I had a conversation today with the SVP in Chicago who reached out to discuss this incident with me.
As expected, we didn't get into details. That will occur when I have an in-person meeting with another executive in March. It was a higher level conversation.
The basic message given to me on the call is that UA is working hard to do better and that key operational, financial, and customer service metrics are all on the upswing - generally but also specifically at SFO.
Not surprisingly, a lot of the talking points were the same ones we've heard from Smisek and others.
There was no discussion about compensation. Nothing was offered and I didn't ask for it.
I used this opportunity to have a conversation about upgrades.
I explained that as a former 1K, I no longer see the value proposition to justify making exceptional efforts to retain 1K status, and this is primarily the result of upgrade-related issues. Time was limited, so I focused on lack of R space and TODs given to kettles but not 1Ks as the two most important points.
The executive provided the same exact talking points in response as what Smisek was recorded saying at the DO event at ORD - profit margins, balancing upgrades with revenue, getting the right balance, etc.
I asked him to look hard at the fairness issue of better deals going to kettles than to 1Ks and he promised to study that. Not surprisingly, he said that he needs clear cases to investigate, so I'd encourage anyone who captures a clear case such as those that have been reported in the past, to reach out to UA Insider immediately with PNRs that can be investigated.
When I explained that, at the end of the day, the cost/benefit no longer makes sense for me, he heard and accepted my thought process but didn't seem particularly concerned on this point. Whereas improving customer service and operational performance were clear priorities, the loss of a 1K who doesn't feel loyalty is being rewarded was not met with the same passion.
To me, this part of the dialog was a confirmation of the transactional mentality and devaluation of loyalty that we have observed and discussed. He didn't say anything to indicate this, but I perceived this in what he didn't say.
Some overall upgrade statistics were shared with me, along with a deeper dive indicating basically that upgrades have become worse for certain segments and better for other segments. He made a point of saying that a big part of my challenge is being based out of SFO and shared a few examples illustrating how and why competition for upgrades is much more severe out of SFO than probably any other single station.
He also shared some related observations that are consistent with the fact that certain folks have written that their UG rates are good or even better since 3/3. He explained, that in particular, things have become harder for elites at certain major hubs, but that upgrades are going relatively well for some elites at other airports. No news here, but a confirmation that matches the different experiences that have been reported here in the past year.
This, of course, doesn't explain why I had no problem with sUA before 3/3 when I was still at SFO, but, we both agreed that from this conversation, if availability of upgrades is cut due to "upgrade selling" activities, then that might be felt more acutely out of a market with the most intense competition for that commodity whose supply has been cut especially on the toughest routes from that market.
While we didn't go into details about the incident, I was assured that my initial summary had been read and that all the main points had been investigated and responded to. In this area, he shared with me that they did go and pull the pax data on the flight and, in fact, all 8 pax who were not downgraded were GS.
It therefore appears that check-in time was not the determining factor in being selected, but, merely being behind 8 GSs. We didn't discuss this, but assuming these GSs were all on paid F fares of any sort, then I certainly respect the decision to protect them ahead of a 1K.
Besides that, there were no epiphanies - it was basically just a conversation about a range of topics mostly at a high level and all of the themes match what one would conclude by being a part of FT and reading the posts every day.
I never expected, nor do I need, to hear anyone say "we screwed up" - the screw ups that happened after the plane change are obvious, and we all know it. The fact that we had this call, and the fact that the start of the call was focused on overall improvements to operations and customer service is, in my judgement, a diplomatic way of admitting failures and showing that improving their root causes is a priority.
Bottom line: I left this call with the impression that improving operational performance and customer service is a priority but that the loss of loyalty many of us have been lamenting is, in fact, part of the new culture. This airline may very well achieve better operational performance and better customer service than we've experienced in the past year, but we're not going back to the days of sUA 1K. That book has been closed. Please be clear: This was not said on the call. But, this is how I read the overall flow of the conversation. It's my opinion, and nothing more.