Jun 17, 2020, 4:09 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Debating the value of masks is not appropriate for the UA forum -- we will discuss the UA requirements, enforcement and/or compliance. The value of masks is not UA specific issue (and not airline industry-specific either) and is best discussed elsewhere in a more universal format
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
.22 April UA to provide "Social distancing" by blocking middles from advance seat assignments -- note middles can be assigned for those traveling together or at the gate if needed ... example notice and COVID-19: What we're doing to keep customers and employees safe
20 May 2020 United Launches United CleanPlus: A New Standard of Cleanliness and Safety in Partnership with Clorox and Cleveland Clinic ... (post)
"allowing customers to take alternative flights when we expect a flight to operate over 70% capacity." is included in the above announvement
Also NSRA not allowed if above 70%
15 June 2020 United Airlines Strengthens Onboard Mask Policy to Further Protect Passengers and Employees Against COVID-19 Spread ... (post)
July 2020 -- appears UA has dropped blocking pre-assignment of middles, still notifying if 70% booked
20 July -- "Traveling is different now, but we're still committed to your safety What to expect when you travel next", e-mail
22 July -- United Extends Mask Requirements to Airports
17 August 2021 -- TSA to extend transportation mask mandate into January (18, 2022)
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
.22 April UA to provide "Social distancing" by blocking middles from advance seat assignments -- note middles can be assigned for those traveling together or at the gate if needed ... example notice and COVID-19: What we're doing to keep customers and employees safe
20 May 2020 United Launches United CleanPlus: A New Standard of Cleanliness and Safety in Partnership with Clorox and Cleveland Clinic ... (post)
"allowing customers to take alternative flights when we expect a flight to operate over 70% capacity." is included in the above announvement
Also NSRA not allowed if above 70%
15 June 2020 United Airlines Strengthens Onboard Mask Policy to Further Protect Passengers and Employees Against COVID-19 Spread ... (post)
July 2020 -- appears UA has dropped blocking pre-assignment of middles, still notifying if 70% booked
20 July -- "Traveling is different now, but we're still committed to your safety What to expect when you travel next", e-mail
22 July -- United Extends Mask Requirements to Airports
17 August 2021 -- TSA to extend transportation mask mandate into January (18, 2022)
UA COVID19 precautions: **REQUIRING** mask usage per CDC/DoT
May 10, 2020 | 9:54 am
#76
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: YUL
Posts: 1,033
I do not get people complaining about this, but also flying. Just no way for the airlines to win. Flying with a quarter of the passengers is no viable, filling a plane is the only thing that makes sense.
If you must fly it is on you.
If you must fly it is on you.
May 10, 2020 | 9:54 am
#77
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,122
If the only people who flew were those to absooutely had to, there wouldn't be a problem. Most people who fly do it because they want to, not because they have to. And those people are now putting those who have to fly in danger.
May 10, 2020 | 10:30 am
#78
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,468
Wouldnt fares go up about 5-6 fold if that occupancy level were sustained? Not sure if that would be a viable business model.
May 10, 2020 | 10:32 am
#79
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: Various between 2p & 1K, currently Gold
Posts: 8,882
United's modified seat maps, showing planes limited to 50% capacity (more or less) might be the best compromise.
May 10, 2020 | 11:05 am
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 25,471
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
May 10, 2020 | 11:24 am
#82
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA LT 1K/DL Plat/Hilton LT ♦/Hyatt Carbonado/Wyndham ♦/Marriott PE .
Posts: 5,669
Honestly, I think the seat maps are doing more harm than good.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
May 10, 2020 | 11:44 am
#83
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC (LGA, JFK), CT
Programs: Delta Platinum, American Gold, JetBlue Mosaic 4, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Explorist, Hilton Diamond,
Posts: 5,116
I thought a major point of the CARES Act was for airlines to keep capacity open and employees paid during an unusual time. During this time, there should be true capacity controls for each flight - As more people fly, airlines should be rapidly adding back airplanes in order to block middle seats, at least through the summer. It’s not sustainable, obviously - however, nothing is sustainable in the current environment.
May 10, 2020 | 11:54 am
#84
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 795
Yeah, my flight last night from SFO-CLT on AA was packed in both cabins; J was full (almost all non-revs, unless 3/4 of the cabin decided to buy last minute full-fare tickets.) Up until two weeks ago, AA was proactively blocking seats and social distancing in the cabins, but now it looks like they're willing to sacrifice passenger safety for a few extra bucks. I will continue to hold my shorts on these greedy airlines.
May 10, 2020 | 12:14 pm
#85
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 6,485
The title of the thread should clarify that United is not mandating the use of masks. Tens of thousands of lives in the US could have been saved if the country was more aggressive in the use of masks. Who is coughing in the grocery store? One of the few not wearing a mask! Simple measures could have saved the economy. If I have to fly it will be on an airline that mandates that passengers must wear masks. If a person has an active cough, they should not be permitted on the flight. On a United flight last year I took a screen shot of the upgrade list to document the coughing passenger in the event of litigation. The person was coughing without even trying to cover her mouth. How many times have you gotten a cold or the flu after a flight?
May 10, 2020 | 12:29 pm
#86
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: UA Plat, 2MM
Posts: 1,868
Row 1 is left blocked because the FA's jump seat. Yes, it is not right there in their face, but they want as much distance as they can get.
May 10, 2020 | 1:21 pm
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 12,778
Honestly, I think the seat maps are doing more harm than good.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
I won't opine about whether it's intentional or not, but the blocking as it is currently done is disingenuous.
I thought a major point of the CARES Act was for airlines to keep capacity open and employees paid during an unusual time. During this time, there should be true capacity controls for each flight - As more people fly, airlines should be rapidly adding back airplanes in order to block middle seats, at least through the summer. Its not sustainable, obviously - however, nothing is sustainable in the current environment.
May 10, 2020 | 2:50 pm
#88
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 6,066
Ironically, On my flight this morning, I was in 2A. Just after wheels up, the FA actually moved to 1A to take a photo out the window then went back.
At least I know the reason for the rule now.
As for these news articles about "shocked" passengers being under the impression that they have lied to, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. They write an article reporting UA's policy about blocking advanced seat assignments for middle seats incorrectly reporting it as a guarantee of an empty seat and reduced capacity, then generate another article when a passenger gets upset about misinterpreting the policy based on reading the prior news article.
Plus, if you are really that worried, you can always get off the plane and take another flight. Clearly the importance of the travel outweighed to perceived risk.
Last edited by eng3; May 10, 2020 at 2:56 pm
May 10, 2020 | 3:39 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 5,292
Yeah, my flight last night from SFO-CLT on AA was packed in both cabins; J was full (almost all non-revs, unless 3/4 of the cabin decided to buy last minute full-fare tickets.) Up until two weeks ago, AA was proactively blocking seats and social distancing in the cabins, but now it looks like they're willing to sacrifice passenger safety for a few extra bucks. I will continue to hold my shorts on these greedy airlines.
AA is not permitting nonrev clearance into premium cabins during Covid modifications
Delta ISN'T SELLING THEM OR ASSIGNING THEM.
United set up disappointment with poor communication.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; May 10, 2020 at 4:25 pm Reason: merged consecutive posts by same member
May 10, 2020 | 3:42 pm
#90
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K, 2MM
Posts: 1,305
Honestly, I think the seat maps are doing more harm than good.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.
Here's a fuller piece about the same flight. and there's a quote saying that people were yelling at the middle-seat passengers, because they didn't understand the policy and thought that the seats wouldn't be occupied.
I think you either have to limit the capacity on any given flight -- which, ultimately, is unsustainable -- or just remove the seat blocking and let people figure it out. The current policy makes people feel that they're being lied to.