The Swamp

Sabo wrote:Marriott already does this for its Platinum members. If you're a platinum member and need a room at a full hotel, you can ask the hotel to kick someone out so you can get a room. They only permit you to do this once, though. I know someone who had to exercise this option for someone he was interviewing for a job.

As you might expect, Marriott doesn't advertising this "feature" very much.

"If this happened to me it would be ok because I love capitalism and accept that sometimes things just don't work out as contracted!"

Nonlinear FC wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

mister d wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Look, they're a goddamn airline, they can offer more than $800 if needed.

Right, and its not even really $800 unless its used for an $800 seat on an otherwise sold out flight. I'm sure the real "cost" to United averages out to a fraction of that.

I've never gotten bumped, or got one of those vouchers, but I have to assume that they are heavily laden with restrictions as to when you can use them, destinations that they can be used with, etc.

Has anyone ever got one of those vouchers? Am I correct, or just making things up again?

I think it varies. Sometimes you can get straight cash, sometimes it's unrestricted, sometimes there are blackout dates.

It's definitely not 100 percent a screw job, because too many savvy travelers know the "bump" game and ask the right questions before agreeing to volunteer.

But I would be really curious what, exactly, they were offering here. Because if it was all restricted and bullshitty...

I've gotten a lot of them over the years. They're not as restricted as you would think. It's basically as good as cash (assuming you intend to fly that airline again ever). Usually only restrictions I've seen are it has to be used within a year and it's for domestic travel only.

mister d wrote:

Sabo wrote:Marriott already does this for its Platinum members. If you're a platinum member and need a room at a full hotel, you can ask the hotel to kick someone out so you can get a room. They only permit you to do this once, though. I know someone who had to exercise this option for someone he was interviewing for a job.

As you might expect, Marriott doesn't advertising this "feature" very much.

"If this happened to me it would be ok because I love capitalism and accept that sometimes things just don't work out as contracted!"

Or if it happened to anyone who wasn't American, they'd be much more likely to see the other side and understand that the greater good is of the utmost importance.

Someone just jumped in front of me in the lunch line and got served first AND I DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. He did not appear to be more important than me, and I doubt that he had a bigger dick.

brian wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

mister d wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Look, they're a goddamn airline, they can offer more than $800 if needed.

Right, and its not even really $800 unless its used for an $800 seat on an otherwise sold out flight. I'm sure the real "cost" to United averages out to a fraction of that.

I've never gotten bumped, or got one of those vouchers, but I have to assume that they are heavily laden with restrictions as to when you can use them, destinations that they can be used with, etc.

Has anyone ever got one of those vouchers? Am I correct, or just making things up again?

I think it varies. Sometimes you can get straight cash, sometimes it's unrestricted, sometimes there are blackout dates.

It's definitely not 100 percent a screw job, because too many savvy travelers know the "bump" game and ask the right questions before agreeing to volunteer.

But I would be really curious what, exactly, they were offering here. Because if it was all restricted and bullshitty...

I've gotten a lot of them over the years. They're not as restricted as you would think. It's basically as good as cash (assuming you intend to fly that airline again ever). Usually only restrictions I've seen are it has to be used within a year and it's for domestic travel only.

I've been bumped once with no compensation because I didn't have a guaranteed ticket. However I purchased that, I have no idea. I left on the next flight a crew hours after the fact. Even playing the "military on orders" card didn't matter. I was 20.

Once I volunteered to be bumped and got $500 and a guaranteed seat on the next flight 4 hours later.

And once I was lucky and a bunch of people volunteered before they randomized who got screwed over. I missed my connecting flight, however because the delays kept adding up.

But yea. The voucher was as good as cash and you had to use it within a year.

mister d wrote:Degen, if you went to a hotel or a restaurant and got told the reservation you booked two months ago had been cancelled because they had less no-shows than usual, would you just take it because "hey, they want to ensure a full house"? Most people would be pretty f'ing pissed, and that ignores (1) you haven't even paid yet and (2) its far easier to just get another hotel room and dinner than flight. Its really weird to see both the practice and the event itself get excused on any level because its become common and you would have allowed yourself to get fucked.

Worse, they kicked you out of the hotel after you checked in and unpacked, and told you it was because the chef didn't want to drive home and come back for the next days shift. Or at a restaurant, after they seat you, they boot you because they want to feed the waitstaff for the following shift, but they will seat you in 4 hours, and there are no other possible places to get any food within 200 miles.

With this new model of selling 10 different classes of tickets, they should include "no guaranteed seat" on the cheapest, and boot them first. Not sure what airline my sister was booking, but she was saying they had a different class ticket for being allowed to bring a carry on bag, bringing luggage, choice of seat, and other options. That is the easiest option. Leave 10 or so seats without a guarantee, bump them.

I will say this, borrowing from a friend who has flown oversees rather frequently... The US is pretty singular in its shitty treatment of passengers. He mentioned it might have something to do with being state-subsidized, so the lack of the absolutely brutal bottomline approach taken here is stripped down quite a bit.

Can't they just bring back no-frills passenger service?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECdZd74fAe4

Nonlinear FC wrote:I will say this, borrowing from a friend who has flown oversees rather frequently... The US is pretty singular in its shitty treatment of passengers. He mentioned it might have something to do with being state-subsidized, so the lack of the absolutely brutal bottomline approach taken here is stripped down quite a bit.

I don't know how true that is as between the US and Europe (though I've had very good experiences on European airlines), but it's surely true as between the US and Asian/Middle Eastern carriers. I want to say that it's because the industry is so walled off to foreign competition, but then again, it seems like whenever a serious domestic challenger emerges, it is someone who is offering an even more stripped down, low-cost service than the existing carriers. I haven't seen anybody try to challenge the big carriers by offering a more upscale service for a premium price. And it also seems that whenever a major airline offers a slightly upscale service, like Delta Comfort (free drinks and more leg room for about $25-125 more depending on the length of the flight), those are the last seats to fill. As much as I want to think that people care about things other than cost when it comes to flying, it often seems like they only care about cost.

mister d wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Look, they're a goddamn airline, they can offer more than $800 if needed.

Right, and its not even really $800 unless its used for an $800 seat on an otherwise sold out flight. I'm sure the real "cost" to United averages out to a fraction of that.

How much cheaper would it have been to hire a car service to drive the four crew members to Louisville? And adjust crews to ensure the crew being driven had enough turnaround time to avoid overtime or any other issues?

In Asia they will expect better service and will pay more for it. No exceptions.

And that's not just on Asian Airlines. A friend of mine once told me he took United from San Francisco to Tokyo and the flight was very good as United had to match Japanese airline standards. Or else the Japanese just wouldn't take that flight.

DSafetyGuy wrote:

mister d wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Look, they're a goddamn airline, they can offer more than $800 if needed.

Right, and its not even really $800 unless its used for an $800 seat on an otherwise sold out flight. I'm sure the real "cost" to United averages out to a fraction of that.

How much cheaper would it have been to hire a car service to drive the four crew members to Louisville? And adjust crews to ensure the crew being driven had enough turnaround time to avoid overtime or any other issues?

Have to say I'm not too big on this line of thinking. I'm not sure the union contracts would even allow it, but assuming they do, it's not a very good solution to the recurring issue of having to move flight crews on short notice (which is a legitimate problem and not always the result of poor planning). The next time this happens, it might be on a cross-country flight. So while I'm sure there were better solutions available here, I'm not sure there's one weird trick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr- ... nal&wpmk=1

United reviewing all this shit, as you do.

Overbooking, moving and coordinating flight crews, incentives for passengers being bumped, etc.

And one bullet that is important... How United "partners" with law enforcement in this situations. I've been kind of waiting for United to ... well to be diplomatic... how they introduce the police's role in this fiasco.

Typically international flights are better than domestic.

Any time you guys want to talk about investing in high speed regional rail, by the way. At approximately 300 miles, you're looking at a 2-3 hour ride, downtown to downtown. You can stand up, walk around, drink in the bar car, pee whenever you want, whatever suits you.

Good train travel is wildly underrated.

Trumps' budget cuts Amtrak funds, so maybe we can bring it up again in 4 years. Or get coal trains.

I used to travel from DC to NYC about 3 or 4 times a year. I choose to take the train whenever possible. From door to door, it's pretty much a wash, and when you factor in convenience and comfort and the almost total lack of stress? It's not even a close comparison.

I mean, shit, you can roll up your train literally within a few minutes of the departure time and be golden.

Nonlinear FC wrote:I used to travel from DC to NYC about 3 or 4 times a year. I choose to take the train whenever possible. From door to door, it's pretty much a wash, and when you factor in convenience and comfort and the almost total lack of stress? It's not even a close comparison.

I mean, shit, you can roll up your train literally within a few minutes of the departure time and be golden.

Yep, did this a lot, and never understood why anyone would fly. Even better, I could get on Amtrak from my office without leaving the building. Desk to train in 5 minutes. Flying into NYC, you have to factor 30 minute taxi ride, or a long subway ride. Took Amtrak from NYC to Boston and Philly a bunch, too. And my previous house, I walked to Metropark train station, which had an Amtrak express stop to Boston and Philly.

Rex wrote:Any time you guys want to talk about investing in high speed regional rail, by the way. At approximately 300 miles, you're looking at a 2-3 hour ride, downtown to downtown. You can stand up, walk around, drink in the bar car, pee whenever you want, whatever suits you.

I have never understood why there isn't a bullet train system in the midwest. KC, St Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indy, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Louisville. Couldn't be that difficult to make that work.

P.D.X. wrote:Typically international flights are better than domestic.

America to overseas or overseas to America? Or overseas locations to other overseas locations?

I flew from Germany back to stateside 3 times and Korea back to stateside once. I never noticed a difference in service or being treated differently amongst the airlines I took. All I did notice is that going through O'Hare (on United) was an absolute atrocity because of customs.

And when it comes to hopping country to country in Europe, I don't think many Americans could handle the "service" of RyanAir if it were to ever be replicated stateside.

They are supposed to be building high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco but if it ever gets done I'll be surprised.

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Rex wrote:Any time you guys want to talk about investing in high speed regional rail, by the way. At approximately 300 miles, you're looking at a 2-3 hour ride, downtown to downtown. You can stand up, walk around, drink in the bar car, pee whenever you want, whatever suits you.

I have never understood why there isn't a bullet train system in the midwest. KC, St Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indy, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Louisville. Couldn't be that difficult to make that work.

Car lobbyists?

degenerasian wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Rex wrote:Any time you guys want to talk about investing in high speed regional rail, by the way. At approximately 300 miles, you're looking at a 2-3 hour ride, downtown to downtown. You can stand up, walk around, drink in the bar car, pee whenever you want, whatever suits you.

I have never understood why there isn't a bullet train system in the midwest. KC, St Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indy, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Louisville. Couldn't be that difficult to make that work.

Car lobbyists?

If it's like California, the problem is that it costs billions, takes forever to build, and some people don't think enough people will give up their cars and use it to make it economically feasible. At least that's our issue out west.

sancarlos wrote:

degenerasian wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Rex wrote:Any time you guys want to talk about investing in high speed regional rail, by the way. At approximately 300 miles, you're looking at a 2-3 hour ride, downtown to downtown. You can stand up, walk around, drink in the bar car, pee whenever you want, whatever suits you.

I have never understood why there isn't a bullet train system in the midwest. KC, St Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indy, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Louisville. Couldn't be that difficult to make that work.

Car lobbyists?

If it's like California, the problem is that it costs billions, takes forever to build, and some people don't think enough people will give up their cars and use it to make it economically feasible. At least that's our issue out west.

I haven't researched it fully, but I believe there is a plan in place to build a high speed rail between Indy and Chicago.

There's been talk of building a high speed rail link between Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City - Ottawa for as long as I can remember. Money, bureaucracy and lack of political will has kept it from becoming a reality.

Never been on Amtrak, but Via Rail in this part of the country does a great job of ensuring that long-distance bus travel remains a relatively pleasant option.

Johnnie wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Typically international flights are better than domestic.

And when it comes to hopping country to country in Europe, I don't think many Americans could handle the "service" of RyanAir if it were to ever be replicated stateside.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 0412125877

Perfect. And if there was a way to encapsulate the "service" of what goes on in the terminal to give that story more context, even perfecter.

sancarlos wrote:They are supposed to be building high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco but if it ever gets done I'll be surprised.

They'll probably get to it right after they finish the high-speed rail from LA and Vegas that often got bandied about during my near two decades in LA.

Rex wrote:

DSafetyGuy wrote:

mister d wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Look, they're a goddamn airline, they can offer more than $800 if needed.

Right, and its not even really $800 unless its used for an $800 seat on an otherwise sold out flight. I'm sure the real "cost" to United averages out to a fraction of that.

How much cheaper would it have been to hire a car service to drive the four crew members to Louisville? And adjust crews to ensure the crew being driven had enough turnaround time to avoid overtime or any other issues?

Have to say I'm not too big on this line of thinking. I'm not sure the union contracts would even allow it, but assuming they do, it's not a very good solution to the recurring issue of having to move flight crews on short notice (which is a legitimate problem and not always the result of poor planning). The next time this happens, it might be on a cross-country flight. So while I'm sure there were better solutions available here, I'm not sure there's one weird trick.

I would guess the union contracts would not allow it, too, but it could be negotiated in with a payment to the crew, etc. It's unfeasible for most situations, but this is Chicago to Louisville is listed as a five-hour ride, so it is a possibility in a situation like this where no one is accepting the compensation for being bumped and all paying passengers have boarded.

I mean, their stock has already gone down over a quarter of a billion dollars. There should be some other backup plan available short of flying them private.

Pruitt wrote:There's been talk of building a high speed rail link between Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City - Ottawa for as long as I can remember. Money, bureaucracy and lack of political will has kept it from becoming a reality.

Never been on Amtrak, but Via Rail in this part of the country does a great job of ensuring that long-distance bus travel remains a relatively pleasant option.

Calgary-Edmonton train is on again and off again.

In the end, nobody wants to pay for it.

This has been a fun diversion, but let's get this thread back on topic...

Johnnie wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Typically international flights are better than domestic.

America to overseas or overseas to America? Or overseas locations to other overseas locations?

Either. Just a general observation. More leg room, better service, nicer cabins. Note that 75% of my travel international is on AA and my domestic flights on Frontier (a low bar).

And Ryanair is regional innit? Basically 'domestic' for all intents...

P.D.X. wrote:

Johnnie wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Typically international flights are better than domestic.

America to overseas or overseas to America? Or overseas locations to other overseas locations?

Either. Just a general observation. More leg room, better service, nicer cabins. Note that 75% of my travel international is on AA and my domestic flights on Frontier (a low bar).

And Ryanair is regional innit? Basically 'domestic' for all intents...

When hopping all over Europe I look at going country to country there as going state to state here. So in that case, 'domestic' works.

It's just known for ultra low fares, ultra ridiculous baggage check/carry on/ticket fees, (I booked my ticket but forgot to print the boarding pass, BOOM €75 charge) people wearing multiple layers of clothing to avoid said fees, and airplanes that are basically flying ghetto laundromats. If the DMV in the inner city was an airplane it would be RyanAir.

DSafetyGuy wrote:I mean, their stock has already gone down over a quarter of a billion dollars. There should be some other backup plan available short of flying them private.

In point of fact, UAL closed at $70.88 on Friday. They closed at $70.71 on Tuesday. Lots of companies with no news at all did worse than that.

UAL stock went way down Tuesday morning - which led to the headlines - but it was less reported that it came way back in the afternoon.

sancarlos wrote:

DSafetyGuy wrote:I mean, their stock has already gone down over a quarter of a billion dollars. There should be some other backup plan available short of flying them private.

In point of fact, UAL closed at $70.88 on Friday. They closed at $70.71 on Tuesday. Lots of companies with no news at all did worse than that.

UAL stock went way down Tuesday morning - which led to the headlines - but it was less reported that it came way back in the afternoon.

many people jumped on it at 66, a bargain.

Day traders are hawks who look for these opportunities.

degenerasian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:

DSafetyGuy wrote:I mean, their stock has already gone down over a quarter of a billion dollars. There should be some other backup plan available short of flying them private.

In point of fact, UAL closed at $70.88 on Friday. They closed at $70.71 on Tuesday. Lots of companies with no news at all did worse than that.

UAL stock went way down Tuesday morning - which led to the headlines - but it was less reported that it came way back in the afternoon.

many people jumped on it at 66, a bargain.

Day traders are hawks who look for these opportunities.

My other thought the other day besides the ones posted here were "According to the tv show Billions I should be shorting the fuck out of their stock right now."