I wouldn't envy the marketing and pricing analysts in that situation trying to optimize. Imagine seeing an option at checkout to upgrade to a "no-bump" seat? Or the reverse, you can opt-in to a "bumpable" seat for a discount. Actually, the latter doesn't sound so bad for casual flights!

Some airlines ask at check-in time whether you're willing to be bumped at ~$200 compensation.

Yes, i will opt for latter too, on few casual flights :)

WestJet here in Canada is currently running ads emphasizing that they never overbook their plans. The ads have been very effective and I suspect that the increased business has more than made up for any gain they could have made from overbooking.

If everyone took that approach, the increased business would vanish and they'd all be leaving money on the table.

Yes, but they have no right to that money in the first place, since their physical plane does not fit the extra customers. They have already got all the money available from the flight. Plus, every no-show is pure profit already since their luggage needs no handling and there's no fuel consumed for hauling them.

I guess the only way to force them out of this habit would be to make the compensation mandatory at 10x the ticket price, in cash, on the spot. And a seat on the next plane, plus free accomodation for the bumped person if the next plane is more than 8 hours away.

Depending on the numbers, I will accept some very small risk of being bumped to a later flight in exchange for cheaper tickets.

Also a bonus if overbooking helps keep the route to the rinky-dink airport in my hometown operating so that I don't have to drive in for the last leg of my holiday trips.

What about those that can't afford to pay. Are their plans less important because they can't afford the no-bump class?

>What about those that can't afford to pay.

That's not an argument.

Else we can ask what about those who can't afford an airplane ticket at all? Perhaps nobody should ever fly since we can't assume that these people don't have important plans either?

>Their plans less important because they can't afford the no-bump class?

No, but their purchase power is clearly less -- which is what determines what one buys (and if one can afford to fly in the first place), not the importance of their plans.

(The only place where the argument holds is in things like organ transplant waiting lists, which we don't want to turn into a market -- and we'd be less hypocritical if we extended it into general free/same-price healthcare for all).

Yes? That's how things are decided in a capitalist marketplace, there's no real moral force that exists within a negotiated exchange.

The obvious answer is "chartered jet" has a 100% seat guarantee, but that's an order of magnitude more expensive.

I really can't understand this comment. I have a friend whose dream it is to go to Japan but can't afford the cost. Should airlines lower the cost flights just so her and her family can afford to buy tickets?

Anyways, the bumping situation only would come up rarely, most oversold flights don't have to bump anyone and usually oversold flights have volunteers before they have to involuntary bump someone.

The question has nothing to do with an entirely optional vacation. You've bought a ticket for a funeral, a job interview, etc. Why should it be ok for the airlines to bump you off your flight when you have bought a ticket? Just so they can make a little bit more money when people occasionally don't show up?

To be fair. Involuntary bumping is happening very rarely.

Airlines don't have an interest to bump passengers. At least in Europe this can be relatively costly as in up to 600EUR compensation per passenger. Add hotel rooms, multiple restaurant visits, taxis and communication costs to that. Add the image loss if this happens too frequently.

Airlines employ extremely complex math and statistical models to avoid bumping passengers, while filling the plane to capacity and mostly it works out. If it doesn't they usually find volounteers, who are willing to be bumped, provided that they are fairly compensated and provided with a reasonable alternative.

What if you can't afford a plane ticket to attend a funeral? Should airlines give you one? Without overselling flights travel would cost more for everybody (at least in theory).

Job interviews are readily rescheduled if you're bumped against your will.

Airlines already have bereavement flights that give the bereaved priority and extra flexibility.

We already have regulations that compensate people who are bumped against their will so it's not in the airlines best interest to do so, it's expensive.

BTW, my mom missed her dad's funeral due to the 1981 air traffic controller strike.

I can't afford to buy a Ferrari, however I would really like to have one. Does my need is less important than a need of those who can afford it? Does this mean that now all Ferraris should cost (let's say) $1000?