Back in April 2008, the Department of Transportation rolled out new rules for bumped passengers. This past week, the New York Times got around to singing the praises of the recently-increased compensation for passengers bumped from overbooked flights. But they miss the bigger point: Getting a bigger payment for being bumped is all well and good, but finding a seat — any seat — on a later flight is getting nearly impossible. And I’m sure the higher payments still inadequately compensate passengers for their trouble.

First, a summary of the good news:

Travelers can now receive up to $400 if they are involuntarily bumped and rebooked on another flight within two hours after their original domestic flight time and within four hours for international. They are eligible for up to $800 in cash if they are not rerouted by then. The final amount depends on the length of the flight and the price paid for the ticket.

Big bucks, right? Almost.

First off: Note the phrase “up to.” The calculus for your compensation isn’t as simple as it sounds. They’ll double the value of the flight segment that you’re bumped from (not the value of the whole ticket), or give you the recently-hiked max value. The new rules (which went live May 18) doubled the caps on compensation, not the total compensation. And with ticket prices having risen significantly, it may not be a big payday.

Note also that this isn’t the same as voluntary denied boarding compensation. That’s when the airline asks for people to willingly surrender their seats in exchange for a voucher or cash, typically a free domestic ticket. See your contract of carriage for that airline’s particular rules for voluntary denied boardings. But beware the fine print: These vouchers tend to have restrictions on which booking class the seats must be in, advance purchase rules, etc. You’re effectively getting a coupon for a free ticket when the airline is having a fare sale.

Anyway, all the compensation for being inconvenienced isn’t worth squat if you can’t actually leave the airport for your destination. Planes are fuller than ever. The odds are good, the next flight is overbooked, too, so escaping that airport is getting harder. Longer and longer waits at airports mean snowballing inconvenience. Does that “doubled” compensation sound adequate anymore?

The one observation in the NYT piece that’s noteworthy is that, as per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, involuntary denied boardings are increasing. On the one hand, fuller planes mean smaller margins for error, and thus greater overbookings. But the financial incentives have changed with the higher payouts, so one might have expected airlines to overbook fewer passengers, given the higher cost of accommodating them. The fact that denied boardings are rising indicates that the new rules aren’t deterring overselling. The cost of the compensation remains far smaller than the revenue from oversold tickets.

Added bonus: There are reports of airlines redefining what denied boarding actually is, so they don’t have to pay out. Shabby attempt at legal mumbo jumbo, but that’s the reality we’re living in.

Bottom line: Denied boarding is no picnic, especially if you’ve got nonrefundable travel plans at your destination. (Case in point.) Getting paid a couple hundred bucks for your inconvenience won’t necessarily cover your true costs, and no amount of positive media coverage will change that.

(image)

A Ryanair flight from Budapest to Dublin had to make an emergency landing because of a can of leaking soup.

Insert joke about airline food here.

Ok, so this isn’t funny if you’re a passenger with life-threatening allergies to mushrooms, and if you’ve suddenly got mushroom soup dripping onto you from an overhead bin.

Perhaps THIS is the liquid security threat that TSA agents have been protecting us from so diligently.