Originally Posted by
sxf24
Yes, out of the 96.4 million passengers carried by UA. Real impact to a very, very, very small portion of the passengers served.
Indeed. And anyone looking to improve anything in this world looks at both likelihood and severity of impact.
I think what we've seen with the company is that CO's mentality towards error tolerance is much higher than what we saw at UA pre-3/3. Whether it be the reliability issues we've seen with the systems (ticketing, upgrades, partner flights dropping, etc.), or IDBs, or IRROPS, it seems the company is tolerant of a higher failure rate with higher customer impact that PMUA customers are accustomed to.
While IDBs are indeed few and far between, the impact is real. Tell that couple who misses their honeymoon cruise but gets a $100 IDB check that it's very, very, very small minority of people who get impacted. Remember this is not PMUA where they're popping you on an AA flight 30 minutes later to get get you moving. This is SHARES UA where it takes close to 30 minutes just to process you (assuming there's nobody ahead of you), so your rebook has to be a minimum of an hour or more in the future.
Originally Posted by
star_world
You're approximately 5 times more likely to die in the prime of your life (25-44yrs) than you are to be IDBd on a United flight. That's where extrapolating gets you
And you're 20 times more likely to be IDBed on UA than you are on VX.
We can play with the numbers all day if you want. The point is the UA numbers are worse than industry average, and we should hope they are working towards improving them, along with all of their other systems and operational issues, even if that's not the trend we've seen in the past few months.