Southwest will follow JetBlue: Better a policy of no overbooking than compensation

Courtesy Getty Images

AFTER the fallout of United Airlines in an ugly overbooking situation, Delta Air Lines said it would pay any volunteer who gives up a seat close to US$10,000, which United now emulates. But Southwest Airlines does it better with the assurance it will not overbook seats.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said the airline “had been thinking about ending overbooking for a long time”. Thanks to United, it is now looking to implementing the new policy sooner with “better forecasting tools and a new reservations system coming online next month.”

In fact, JetBlue Airways already has the policy in place. In a published “Customer Service Plan”, the airline states: “JetBlue does not overbook flights.” There may be exceptions to the rule. The statement goes on to state: “However, some situations, such as flight cancellations and reaccommodation, might create a similar situation.” In which event, affected passengers will be paid denied boarding compensation of US$1350.

Courtesy JetBlue Airways

In the present climate when travellers are weighing in on the issue, JetBlue CEO Robin Hayes reaffirmed the airline’s policy. “We are committed to our policy of not overselling flights,” he said. “And our crew members have always been in power to make decisions in rare cases where we have to put someone on a flight.”

Last year, according to the Transportation Department, JetBlue bumped off 3,176 passengers involuntarily while 1,705 passengers agreed to take another flight, out of 34.7 million passengers.
This, Hayes said, was largely the result of downsizing planes.

Ironically, Southwest had the highest total number of involuntary denied boardings last year – at 0.99 per 10,000 passengers,. JetBlue was not far behind 0.92. The rates for both airlines more than double United’s 0.43.

One badly handled incident, so it seems, can really do more damage than the number of incidents added up might suggest.

United Airlines repairs image, ups compensation for passengers

In the aftermath of an ugly incident when a passenger on an United Airlines flight was forcibly removed to seat a positioning crew employee, the airline is taking the cue from rival Delta Air Lines’ offer of up to US$9,950 for passengers who volunteer to give up their seats in an overbooked situation. United said it would offer up to US$10,000.

In an effort to repair its damaged image, United made a few promises. It would no longer require police personnel to remove seated passengers in an overbooked flight while taking action at the same time to reduce such flights. Positioning crew members would be required to book into a flight at least an hour ahead of a flight. It would all in all improve customer satisfaction which will be a yardstick to assess staff’s performance.

In a statement, Untied said: “Our goal is to reduce incidents of involuntary denial of boarding to as close to zero as possible and become a more customer-focused airline.”

Incidentally, it has been argued that the David Dao incident was not a case of an overbooked flight but that United was bumping off passengers to make room for their crew members. Dao’s lawyers are likely to argue that it cannot be said that he was denied boarding as he was seated in the plane.

While it appears that US carriers are beginning to compete with each other to attract customers with the generous offer, it is only fair that passengers who are inconvenienced are amply compensated for more than just the cost of a ticket, never mind that there may be a small number who are on the lookout for a windfall which they rightly deserve. The issue is not who will be taking advantage of the offer but that there be takers.

Notwithstanding too that it may well be academic if the airlines better manage the booking, there will be still be calls for volunteers as airlines weigh in on the option as the situation arises. They are unlikely to stop overselling if that favours the bottom line.

Come June, United will want to be seen to be even more generous, paying passengers whose bags are permanently lost an amount of US$1,500 for the value of the bag and its contents. There will be “no questions asked”.

More offloading stories: What’s right, what’s wrong?

Suddenly, following the United Airlines incident of a passenger being forcibly removed from the aircraft in an overbooked situation (see The saga continues: United Airlines CEO promises no repeat of David Dao incident, Apr 14, 2017; United Airlines flew deeper into a PR storm, Apr 11, 2017; Fly the friendly skies? Not on United Airlines, Apr 10, 2017), air travellers are awakened to the harsh reality that even when they hold a fully-paid for confirmed seat, there is no guarantee they may not be bumped off.

Suddenly too, stories about more incidents of being bumped off are circulating via the social media.

#1
A passenger travelling with her husband and a child happily publicized a windfall when Delta Air Lines compensated her US$11,000 for giving up their seats.

Yes, Delta has announced a change in its policy to compensate volunteers an amount as high as US$10,000 for giving up their seats. More specifically, gate agents can offer up to US$2,000, up from the previous maximum of US$800, and supervisors can offer up to $9,950, up from $1,350.

That’s mighty generous of Delta, and why not if it means taking down the competition? However, a recently published list of the ten worst US carriers for overbooked flights did not list Delta, which means the offer may not be made as often as you might think.

Many people believe if United had upped the compensation, it would have been spared the bad PR patch it went through.

#2

Courtesy Air Canada

Just as soon as the Canadian authorities quickly reacted to the United debacle and vowed to protect consumers’ rights, a story surfaced of an incident on Air Canada of a 10-year-old child being denied boarding. His mother asked if an adult travelling with them could give up his seat for the child and was told that seat could not be guaranteed for the boy and would likely go to another passenger.

Oh, come on, Air Canada, to think this could happen in a country known for its people’s compassion!

The airline now said they were “following up to understand what went wrong” and that they had apologized to the family and offered a C$2,500 (US$1,866) voucher. If only airlines could understand how money cannot adequately make up for a disrupted holiday and the stress they caused, all the more in this case of separating a child and his parents.

#3
A couple posted their story of being asked to leave the aircraft of yet another United Airlines flight, and this was not a case of an overbooked situation. Apparently they found another passenger lying across their assigned seats, asleep, and decided to sit in a different row which happened to be “economy plus” seats . According to the crew, the couple tried to sit in an upgraded seat and refused to comply with instructions to return to their booked seats.

Well, well, it looks like anything United now does that displeases a passenger is wrong, even if it means following the rules. It is every traveller’s right to heed the call to boycott the airline after the way it treated passenger David Dao, but it is not fair to take advantage of the airline’s vulnerability.

US & UK ban laptops on board: Will this become the security standard?

Courtesy Emirates

SOON after the United States bars passengers on foreign airlines taking off at ten airports in Africa and the Middle East from carrying electronic devices larger than a cellphone, the United Kingdom announced a similar ban although the list of airlines and airports may be different.

The ban will affect items such as laptops, tablets, e-readers, cameras, printers, electronic games and portable DVD players. However, these articles may be carried in checked baggage.

Affected airlines and airports

The US restriction affects nine airlines: EgyptAir, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Royal Jordanian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Turkish Airlines, and the Gulf big three of Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways. The airports affected are sited in Amman (Jordan), Cairo (Egypt), Casablanca (Morocco), Doha (Qatar), Dubai and Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Istanbul (Turkey), Jeddah and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), and Kuwait City (Kuwait). It is estimated about 50 flights daily would be affected.

The British ban affects 14 airlines arriving from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey. While the US ruling exempts US carriers flying from the listed airports, the British restriction applies as well to home-based airlines British Airways and EasyJet.

Why the restrictions?

The reason for the bans is of course one of security, aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on commercial airlines. The US Department of Homeland Security said: “Terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks, to include smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items.”

The British government said it recognised the inconvenience these measures may cause but “our top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals.”

Few air travellers, if any, will take issue with enhanced security measures since it means a safe flight. Any averse reaction is to be expected, as when full-body x-ray and search became mandatory at US airports. The inordinately long wait to clear security at US airports has since then become an accepted practice.

However, it will do well not to ignore the arguments put forth by experts who may not yet be fully convinced. Technology experts have questioned the premises which in their mind appear to be at odds with basic computer science.

What goes with the ban?

The ban on laptops means no one will be able to work during a flight, something that businessmen and women will sorely miss. Keeping yourself or your kids entertained with electronic games of your personal selection will be a thing of the past if you do not like what the airline offers in its system. What about that novel you thought you might at last be reading during the long journey, having loaded it in your e-book?

Sure, you can pack these (and your camera) in your checked baggage to loaded in the aircraft hold, but it defeats the purpose if they are intended for use during the flight. Also, if these are expensive equipment, passengers are often reluctant to pack them in checked baggage for fear of losing them or having them damaged. Some observers are predicting a rise in incidents of theft in the baggage holding area and cargo hold, and airlines will be confronted with the messy business of handling claims. Apparently baggage theft skyrocketed when Britain imposed a similar ban in 2006.

Laptops, tablets, cellphones and cameras are among the items that are already being subjected to additional security checks before they are cleared as carry-ons. It can only point to the suspicion that the current procedures are not robust enough.

Looking at the bigger picture, some experts fear the ban seems lopsided. First, if a laptop as an example may be used as an incendiary device, it is equally dangerous in the cabin as it is stowed in the baggage hold. Second, the ban targets named originating airports, but a terrorist suspect could always connect a flight from a presumed safe airport or fly on a presumed safe airline. Third, in the case of the US, to make exceptions for flights originating in the US is turning a blind eye to the possibility that mischief could also be traced to a home source.

Some airlines may benefit from the ban

It looks like an unexpected turn of events for the US big three of American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in their quest to get the US government to act against the perceived unfair competition by the Gulf big three (Emirates, Etihad and Qatar). The ban may well benefit the American trio as travellers are likely to want to travel with their electronic devices on board than to have them stowed in the baggage hold. A pertinent question would be how the US carriers would ensure the devices brought on board are safe the way that other carriers may not be able to do so?

Similarly, in the case of the UK ruling which covers also budget carriers, legacy airlines will have the edge if, unlike budget carriers, they do not charge for checked baggage. Easyjet, for example, will be challenged to think up an innovative approach to this issue.

And will airlines across the industry introduce loans of security-screened laptops on board for a fee?

The future

Although the ban is said to be temporary (as indicated by the US), will there be a change of mind to make it permanent, like the ban on liquid obtained before security clearance? Amuse yourself about a future when all you are allowed to bring on board are the clothes you are wearing and a wallet. Everything else needed or desired for the journey as determined by the authorities and the airlines may be purchased after take-off.

For now, some airlines may mull over the use or disuse of a happy passenger working on his or her laptop in their ads.

Rising budget tide: Alitalia unbundles, IAG launches budget long-haul

Courtesy Getty Images

YET another legacy airline is going budget. Italian flag carrier Alitalia will adopt the unbundling model of budget carriers by charging for what will now be considered perks – seat selection, luggage and in-flight meals and drinks. This will be implemented for flights of four hours or less.

Alitalia CEO Cramer Ball said the airline had “absolutely no alternative” but to follow suit, coming soon after British Airways started charging for meals. He said: “If we can’t compete throughout Italy and Europe against low-cost carriers, then we lose air travellers that connect into intercontinental flights.”

Ryanair, EasyJet, Norwegian Air Shuttle, WOW Air, Eurowings (owned by Lufthansa) and Vueling (owned by International Airlines Group – IAG – which also owns British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus) are among the budget carriers viewed as close competitors.

Unbundling is not new even among legacy airlines. US carriers such as Delta Air Lines and United Airlines are already offering “basic economy” whose low fare does not come with cabin baggage allowance and seat selection, and holders of such tickets will be boarded last.

Courtesy IAG

In the wake of the rising budget tide, IAG announces its decision to launch a long-haul budget carrier – Level – to complement Veuling’s short-haul. Level, which becomes the fifth brand within the group, will be based in Barcelona with flights to the Americas that include destinations such as Los Angeles, Oakland, Buenos Aires and Punta Cana.

IAG chief executive Willie Walsh said: “Barcelona is Vueling’s home base and this will allow customers to connect from Vueling’s extensive European network onto Level’s long-haul flights.”

Clearly, legacy airlines can no longer hide behind their pride of providing a service that is safe from the aggression of budget carriers. It is up to the consumers to decide, whether the extra dollars charged justify the perceived better standards. In today’s price-sensitive market, the bottom-line counts, and legacy airlines unbunding the fare package will make an easier comparison.

They will be faced with the challenge to convince the travellers of that something extra over and above price that they will continue to provide but which budget carriers may not have the capability or capacity to offer, such as mileage perks, compensation for flight delays and product shortcomings, ease of booking, schedule flexibility, and after-sale customer attention.

Many budget carriers, for example, do not have adequate Plan B when a flight is cancelled or delayed, and your chances of getting out of that situation soonest is better with legacy airlines in light of their frequency, connections and codeshare arrangements.

Things are getting better for Economy travel

Courtesy Getty Images

American Airlines is not going to let rival Delta Air Lines go it alone in bringing back free meals for their flights. (See Delta Air Lines ups the ante, reintroducing free meals in Economy, 19 Feb 2017) However, American will for a start reinstate the freebie only two domestic routes – New York to Los Angeles and New York to San Francisco. Nevertheless it is an indication of how the competition is heating up, and how the game has come a full circle. It is only to be expected that United Airlines (and others) will follow suit.

In the end, it is not a matter of the meals but one of being ahead in the game, doing something different. Interestingly, across the pond in Europe, British Airways (BA) is doing away with free meals and has announced plans to add more seats in Economy, thus reducing the pitch. (See British Airways is becoming more “budget” than Ryanair, 7 Mar 2017) Here the critical question is whether BA is a leader or a follower in the European context, although it appears it is somewhat of a Johnny-Come-Lately and what Delta and American are doing may force it to re-think its strategy.

At no time than now is coach travel getting more attention from the airlines, which understandably have been paying lots more attention to the premium product because of the higher yield. (See Cathay’s loss is a sign of the times, 16 Mar 2017) And that’s good news for the majority of travellers.

Budget and transatlantic competition heat up

Courtesy Vueling Airlines

Courtesy Vueling Airlines

International Airlines Group (IAG) announced plans to commence low-cost transatlantic flights from Barcelona to the United States by budget carrier Vueling. IAG also owns British Airways (BA), Iberia and Aer Lingus.

Legacy airlines (and airline groups) are increasingly recognizing the competition posed by budget carriers, and it is not new that some of them have set up budget operations such as Lufthansa’s Eurowings, Qantas’ Jetstar, and Singapore Airlines’ Scoot. In the US, the Big Three airlines of American, United and Delta are introducing no-frills fares on normal services to compete with low-cost counterparts such as Southwest, JetBlue and Frontier.

Where the competition is most felt is the transatlantic sector, which has seen a surge of cheap fares offered by operators such as Norwegian Air Shuttle and Iceland’s WOW Air, discomforting both US and European counterparts.

WOW Air is well-known for its $99 fare for travel between the US and Europe – destinations such as Copenhagen, Stockholm, Edinburgh and Bristol – with a free stopover in Reykjavik. It has begun enticing US Westcoasters with fares as low as $65.

Norwegian also offers $99 fares with promotional offers as low as $69.

Budget doyen Ryanair has long announced its ambition to also ply the transatlantic routes.

While home-based US airlines are protesting the entry of Norwegian, European airlines are taking a more active approach to compete head-on. IAG will be able to advantage Vueling with the network of partner airlines. Eurowings is already operating nonstop from Cologne and Bonn to the US, and it has plans to add more destinations.

In a price-sensitive market for as long as the current situation holds, budget carriers may be driving the trend. Legacy airlines will be challenged to make their advertised difference in product worth the additional dollars in fares, at the same time keeping their budget rivals at bay in a two-prong approach to the competition.