One other point on this
I realise that it happens to a relatively small number of people, but considering millions are moving every day, that is still thousands of people every day being denied boarding. Judge, if a concert venue did have procedures for denying people a seat, would it then be "acceptable" to overbook? Perhaps they can offer a voucher for a free drink next time you come to the concert, or a free ticket to a future concert. In addition, they can put you on standby for a cancellation at the concert the following day. Would you accept it? The fact that the airlines have procedures doesn't make it right. I know you are not necessarily defending them, but their actions are in my opinion unjustifiable.
If we take Airhead's figure that over 90% of the time there is no problem, that means that up to 1 in 10 do have a problem. How would it work if when you book a concert seat you had a 1 in 10 chance of being denied entry into the venue. I choose this analogy just to illustrate the utterly ridiculous assumptions which underline the airlines position. They seem to think that by putting their right to deny boarding in their Terms and Conditions absolves them of their right to do the right thing. As all airlines have this in their T&C's, it is ridiculous to suggest that the "customer" accepted these terms when booking. The customer was faced with two choices.. don't travel or accept the terms. Unacceptable and proof that regulation is needed.
|