mauiUAflyer

Probably not. There are a lot of us on this board that would bite at $800-$1000. I have a hard time imaging the bidding getting up above $2500...

But I guess we could look at the DL experience, they offer up to $9950... not sure the highest they've paid out.

DENviaLAX

Well I suppose now the situation will be that they delay or cancel the flight that the crew would be going to work. Though keep in mind, the 60 minute rule only applies when there are no open seats on the flight. If there are open seats to book the crew into, there is no time restriction. The number of times a crew gets scheduled to deadhead on a flight that last minute was a rare occurrence as it is, I imagine.

wcalvert

I remember someone taking an offer from DL at ATL a few weeks ago for $2,000. It was that crazy weather time in ATL. The bump was from Friday to Monday

Duke787

It still comes down entirely to how toxic the culture is and what is being done to fix the "customers are the enemy" mindset (nothing I can see from this letter is addressing that).

When I took a VDB in Austin earlier this week, DL gave me a hotel for free without blinking. On the hotel shuttle the next day I was chatting with the driver and she told me that UA and AA are notorious for stiffing their customers on the hotel but that she finds DL and WN consistently pay for them.

One observation from one driver at an AUS Airport Hotel (which is positioned to get a lot of these types of guests but from talking had no obvious skin in the game) but I think points to the bigger issue here. Until the "by the book, customer is the enemy" culture of UA is changed, nothing will change. Period. End of story.

Wise-Broccoli8301

I don't know if we can change that overnight. I suspect UA has already figured that when people hear $800 they aren't thinking about how vouchers are useless. The few times I almost volunteered I was thinking pure dollar amount too even though I know better than that.

euslaner

I am not sure what the new policy is on police intervention for poaching, but a passenger who poaches a seat in F will surely be met by police when the plane lands and will likely regret that decision.

RooseveltL

I think some of you folks miss the point.

10K is allow the ground crew to raise the amount. They are NOT giving $7000 for a ticket to FL.
Assuming it is not Christmas or freak weather outage (like hurricane knocks out the entire East Coast) - there will always be a college student or free spirit flyer who will take the next day flight and $1000.
Business travel route on a Monday or Thursday PM not so much but let us not be crazy - a GA is not going to increase an amount for volunteer from 800 to 8000 in one offer.

It is more a punk move by United to match DL (yet again) vs. they anticipate ever paying out $10,000 for one passenger seat.

euslaner

A recent flight DCA-ORD was delayed, others canceled. I got rebooked (alas without a seat so I wound up in the last row of Y middle seat) by calling the 1K line. Others stood in line with one GA repeatedly announcing that she has no time to rebook any one (20 minutes on this one so passengers stood there helpless as this GA did nothing). Only one GA for 4 flights and this GA told passengers to go back out of security and wait on line to be rebooked.

My return flight 2 days later was delayed by 30 minutes. You only knew this if you looked at the UA app.

Is there not a better way to handle this? The clear impression is that UA did not give a damn about its passengers.

RCyyz

It would seem that concurrent with this "do the right thing" announcement from UA, they have also settled with Dr. Dao for "an undisclosed amount".

I think it's fair to assume the "undisclosed amount" was somewhat more than $800.

Boraxo

Concur. To me these are the most significant changes. However I am not sure why an app is needed. Wouldn't it just be simpler to have a hotline staff by competent managers who can address the unique facts of any situation? Or simply empower your staff to make things right (as WN does) and tell them you will back them up even if they botch the call in favor of the customer, i.e. if they are too generous with VDB comp, or agree to put the customer on a competitor's flight, etc.

As for overbooking, I may be in the minority but I don't think it needs to be eliminated, particularly as I am one who often makes last minute itinerary changes and sometimes to take earlier flights. The issue is not so much IDB but rather the paltry inadequate compensation for VDB and IDB and the use of force to eject a passenger for a contract dispute. I am thinking we won't be seeing these problems anymore, assuming the FAs and GAs stop lying about "safety" issues with passengers who do not pose a threat to anyone.

Hopefully the "in the moment" App will work better than .bomb

kmersh

I was talking with my buddy who is a Global Service and he does feel that some UNITED employees view the customer as the problem.

That is hard to change, at my hospital there are a few nurses who view the patient as the problem and are generally surly and unhelpful, I unfortunately had to deal with one of these nurses as she was floated to the ER when one of our regulars went out for a prolonged period of time.

She would bark at the patients, their families, the Docs, anybody who got in her face and was not 100% complaiant. She called security at least 5x in day because she claimed patients and one case, the patient's family were being combative with her.

I spoke to the Nursing Manager about her and she was handled, but that is 2-3 nurses, what is Mr. Munoz supposed to do with maybe IDK 100 - 200 bad employees system wide?

That is one of the biggest issues IMHO UNITED has to deal with it and it is not a new issue, a bad employee who viewed the customer as the issue soured me on UNITED years ago.

I applaud UNITED for at least talking about change and making a list of changes, but the proof is in the pudding and without addressing bad employees, all the changes in the world may not make a difference.

emcampbe

Not sure about UA now...it's been a long time since I VDB'd - in fact, might have been pre-merger, but IIRC, this was how PMUA did it, as well.

I'm not sure how this is any different than any shoplifting attempt at any given retailer. If someone from Y decides to help themselves to an F seat, its a theft of service - no different than if they walk into a grocery store and steals a box of Cheerios (or whatever). I would also argue this isn't outside of safety/security - If someone won't sit in their ticketed cabin, and especially if they refuse to move when the FA asks them to move, I would say this is a potential safety issue, as if they will disregard an FA on the ground, who's to say they won't listen to instructions in the air (stay seated during turbulance, turning a phone into airplane mode, etc.).

This takes time, but there are ways to do it.

For example, if UA wants to focus on values, it needs to lead from the top down first, provide CS training, and give front-line employees a certain amount of time to serve customers in this way. Give them, say 6 weeks. Then implement a system to fire those who don't follow on with these values . How would that work? For example, if a GA or gets 3 CS-related complaints in X months, they get fired.

Again, I'd argue this is a safety issue. Once someone has proven they aren't interested in listening to the flight crew, why would one assume they would if there is an issue in the air. Or that they would put their phone into airplane mode on departure, etc.

Captain always has discretion/authority to remove a passenger from the aircraft if they feel the need for it. I suspect this kind of situation of refusing to adhere to crew instructions is a good example of where a captain can use their authority.

FTers, or other? Most people aren't going to remember this number after a week.

This was one of my thoughts after the incident. UA was trying to be proactive and provide a solution that impacted the least number of people. Should be a win-win. If the crew can't get to where they need to be, then that means a flight of 50, 70, 150, or whatever people needs to be canceled or delayed. Why is this better?

This. I find the strong majority of UA interactions at least average to deal with. I've found a few that are willing to go way above and beyond. Including at EWR, which if you read this board, you might think that the ones there are only there to piss people off.

I never yell or raise my voice, speak calmly and usually with a smile, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt. That, and asking what I think are fairly reasonable request, and I seem to be treated pretty well the strong majority fo the time. It doesn't mean they can always say yes, but they are usually nice about it.

Or maybe my UA interactions are different than everyone else's - for some unknown reason.

Not sure if it even can be binding until paperwork is signed.

Sounds like they are going to automate the system further. The current one asks if you would be willing to, and then just adds you to the list. Nothing like bidding, at all.

They don't need to know off the top of their head. Computers these days are amazing - it's really not that hard to program a computer so that the agent can see alternate airports within X miles of the original destination (heck, even UA.com can do that). And then they can inform local agents at the new destination to prep the transport for the pax.

It's not that difficult.

Commiting a crime (theft) and disobeying the flight crew are both safety concerns. There's no question in my mind this would be dealt with appropriately.

In most circumstances where I could VDB, I would take that (the exception being if I couldn't be confirmed for days). Unfortunately, I can't often do this anymore...sayng I'd VDB when traveling with the wife and 2-year-old isn't really a good option most of the time.

IIRC, UA is apparently signed on with the IBM/Apple partnership that develops various apps for air carriers for CS/operations. I'd guess they are the ones UA is working with to create this.

ExplorerWannabe

I think the instances where they have to go anywhere near close to $10K will be extremely few and far between but average compensation will go up because more people will hold out hoping for a higher offer so there's probably a huge overall cost.

As far as the specific scenario at hand, I am very sympathetic with Dr. Dao as far as being involuntarily deboarded (as opposed to being denied boarding in the first place). I completely agree that United could have done more to try to make it voluntary deboarding and their new procedures should go a long way toward preventing anything like this in the future.

I would be utterly on his side if he had deboarded peacefully and then raised a PR (as opposed to physical) ruckus over the situation but where I lose sympathy is on the injury score. He caused the injuries himself AND he was disrupting take-off sequence for countless others. Neither airline nor the security officers involved could have known he suffered from PTSD and I doubt any of them expected him to go ballistic the way he did.

United HAS to change their policies because of the reality of the PR situation. I think they should have had these kinds of policies in the first place but I also think they don't deserve the black eye they're getting from this particular situation (then again, I wasn't there).

rickg523

If it hadn't been violent and extreme it wouldn't have been news, no matter how much video was taken. If it hadn't made the news, UA and the other two wouldn't be changing their policies or even examining them.
Dao "took a bullet" for all non status flyers who are subject to the whims of the airlines in ways which would drive status flyers apoplectic at even the hint of such disrespect.

eng3

If its not a safety or security issue the policy is not to call the cops now.


Dao did exactly this. He was asked to leave and proved he was not interested in listening to the crew or the cops and even resisted the cops which caused him to become injured. That is why I think what happened to Dao is fully justified. If you don't want to go along with the rules because you think you are better, then you should expect to be met with police. If you decide you wish to defy the police, you should expect the possibility of becoming injured (or at least an increased risk). If you go into a bank with no weapons and threaten to rob it and a cop accidentally shoots you or some other people, you're still responsible for creating the situation and all the resulting injuries.

I was being sarcastic. It is not better. I was stating their new changes if not overbooking higher VDB and making it harder for crew to get to where they need to go (as a result of Dao and others like him) will inconvenience many more people through higher ticket prices and more delays/cancellations. Higher since this will be felt by everyone it won't get picked up my twitter or the news media whereas one person can yell loud enough to ruin it for everyone.