day waiting on fares, you can't be studying or practicing other skills.
if they can pull this driverless thing off it will be better for so many people. Taxi drivers can retrain and get better jobs, and the clueless volunteers who drive for Uber can stop giving away the equity in their car for 90% return in fare payment - after expenses.
What better jobs? They've all been automated away.
Someone has to fill the gas tanks and/or plug in the charger cables on the driver-less UBERs.....
And design and build the driverless cars, and service them, and recycle them, and administrate, regulate and inspect the businesses that do these things. In a future world, every automated taxi might be inspected by a human operator for quality control as often as three times a day... they won't be out there risking their lives and interacting with the public, but they could be checking the cleanliness and safety of the vehicle and holding it to a higher standard than today's taxis. In that same future world, you could choose which cab you hail based on its user ratings - auto-cabs that show up reeking of vomit and dog urine and/or vibrating harshly under braking or with dysfunctional climate control, would probably get less business.