“Airlines should be allowed to overbook”: IATA

In the wake of the drama involving a United passenger being dragged off an overbooked flight, IATA has weighed in on the debate, claiming airlines should be allowed to continue “long-established overbooking practices”.

Director General and CEO of IATA, Alexandre de Juniac, has also weighed in on the debate, attempting to distance United’s shady actions and poor apologies from the overall aviation industry.

In a paper from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), it stated its position on overbooking policies, they discussed governments considering regulations that would restrict the current practice.

“The airline business is unique in that once a flight takes off, the seats on that flight are no longer available for sale; it’s a time-sensitive, perishable product,” the paper said.

“Through sophisticated revenue management systems that airlines deploy, they know the historical percentage of no-show passengers for any given route.

“As a result, airlines can, with a degree of certainty, overbook a flight considering the number of no-shows expected, thereby maximizing the capacity available to customers.”

Protecting passengers in the case of denied boarding

According to 2016 stats, just 0.09 per cent of passengers in the US were denied boarding as a result of an overbooked flight.

“Where flights are overbooked, IATA supports, in the first instance, a call for volunteers in exchange for an agreed-upon offer the airlines extend to customers,” the paper stated.

But if not enough volunteers come forward, IATA said it “recognises the right to re-routing, assistance and proportionate compensation to those passengers involuntarily denied boarding”.

Director General and CEO of IATA, Alexandre de Juniac, shared his own thoughts on the United scandal and airline overbooking policies in an IATA blog.

“Everybody who watched the video of a passenger being dragged off UA flight 3411 earlier this week was shocked. That includes me,” de Juniac penned.

“Whatever the reason, what happened was clearly unacceptable. And United has recognized that.”

And while he said it’s not his job to judge or apologise for the situation, it is his duty to “defend the reputation” of the aviation industry.

“Each day some 10 million passengers board planes. And 100,000 flights will take them safely to wherever they are going, almost always without incident,” de Juniac said.

“That is no less than a modern day marvel of technology, coordination and dedication to safety.

“Aviation is also a challenging business. Every take-off and landing involves complex coordination among many different people. Bad weather, overcrowded infrastructure, strikes, natural disasters, and public health issues are among the long list of events on one side of the world that can lead to disruptions a continent away.

“Absolute dedication to safety could see a last minute change of aircraft or a flight delay to fix the problem.

And the 63 million people employed in making travel possible are human. Sometimes they make mistakes. In a service business amends need to be made swiftly and with the human touch.

“There can be no justification for what we saw on that video. But the response must be more thoughtful than headlines painting an entire industry with the hue of a single and very regrettable incident.

“Many political and opinion leaders have weighed in on a discussion that has gone global with amazing speed. Questions have been raised about passenger rights, procedures for denying boarding to passengers, the actions of local law enforcement, and overbooking practices.

We will learn lessons from this too. But at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, the best results will not come out of angry, knee-jerk responses that seek resolution in 140 characters, or a newspaper comment piece written before the entire incident has revealed itself.

“Where do we go from here? United has pledged to take immediate concrete action to ensure this never happens again and announced a thorough review of its relevant policies and actions addressing oversold situations and incentivizing volunteers, with a report by 30 April.

“But, if there is something in this incident that requires changes at an industry level the next step is a robust dialogue. To relieve any cynics out there, that’s not a stall tactic. Rather, it is a proven process to produce the best result.

“Airlines and governments both want passengers to reach their destination safely, efficiently and without incident. That’s our common goal—and a proven platform to make flying even better.”

Advertise with us

Airlines should no longer be allowed to overbook to the extent that they do. They "want their cake and eat it too". The new age of airlines are using the gentile days of travel past and incorporating it to a money grab in today’s airline culture.In all classes of travel today, not just the inexpensive restricted flights, airlines are automatically charging hefty cancellation fees. These amounts are not invoiced; they are automatically deducted from agencies and passengers from their residual refunds, (that is if there is any refund to be had). “Through sophisticated revenue management systems" they are able to do this. Individual airlines now pick and choose their own rules and are not following to the letter IATA rules at all. Oh I should say if the IATA rules are in their favour they do, but if not they make up their own rules. They rule by holding your bank account hostage. An alternative could be to have a more effective standby mechanism. Freight is another revenue enabler. Perhaps the "standby passenger and freight" option could be a more amenable solution than dragging people off boarded flights. Surely the "sophisticated management systems" would know which staff needs to be where and when. Poor management perhaps? Or is it that they do it because they can? Whatever the actions of airlines today, there is no excuse for their bullying stand over tactics.I see no excuse to deplane a paying passenger in a lottery system just because the airline has no idea what staff need to be seated in advance. So in effect; the airline gets the money from the boarded passenger, gets to fly their staff in that paying passenger’s seat, puts the passenger in an awkward situation, and delays the flight and causes distress for everyone onboard.One could say that if the airline uses the last one booked as the deplaning lottery (or whatever they deem appropriate), against is that passenger has probably paid a ridiculous last minute booking fare, more likely flying because it is an emergency and really needs to be on that particular flight. If being a standby passenger I suggest this would be a different story, but the airline should still have known that they needed staff to fly. If there was an emergency to board the flight than people who weren't on a deadline to be somewhere, would more than likely volunteer to give up their seat. Never for a staffing issue. Perhaps all flights over a certain holding capacity should be made to have seats available for an emergency at the very least. It is evident that one particular airline needs to sort out their staff rosters.

Veronica Baker

Email the Travel Weekly team at traveldesk@travelweekly.com.au

Latest comments

Veronica Baker says:
April 27, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Airlines should no longer be allowed to overbook to the extent that they do. They “want their cake and eat it too”. The new age of airlines are using the gentile days of travel past and incorporating it to a money grab in today’s airline culture.
In all classes of travel today, not just the inexpensive restricted flights, airlines are automatically charging hefty cancellation fees. These amounts are not invoiced; they are automatically deducted from agencies and passengers from their residual refunds, (that is if there is any refund to be had). “Through sophisticated revenue management systems” they
are able to do this. Individual airlines now pick and choose their own rules and are not following to the letter IATA rules at all. Oh I should say if the IATA rules are in their favour they do, but if not they make up their own rules. They rule by holding your bank account hostage. An alternative could be to have a more effective standby mechanism. Freight is
another revenue enabler. Perhaps the “standby passenger and freight” option could be a more amenable solution than dragging people off boarded flights. Surely the “sophisticated management systems” would know which staff needs to be where and when. Poor
management perhaps? Or is it that they do it because they can? Whatever the actions of airlines today, there is no excuse for their bullying stand over tactics.
I see no excuse to deplane a paying passenger in a lottery system just because the airline has no idea what staff need to be seated in advance. So in effect; the airline gets the money from the boarded passenger, gets to fly their staff in that paying passenger’s seat, puts the passenger in an awkward situation, and delays the flight and causes distress for everyone onboard.
One could say that if the airline uses the last one booked as the deplaning lottery (or whatever they deem appropriate), against is that passenger has probably paid a ridiculous last minute booking fare, more likely flying because it is an emergency and really needs to be on that particular flight. If being a standby passenger I suggest this would be a different story, but the airline should still have known that they needed staff to fly. If there was an emergency to board the flight than people who weren’t on a deadline to be somewhere, would more than likely volunteer to give up their seat. Never for a staffing issue. Perhaps all flights over a certain holding capacity should be made to have seats available for an emergency at the very least. It is evident that one particular airline needs to sort out their staff rosters.
Log in to Reply
Owen Olsen says:
April 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Unfortunately in the Dr Dao incident the credit offer couldn’t be done before boarding commenced. Even then, no guarantee anyone will volunteer. The airline has then very little option but select passengers to disembark. Dr Dao will get damages but he also broke the law. The findings of the court case will be very interesting. There will certainly be some changes on how these matters will be treated in future.
Log in to Reply
Maxwell Smart says:
April 19, 2017 at 12:14 pm
another storm in a teacup. All United had to do, was up the United credit offered, until they had enough volunteers, BEFORE boarding commenced. Would have cost them very little.
Log in to Reply

Alexandre de Juniac iata overbooking united airlines