|
|
|
|
|
|
by bronco21016
3352 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not absolving them of anything. What happened was wrong, no doubt about it. I'm making a best effort to explain why it's unreasonable to think that flights will never end up in this "oversold" situation. By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters. |
|
|
I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.
What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.
The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.
I guarantee you United wishes they did.