You've created another argument for argument's sake. You posted above that they should be focusing on trying to improve their on-time performance instead of trying to reduce the payouts. None of what you've posted here changes the fact that these events happen so infrequently that they just aren't going to impact that number. And that's being generous - I highly doubt that every departure where there is an IDB or VDB situation is delayed because of the process in place.

I've personally a VDB situation on CO where 3 volunteers were identified at the start of the process, payout agreed, and 1 of them was asked to board at the very end due to a no-show. Flight left on time (actually early) and the vouchers were processed after the aircraft pushed back.

That's my personal experience - but I'm not drawing a conclusion from that which says that this is the norm. You are taking your one personal experience and extrapolating that to being a reason behind CO's on-time performance. EWR is a much more significant reason IMO.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, 1700 (# of IDBs for CO in one quarter of 2011) is a large number. But 1 in 6000 (fraction of pax IDBed in that quarter) is a small percentage.

My point is that the only way to have a reasonable discussion about this is to be careful with language. If we want to have a rhetoric-laden free-for-all, then we can be sloppy with language. :)

While I tend to agree, it should be noted that exceptionalism is not necessarily a sign of ineffiency. WN had the lowest fuel costs in the industry for years, and that was obviously a good thing. The real question is whether a moderately higher-than-normal IDB rate is indicative of a good business model or a bad one. Arguments have been made for why higher IDB could contribute to CO's bottom line (the cost of 1700 IDB compensations may well be dwarfed by the savings in paying $250 per VDB instead of UA's flat $400).

It's a reasonable surmise that new UA management will crunch the numbers and set the policy to optimize their bottom line -- with the benefit of data from both pre-merger systems. Which suggests that whatever UA does in 2013 will indicate the more efficient system (in their humble opinion).

Not really. You don't seem willing to entertain another opinion on the matter without attempting to slam that person.


Correct. When an airline like CO is plagued with last, or near-last on-time performance on a regular basis, I think their focus should be on fixing that rather than $50 of funny money here or there.


I did not say this was a cause of their delays. If anything it's a possibility, but I said it was a matter of priorities for the airline, not a cause.


And neither am I. I just gave an anecdote of my experience, much like you did. Whether their VDB lowballing makes a material impact to their on-time performance, we don't know.

As for EWR, CO outperforms most other airlines at EWR, and other airlines have their own hub challenges, so that seems like a red herring IMO.


Good point. Though since this is FlyerTalk, not AirlineExecutiveTalk, I'm looking at this from the flyer's or customer's perspective, and in general, I think most customers would agree that IDBs are a bad thing. Smisek and CO can do all the number crunching and set their policies as they see fit.

New Policy???
 

This is new.
Previously, all CO volunteers received the same (highest) comp.
However, you had to be at the gate to claim the comp, if it was raised.

I was once sent from a departure gate to a CO Customer Service Center to have them process the VDB voucher/re-route.
While there I heard the GA raise the VDB comp.
I noted it to the service rep and my voucher amount was increased.

I always confirm that if the VDB offer increases I will receive the higher amount.

IBD's themselves may be a bad thing, but if CO's load management leads to more people taking the flight they booked (lower overall denied boarding %), then their IBD strategy may actually be customer friendly.

It depends how you define customer friendly.

If you figure that a VDB is a volunteer and is willfully taking the alternate flight for the compensation, and that is not a customer negative, then the IDB number is the only number to focus on.

Now if you're saying that a VDB experience is inherently a customer negative, then the total DB number is the one to focus on.

I would guess that most VDBs are satisfied with their outcome, otherwise they wouldn't volunteer in the first place.

Agreed. On the other hand... a lot of discussions around here lately have diverged from "This is what I, as a flyer, wish COUA would do" into "Well, it's a for-profit business, what do you expect?" and then into "But then they should do it this way."

Probably some of that discussion is useful and productive, in two senses. First, we all occasionally need to be reminded that UA is a for-profit business, and we will not get ponies on board (no matter how much we want them). Second, FT is a bit of a collective bargaining organization. On occasion, by collectively voting with our purchases (or threatening to do so), we can influence airline policies, as long as the cost-benefit calculation works out in our favor. UA Insider is here because it's good business for UA. And UA keeps me more or less happy because that, too, is good business for UA. So it behooves us to have an accurate perception of how those policy changes that we want (or fear) affect the bottom line... because that determines whether we might get them.

Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to IDB. It's unlikely to happen to any pax more than once in a lifetime (based on published stats), and even less likely to happen to me (as an elite).

I care much more about VDB policy, which is linked to IDB policy. I like PMUA's VDB policy. I think overbooking is inherently customer-friendly (although frequent standby flyers will disagree, because overbooking makes standby harder). I wish every flight was overbooked, and I could choose whether to earn $400 for hanging out in the airport. I want to encourage them to continue it, and one way to do that is to emphasize that it cements my loyalty... because my loyalty is a [tiny] part of the bottom line.

EDIT: I wonder what fraction of IDBs actually end up happy with the outcome? IDB compensation is supposed to be pretty good, especially if it results in serious inconvenience (>4 hour delay, IIRC).

Sorry, what does 'protection' mean in this context? I assume it's not a bodyguard. :)

There have been repeated assertions that the VDB/IDB ratio somehow changes the on-time performance of the carrier. I'd love an explanation of how that happens. If they don't get the VDBs they still close the door and push the plane once it is boarded. They're not sitting around in the terminal playing games rather than closing the flight out if people don't respond to the solicitations.

It might be that more people are IDB'd because the offers are so low that no one will take them (I don't think that's the case but I'll accept it for this discussion). That doesn't change that NN people aren't getting on the plane anyways and the door has to close.

And if it not related then why bring it up in the discussion? Talk about derailing a cogent and reasonable discussion with off-topic rhetoric...

channa wanted a guarantee that the p.o.-ed CO agent wouldn't beat the cr*p out of him (sorry, gender assumption) once they figured out his identity. :D:D:D

Seriously, "protected" on a later flight means you have a confirmed seat, rather than just being on the standby list. A reasonable thing for an volunteer (especially an elite) to insist upon.

I'm not sure who made the assertion that CO's poor IDB rates impact their poor on-time performance. It's a correlation, no doubt, but I don't think anyone said that they're causal.

I did say earlier that I think their priorities are messed up if they're worried about nickel-and-diming VDBs while having one of the industry's poorest on-time records.

:D

The CO agent was very nice -- most are (I won't get pounced on for making that generalization because it doesn't make CO look bad). ;)

Anyhow, she just didn't want to do what I wanted. She offered other solutions which were later (and I wasn't interested in), so we didn't come to an agreement, and we parted ways. The conversation was pleasant the whole time.

I burned some Delta miles @ Christmas, and at kiosk check-in @ IAH, a message popped up they were looking for volunteers. I accepted. Then they asked what amount of $ I will willing to take for the bump. The message very clearly stated that volunteers would be taken in order of the lowest amount one was willing to accept.

That's kind of hard to bid due to the factors of not knowing when the next available flight would be (would it be 2 hours, would it be overnight etc), could I keep my FC seat, etc.

For all info - I put in a bid of $250 for the IAH-ATL leg and it apparently was not accepted as another guy's name was called and I heard the GA talking to him about his alternate flight.

Hopefully UACO doesn't start going that route for VDB.

I've had three CO VDB opportunities, all of which I have declined. In March and September, I was on SEA-EWR. They started with an offer of $400. In May, IAH-LAS, they offered $250.

While UA's VDB process was generally good to me last year (3x $400 and 1x $600 [I declined the hotel and cab voucher and it was the last p.s. JFK-LAX flight of the night oversold by order 20 pax]), I wish the GAs could be a tad more generous on occasion. Last Monday, I declined $400 for the last IAD-LGA flight as I was going to have to put myself on Amtrak to get in by the early morning and pay for my own cab (I stupidly forgot to ask about the US Shuttle out of DCA in the morning). Even had I declined the hotel, the agent wasn't willing/able to offer a cab voucher into the city. When I was still at the gate, they had exactly the right number of volunteers, so my guess is that someone had to get IDB'd as a result.

Well - the number said it. CO sucks in VDB (mostly because of the offer I guess).

I think that one of the reasons why SMI/J wants to keep PMUA's IM.

(For real - based on the SMI/J we know, he would have killed that $100 off from the standard offer by now.)

Beside - CO really has issues when dealing with DBs.