Very sorry to hear.
This process of "predicting no-shows" has to stop. This is 2017 and people make plans such as holidays months in advance and can't have last minute interruptions. Annual leave or self-employed workers telling customers they will be away is loss of income.
Whilst I agree that there needs to be better protocols dealing with bumping or impacts to pax confirmed on a flight - with real teeth to prevent airlines taking liberties, I disagree with "predicting no-shows" has to stop.
Everyone immediately relates predicting no-shows with over selling, or pax booking refundable tickets, and then not showing up. In reality, Other than LCC with strictly point-to-point operation, I would expect the largest proportion of no-shows and subsequent over-loads are due to irrops and misconnects.
If an airline is to have any chance of service recovery after the inevitable (and get those pax where they need to be as best they can), then they had better be good at predicting (and monitoring) the no-shows, and subsequent demand impacts. Once that capability exists, then actual overbooking for revenue (to keep the other fares down), should be manageable.
It is not the practise of overbooking that is the issue, it is the service recovery when things don't work out that it the problem. Too often the "reward" side (extra revenue) becomes disassociated from the "risk" (cost) side of adequate compensation and service recovery. What started out as a certain net benefit of many small rewards being in excess of the occasional large cost, ends up being keep the rewards, and try and avoid the cost. The issue is really just keeping the system honest, such as the EU regulation attempts to do. As in this case, the mark is overstepped and the regulations flouted (where deliberately, or by creative lack of training etc.), then the cost has to be made sufficiently large to restore the balance.
Hopefully, the reaction to these current incidents has the potential to redress the balance.