fly18725

We have no right to expect United to publicly "come clean" about UA3411. For one, there's on-going litigation which limits United to speaking generally about customer service changes. Two, unless you were a passenger on the flight, disclosure of exactly what happened and the appropriateness of the response is not relevant.

For one, I think the changes are a step in the right direction. The real test will be how they're implemented and the consistency of execution.

3Cforme

No, Delta flyers playing VDB don't see the other offers. Offers can be solicited at check-in from T-24 up to the check in deadline online, app, or kiosk. Given that they solicit offers so far in advance of flight alternate routings are not displayed. A passengers offer isn't firm, however, until length of delay is established: back out and keep your seat if you don't like it.

One good thing as practiced by Delta: Where multiple passengers are needed, every volunteer needed gets the clearing offer. Example, if they need three VDBs and the lowest bids are $250, $400, and $500, all three get $500.

Delta had lots of VDB in 2016 (about 2x UA or AA) but much, much less IDB. They can really crank up the load factor.

Miles Ahead

I think these are generally positive.

I am surprised that they capped VDB compensation at $10,000. Since they're not going to reach $10,000, why not grab the media's attention with some huge number like $50,000 or $100,000. (And even if they reached these stratospheric amounts, they could still effectively cap this with restrictions: use within 330 days for a single-named passenger on domestic coach flights)

It's odd that they think they need a "customer solutions team" to do what GAs were empowered to do in the past. I think this is a step forward, but it's also one that leaves me scratching my head.

I'm interested in seeing how the "reverse auction" for VDB's works. Will it be binding? I'd hate to agree to $200 for a one hour delay, only to find out at the gate that that flight has filled out and it will be a two-day delay. Oh, and here's your $200 voucher.

I'm also interested in how this interacts with Basic Economy.

Reducing overbooking on the last flight out sounds good, but. I know the last flights out LGA-ORD and DCA-ORD are notoriously overbooked, because business travelers like me book that flight, and if things are such that I can get to the airport early, I can try for the early flight. Ten zillion other passengers feel the same way. I hope this doesn't go away.

"Empower employees to resolve customer service issues in the moment" is good, but MatthewLAX's description is of an app to " proactively compensate customers when a disservice occurs." These are not the same thing, and one of United's faults is that they think they are. United has, for years, used compensation in lieu of actually fixing a problem. I don't want compensation. I want the problem fixed.

kirkwoodj

Overreaction, they're gonna get fleeced.

Catbert10

UA needs to go back even further to their CO roots and add back what was on every page of the CS manual during the tenure of Robert Six - "nothing in this manual supersedes common sense".

qukslvr619

I generally applaud any effort to empower employees to make the right decision at the right time to come up with a solution that isn't necessarily dictated by "cost-savings." For the most part I haven't had too many issues using alternate airports, its just the burden of then having to figure out how to get from the alternate airport to my final destination.

There are a couple of things though that I think about though; and that is despite all the training, all the tools, and whatever resources employees will have at their disposal, there will always be a lack of consistency.
For instance:
-Flying STLEWRSNN
-STLEWR is delayed, but available flt on AA STLLGA
-Need to get from LGA to EWR to catch EWRSNN flt

Agent 1 says sorry can't do it; Agent 2 says sure no problem. So other than UA publically saying they will empower agents to come up with other solutions, all the training in the world isn't going to re-program Agent 1 to figure out a way to make it work. So nothing really changes.

I've accepted the fact that I cannot rely on reservation agents to be the ones to figure out how to get me out of a delay/cancellation/etc. This isn't a knock on their abilities, but some of them exist in a vacuum, only able to offer the solution that SHARES spits out and not look beyond. Last weekend's SFO delay is a prime example. SANSFO delayed, would have missed SFOSTL cnx. Nothing else available until the next day according to the agent. I ask agent about SANEWR, overnight, then EWRSTL in am. Agent can't seem to process since she says its backtracking.....yeah it is but I don't lose an entire day of work by doing so. Had to HUCA begins she starts into how she can't book my P fare into remaining F inventory.

At the other end of the spectrum....I could see this getting out of hand where passengers push agents or try and game the system. "Well your commitment states this, so you have to do it." I feel for the employees that will potentially face confrontational customers demanding a quick fix even though employees aren't the ones personally responsible for mx/wx delays, diversions, etc.

eng3

You forgot a few hidden bullets

* Increased ticket prices and fees to offset costs due to DYKWIA passengers
* Increased delays and cancellations due to crew delays

BearX220

Good luck, but this is a big wait-and-see, prove-me-wrong moment. The "values" of too many rogue United employees are on display every day. They are the main reason this company is in a tailspin. Front-liners who are cruising for confrontation will keep finding it.

Preaching common sense is fine, but penalties / terminations / etc. for your many freelance policymakers would be better.

LASUA1K

Next people will be fighting for 10K.

WillCAD

I don't typically post in the United forum, since I don't fly UA, but I saw a USA Today article about this policy revision and thought the UA crowd might like to check it out. The USAT article includes the effective dates of each policy change:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ges/100938324/

They all seem like reasonable changes to me (it seems ridiculous that some of them were not already the policy), but the entire 3411 incident could have been avoided had UA had policy #5 in place already:
"5. United will ensure crews are booked onto a flight at least 60 minutes prior to departure"

Well, DUH. IDB is one thing, but actually offloading a passenger for a non-rev crew transport is just a lousy move, no matter what else actually happened that day.

CappuccinoAddict

Won't this just cause passengers to keep saying no to VDB offers until they reach 10k?

BearX220

It will actually force UA to reengineer booking practices so VDB situations are much less frequent.

AAExPlat

I will believe that changes are real when I can see a change in the attitude at UA.

SFO28L

As is always the case with UA the execution is the real uncertainty. Even as an elite who is fairly knowledgable about how to work the system I have been amazed at the inconsistency of service from reservations agents, GAs, etc. I have rarely experienced outright rudeness though.

goodeats21

No.

When you offer an entire plane ever increasing amounts, someone is going to say "yes" well before $10k. It is a very effective, reasonable solution. It allows the individual passengers to choose the level of compensation needed to give up their particular seat.