[jhulla]

Comment might be buried... But, the problem is the baroque overlaid combinations of [seat class, fare class, FF status, standby, cash vs FF purchase, time of arrival at gate, etc.] intersecting with [connecting flts, equipment, weather, etc.] leads to a large range of predictable conditions with uncertain outcomes. E.g. only one seat remaining, who gets it: passenger needing to make intl connection on a FF ticket or cash paying high status passenger?

This is a global optimization problem that can be easily solved - but there are many cases where on the ground discretion is required [last minute aircraft change, weather delay]. Poorly paid, under trained and under motivated staff will always drop the ball in this situation.

The solution for United here is two fold 1) Increase training, comp, authority and motivation of gate agents to solve problems with minimal disruption. This used to be the case a bankruptcy ago. This setup is not likely to return due to a simple reason: cost. United in bankruptcy blew up the pension promises to some of their most experienced staff. They left.

2) The best outcome for United is to reduce the complexity of their product so that customer expectations of service align with the company's ability to deliver.

tl;dr: United's service is too complex for their gate agents to deliver. Service should be simplified.

[imgabe]

The other issue is to stop overbooking every single flight and allow some slack to handle these unexpected situations that inevitably come up.

[x1798DE]

I don't understand the hate for overbooking flights. Most of the time, I don't care at all about the system where flights are overbooked, because most of the time I don't get bumped. When they do overbook a flight and I've blocked out more time than I need for travel, I can make a few hundred dollars (not bad even in vouchers since I usually tend to fly the same route with the same airlines frequently enough) for the inconvenience and it's voluntary and cleared through a bidding process, meaning that usually the person who gets bumped is the person who is least inconvenienced by it.

It's a pretty low cost to customers (I've never met anyone who was unhappy that they got bumped, because the kind of people who don't want to get bumped don't opt-in) and it actually delivers returns in the form of lower ticket prices, since if they were underutilizing the space in the planes, it would be more costly to operate.

It seems to me that the problem with this situation was not overbooking, it was that for whatever reason they did not use the generally well-received bidding system to allow the people who were going to be bumped to select themselves. On a full plane, what are the chances that you can't find 4 people willing to give up their seats for $1000 (or even less)?

[jhulla]

Overbooking guarantees near 100% utilization. As you observed, it also leads to regular situations where a gate agent has to prioritize customers into limited slots. If overbooking and gate agents predictably end up destroying customer goodwill, then the practice has to be reconsidered.

[dragontamer]

Which means increased costs, especially since every other airline is also overbooking flights. Free-market is an asshole in this case: gotta overbook to compete.

[jamie_ca]

This issue wasn't overbooking - they had mechanical failure on the scheduled aircraft and had to swap in a smaller plane.

The problem here was not detecting that the flight was _now_ overbooked after reducing the available seats.

[e40]

They will never do that, since it impacts profit.