Originally Posted by
Rdenney
I'll bet a small percentage of the 475,000 IDB's that occurred last year happened to people who had already boarded. But let's say it's 10,000, which I suspect is still high. Every one of those cases would be improved by using approaches that would have avoided this confrontation. It might have cost a bit more, but I'll bet the cost of the one that goes bad overcomes the savings of all the others. There is never an excuse for a gate agent to be brusque and demanding when removing people from the seats they bought, were boarded into, and in which they are already sitting. The burden of accommodation in an IDB situation is on the airline, which is actually what the DOT regulations assert. And in plain customer-service terms, the burden of politeness is on the provider.
My suspicion is that the GA called the cops because she just didn't know what to do, and wanted it resolved before being charged with a delay. The focus on methods rather than outcomes gets poor results generally, but sometimes much poorer than others.
The procedure UA uses is flawed. It's managed to get away with it so far because most passengers are unwilling to take the risk of having a confrontation with law enforcement. UA leverages the political and legal climate to have an underlying threat which plays on the publics fear of running afoul of the authorities that they must take what they are offered by the airlines. Didn't work this time and now the assumptions this policy was built on are going to be questioned in multiple venues. All it will take is law enforcement to say they will not enforce IDB procedures on the airlines behalf to suddenly have much better offers for the passengers who are affected. Or better clarity in exactly what compensation MUST be offered and making sure lower paying passengers aren't offered less compensation, and thus targeted.