I was erm 'made aware' of the following, what do YOU think of
this?
Instead 3 consecutive rejects, followed by 1hr suspension, each
reject will be followed immediately by a 20min suspension, so after
3 rejects it would still be 1hr suspension in total (the
manageability will be different, later). Naturally, 2 consecutive
rejects would be the first 20min followed by another 20min.
The basis of assumption for this approach is, the next 20mins
block after each reject should be appropriate since the TD must be
so confident he could pick up someone soon, hence the reject.
MEANWHILE at the same time, instead of suspending TDs for one
single long period, hence depriving customers of available TDs for
booking for 1 full hr straight, this lull period would then be
broken down into 20mins segments, a system which would be expected
to be more accomodating and manageable. Because even in that 20min,
the customers could try to flag down available TDs on the
streets..BECAUSE..
In that SAME 20min meantime, those TDs who rejected can either
use their next 20mins to sweep the road or sit it out..at their own
expense if they decide to continue to pick and choose. And there
might be no limit to the number of rejects..Feel free to reject as
many times as the TD pleased! Waiting for that elusive CBD to CBD
transit? If the TD was indeed prepared to risk more' free' time
(and energy and rent), then Good Luck!
In the end, this will creat the Ultimate Win-Win-Win (or
supposedly!) situation for everyone. Because the customer service
dept receive too many complaints about TDs ignoring street flags
and even calls.