[John23832]

> The airlines have run the numbers, and it is clearly more profitable to sell (for example) 105% of the plane, and then if more than 100% show up, pay people off to take a different flight.

I guess the op's question is, why was it not done here?

(Sadly) Everyone has a price for everything. Obviously that guy's price was not met. As you say, the airline has done the math... does their math include the cost of dragging a passenger bruised and bleeding off of their plane? Probably... Does it include the cost of cameras capturing the whole thing? Probably not.

[Symmetry]

I imagine that the there was effectively a "CAN'T HAPPEN" comment on what to do when nobody bit at $800. I can imagine the people writing the policy imagining that their employees might collude with friends on board to pocket the money if they let the offer get too high.

[John23832]

That's a problem with the processes in place in the airline. They have to do their own due diligence.

Who's to say that this man's price was the lowest price? Turn it into a bidding process, the lowest 5 bids on the plane get paid, and the airline gets their seats.

The potential for misuse is not a good excuse for accepting negative actions.

[Symmetry]

Oh, yes, I totally agree. When you have a "CAN'T HAPPEN" in a code comment that's a sign of laziness or bad design and the same applies to company procedures. Hopefully United will go back and seriously rethink how they go about this now. It's just sad it had to come to this to make it happen.

[John23832]

totally agree