4 ms·

In this specific case, it's quite possible that the gate agent, being a costumer service worker, didn't want a fuss. If someone comes to a gate agent with a boa

In this specific case, it's quite possible that the gate agent, being a costumer service worker, didn't want a fuss. If someone comes to a gate agent with a boarding pass, they're most likely not double-spending the pass, and suggesting otherwise to them would be a quick way to a tweet saying "today I bought a plane ticket, and when I tried boarding I was told I already boarded and they refused to reimburse me, do not fly [airline]". Of course it would have been the "correct" course of action here but as someone who has interacted with The Public, the gate agent did their best.

ethbr1 3y ago
Beyond that, the UX of this is always subverted by incentives. The system's incentive: (1) make sure no pass is used to board more than once, (2) indicate whether all ticketed passengers have boarded, and if not which are missing The gate agent's incentive: (1) board everyone as pleasantly and quickly as possible So the errant boarder played on the misaligned incentives and time pressure, to bet that the gate agent would ignore any errors. I'm incredibly distrustful of any system that requires: - Someone deal with a rare situation - In realtime - Under pressure - While not being incentivized against an adverse outcome "Well, the person didn't do what they were supposed to in the 1-in-1,000,000 situation" isn't a valid design strategy. (See self-driving-car-interventions and TSA agents)
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Another interesting question is: What were they supposed to do? Does Delta even have procedures for what to do in this 1-in-1,000,000 situation?
  - hnfong 3y ago
    If the adverse outcome of a 1-in-1000000 situation was somebody possibly sneaking onto a plane and gets a free ride, I'd say just leave it as-is.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  Incentive implies a choice can be made. No one tips a lawnmower for a really tight trim. The lawnmower manufacturer may have worried about that but the lawnmower itself doesn't even worry. Likewise, the dumb software the agents are using is not making decisions or incentivized. Now if it were AI, we might worry . . .
- wiml 3y ago
  They are being incentivized against an adverse outcome: the outcome of a paying passenger (or a whole planeload of paying passengers) missing their flight, connections, etc. That's why they make the decisions they do. Accidentally carrying a non-paying passenger on an underbooked flight is also adverse I guess but it's not the only way the system can err and it's not the only thing they are trying to avoid.

ethbr1 3y ago

Beyond that, the UX of this is always subverted by incentives. The system's incentive: (1) make sure no pass is used to board more than once, (2) indicate whether all ticketed passengers have boarded, and if not which are missing The gate agent's incentive: (1) board everyone as pleasantly and quickly as possible So the errant boarder played on the misaligned incentives and time pressure, to bet that the gate agent would ignore any errors. I'm incredibly distrustful of any system that requires: - Someone deal with a rare situation - In realtime - Under pressure - While not being incentivized against an adverse outcome "Well, the person didn't do what they were supposed to in the 1-in-1,000,000 situation" isn't a valid design strategy. (See self-driving-car-interventions and TSA agents)

dfxm12 3y ago
Another interesting question is: What were they supposed to do? Does Delta even have procedures for what to do in this 1-in-1,000,000 situation?
- hnfong 3y ago
  If the adverse outcome of a 1-in-1000000 situation was somebody possibly sneaking onto a plane and gets a free ride, I'd say just leave it as-is.
drewcoo 3y ago
Incentive implies a choice can be made. No one tips a lawnmower for a really tight trim. The lawnmower manufacturer may have worried about that but the lawnmower itself doesn't even worry. Likewise, the dumb software the agents are using is not making decisions or incentivized. Now if it were AI, we might worry . . .
wiml 3y ago
They are being incentivized against an adverse outcome: the outcome of a paying passenger (or a whole planeload of paying passengers) missing their flight, connections, etc. That's why they make the decisions they do. Accidentally carrying a non-paying passenger on an underbooked flight is also adverse I guess but it's not the only way the system can err and it's not the only thing they are trying to avoid.