Originally Posted by
channa
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.
I think you're extrapolating transitional performance statistics into the corporate strategy.
Originally Posted by
channa
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.
No one ever said the impact wasn't real. Yet, you're trying to make a case that UA is actively and systematically trying to harm customers by overbooking its flights and refusing to offer appropriate VDB compensation.
Originally Posted by
channa
And you're 20 times more likely to be IDBed on UA than you are on VX.
It is hard to get IDB'd when the planes aren't full...
Originally Posted by
channa
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.
Perhaps you could have led (and stopped) with this reasonable and objective position.