It appears that UA only blocked these seats on their website / app. I was able to assign 6D and 6E for my clients on a 789 through GDS, while all B/E/L seats shows blocked on UA.

So how does this seat-blocking work? If blocking is only until T-24 why do all the middle seats show unavailable on the status page for flights that already departed?

They're not blocked only until T-24. They're blocked for user selection. However, agents can (and will) seat passengers in the blocked seats if necessary.

How do you come up with the 5-6 factor?

If fares were set to make flights profitable at this time, given the load factors that most flights see they would likely be in “unaffordable” range for most people. But I don’t think that is what is happening.

Then what about the communication from the airline about blocked middle seats? I guess that was another lie? If United publicly announced that middle seats would be blocked, and people relied on that claim as part of their decision making to book a flight, and found the cabins are actually full, that is an unfair and deceptive trade practice and passengers have grounds to sue.

Either the seats are blocked or they are not - don't say they are and then run flights full, at best it's terrible optics at the wrong time, and it worst, it's outright fraud.

The devil's in the details. What they announced wasn't a lie, but it was released in such a way that it was easy to get the wrong impression. I suspect that most people glossed over the nuance.

This is not a time for corporate-speak gibberish and hiding facts in the small print - the optics on this are terrible, and this is the second time. If Delta is saying they are blocking middle seats and actually doing so, while United is saying they are blocking seats and hiding the real policy in the small print or nuance of their announcement, and then filling downsized aircraft until capacity, not only does it show tremendous dishonesty, and creates a basis for a legal action that will further damage the company's image, but it creates a substitute narrative for the comparison that airlines never talk about - who is safer? In the past, that narrative was forbidden as in "we don't crash, but they do", but now that substitute narrative is "we help you stay safe, but they will make you sick" - and that is something that could easily get ingrained in how people compare their travel choices beyond price and schedule.

Obviously this "policy" and its nuance is further evidence of Kirby's complete lack of care or interest in customers - as long as those metrics are hit, who cares how many customers or employees are sick, injured or killed in the process?

I seriously doubt that any airline really wants to make that comparison. I have a strong suspicion that an empty middle seat doesn't accomplish nearly as much as the airlines want you to believe.

No, an empty middle seat probably has little practical protection, given the risk from people behind or in front of you - certainly more important is wearing a mask and ensuring a thorough scrubbing of the cabin air with 100% outside-sourced airflow.

However, this is all about saying one thing and doing another while hiding behind the small print. Frontier just got caught doing something low and dirty with their "you need to pay for your empty middle seat", where the reaction was so negative and fierce, they had to step back. This is not the time to be playing tricks with customers - first United did it with a rapidly shifting refund policy which is still being unevenly enforced, and now we have yet another anti-customer fiasco with the not-empty-middle seat where people are posting photos online with very negative comments.

It's just more tone-deaf disinterest from Kirby and clear evidence about where his priorities are, vs the customer-forward policies and communication style of Delta and its greater transparency. Running a service business is not about metrics, it's about taking care of customers, employees and showing authenticity, especially when tensions are high.

I saw this on ABC News Sunday night: https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/ima...tions-70607478 and thought UA's answer was kind of snobbish (1:03 of the video) and also in this USA Today article https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...d/3105870001/:It is almost like "you are flying for free, we squeezed you on to get you home and stop complaining". Not good.

So much for United's pledge to block the middle seat
 

:rolleyes:

Chief Customer Officer said "We're automatically blocking middle seats to give you enough space on board"

This.

It isn't about United having gate agents assign middle seats to passengers; it's about United being deliberately vague and cutesy-poo in their press releases where they instill a certain belief in their passengers that proves to be wrong (but correct if one dissects the actual wording of the release with a lawyer's comb).

This is United being United.

It's hard to watch the predictable train wrecks they create all by themselves in slow motion, again....and again....

I am SHOCKED that anyone would even consider that UNITED would mislead, lie, distort the truth, lead you on, say one thing and do another, read the finest of fine print. OK, I lied, I am not in the least bit shocked if you REALIZED that this is what UNITED does, over and over again. I had been flying them for 30+ years with 2 1/2 MM, and just came to expect this in their corporate mentality.

Social distancing on United flights
 

Came to FT looking for articles about this as well as comments from fellow travelers: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-...-middle-seats/

As I make the difficult decision as to when I should start traveling again news like this will play a big part in my decision. When an airline makes bold public statements to instill confidence in their customers, then completely ignores that for profit - I have to decide not to trust them at all and to wait for other safety measures that don't depend on their integrity to protect me.

Also surprised this wasn't a headline article on FT...