Originally Posted by
cerealmarketer
There are costs - both explicit and opportunity - to testing to perfection just as there are costs to not testing. At some point the risk reward crosses.
My guess...
The current guy who manages the premier program came in about a year ago. It prob took several months to come to the conclusion / get agreement that they planned to tighten 1K requal requirements.
As that became clear the notion of “we need to add value to 1K at no direct $ cost” at the time of the announcement may have come up.
Enter the preboard modification.
Testing would have meant delaying the boarding rollout for months.
So they took a risk on their people and maybe figure it’s an easy thing to iterate on with their feedback loop. I’ll bet they tweak / push more clarification in the months ahead.
None of us has the numbers on what they are gaining vs losing.
What I do know is absolutist statements without the same info access as the decision makers generally skew too far to one side of reality.
Not finding fault with your guess, it’s certainly plausible. But results are what matter and what people and companies should be judged by. How they did or didn’t get there isn’t the customer’s problem.
My experience to date is still hit and miss, and like all things United, I figure it will all find some equilibrium in several month’s time. But what strikes me is how well they seem to have the “Lane 1 / Lane 2” part down. That has been fairly uneventful. That was the more complicated part of all this, and interestingly enough, the part they tested thoroughly.