Upgrades: Elite or airline employees?
Oct 23, 1998 | 8:42 am
#1
Original Poster
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Posts: 61
Upgrades: Elite or airline employees?
Working on something for InsideFlyer and am curious what your experiences have been with you getting upgraded vs. airline employees (pilots or flight attendants)? I know the airline policies vary so am looking for practical observations.
Thanks, Randy Petersen
Thanks, Randy Petersen
Oct 23, 1998 | 8:57 am
#2
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CH-3823 Wengen Switzerland
Programs: miles&more, MileagePlus
Posts: 27,043
Randy
I send you (instead of swiss chocolates) by seperate email (ONE email only) all the entries that have been entered under the "UA"-title with the subject "Premier versus UA-employees". That started about 2 months ago, last entry 20 days ago.
I send you (instead of swiss chocolates) by seperate email (ONE email only) all the entries that have been entered under the "UA"-title with the subject "Premier versus UA-employees". That started about 2 months ago, last entry 20 days ago.
Oct 23, 1998 | 9:31 am
#3
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Canada
Programs: AC SE 2MM, HH Dd, Bonvoy G; IC S; AA; DL
Posts: 14,497
I have never been bumped in Canada due to Airline staff--I get my upgrades most of the time. On US and European airlines I have been refused upgrades at the gate but when I got on the plane and the doors closed there were still empty seats. I have had mixed experience claiming those empty seats from the working flight attendants. I don't know if they held them open for staff or other passengers who ultimately didn't show.
Oct 23, 1998 | 9:53 am
#4
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CH-3823 Wengen Switzerland
Programs: miles&more, MileagePlus
Posts: 27,043
Randy: 2 flyertalk collegues asked by email for publishing it here. They want to know what has been said, so not to repeat things twice. Here it is (I left out the postings which didn't deal with the upgrade question):
United
Upgrade-Requests: Premier versus UA employee's
Rudi posted 07-22-98 09:14 AM MST (US)
If we (1K, Premier Exe, Premier) are on the upgrade-waiting list (confirmabel 100/72/24 hours), how does that compare/conflict with UA-employee's chances to be upgraded?
Matt Wald posted 07-29-98 08:59 AM MST (US)
This is completely anecdotal, but based on what I have seen, the priority seems to go 1k, pe, pilots, p, flight attendants...At least based on what I have observed waiting for gate upgrades last year as p and this as pe...
JJSAN58 posted 07-29-98 02:54 PM MST (US)
I agree with Matt Wald but with this exception, 1k pilots, flight attendants pe and p, for what ever seats are availabe at the gate. I only fly a couple of dozen domestict flights a year, but this has been my observation concerning upgrades at the gate.
Internationally I recently flew a direct flight to Hong Kong and two thirds of the First Class seats were occupied by uniformed UA personel. It stands to reason that UA employees are going to show a greater preference to their co-workers rather then the paying public.
Though it would be nice if every once in awhile the UA gate people would pick at random some 1k, pe or p member and surprise the poor sod with a complimentery upgrade to the next class of service. But at least in my experince this practice seems to be a thing of the past.
I think to be fare to the UA gate people they always look stressed out of their minds ( to few people to do the job at the gates properly) to even think about a upgrade isn't at the top of their priority list.
Catman posted 07-29-98 05:19 PM MST (US)
On my last couple of flights, all domestic there was a mix of the 1k's, Executives and a few United workers in First and to my surprise United workers in the first row of coach. I was even more surprised that my last five upgrades went through.
There were two pilots in the first row of coach and a pilot training instructor next to me. He told me it depends on if the employees have long haul flights or short turnaround for going to first... noting "they need the rest."
On my last trip to Hong Kong I strolled around the plane and found a section between and business class where there were a group of seats a large curtain and a sign when curtain pulled "crew resting, please be quiet." I got shussed once.
Continental to my surprise has three flight attendants resting in the back seats in COACH and a pilot snoring in the seat next to me also in COACH. For the record: this was the continental flight from Newark to Houston. There were also a lot of angry business travelers that filled fast.
dlbrown1 posted 07-29-98 08:15 PM MST (US)
I, for one, am glad to learn that United air crew get priority for first or business class seats. Think about it - if they had to fly back in coach they would become extremely irritable, perhaps even psychotic, and do we really want people in that frame of mind to have control of our airplane?
pjaucutt posted 07-30-98 07:03 PM MST (US)
All transatlantic flights and transpacific I imagine have crew rest areas on United.
JJSAN58 posted 07-30-98 07:48 PM MST (US)
UA's 747(400) have a pilots bunk area behind the cockpit, and a flight crew bunk are in the tail of the aircraft. UA's 777 and 767 aircraft I beleive utilize passenger seats.
Rudi posted 07-31-98 07:45 AM MST (US)
in eco (IAD-FRA or vice-versa) I noticed several times UA-active crew informing their travelling UA colleagues about empty-rows to occupy them (the whole lenght for sleeping-position) even befor "normal" people board.
And at the same time they can get quite nasty if you/I try to do that before their counting starts .... But this is probably the same with any airline.
Matt Wald posted 08-04-98 02:15 PM MST (US)
The more I think about it, the more it seems ok to me that these folks get whatever special treatment possible. After dealing with drunk, billigerent customers screaming about how **** important they are and why the he** don;t they get their upgrade,they wnat their da** pillow, blah, blah, blah, I figure the flight attendents deserve special treatment from colleagues when they deadhead. As for pilots, the happier they are, the happier I am!!
Rudi posted 08-04-98 02:58 PM MST (US)
ok Matt ok - I agree: Airlines should in the future only "ship" their employees/retired employees/employees on vacation etc. etc. around the world - why should they care about costumers?
PremEx posted 08-05-98 08:45 AM MST (US)
I don't see how having a rough day geting "pillows, dah, dah, dah" is any tougher than the normal business day or other day to day pressures that passengers have. As a Customer Service specialist, employees should never have priority over the General Public. I would tell them that it is a privilege to sit with our Coach customers. I would want them to experience coach travel just as our customers do. Then they would develope empathy towards just how rough it is for our passengers back in those tiny seats.
Matt Wald posted 08-05-98 02:09 PM MST (US)
Alright already! I agree that as customers (esp. premex customers)that United ought to kiss our butts more than they do. But you will not dissuade me from the notion that ACTIVE flight attendants (whose primary job, as they so often say, is passenger safety) ought not get the treatment they do. Maybe I just appreciate their service more than you folks?...
JJSAN58 posted 08-05-98 05:42 PM MST (US)
I agree with Matt Wald about the Flight Attendants, but I also want to be sure that the Pilot is also a happycamper. Afterall these are the folks that in-case of a emergency that we as passengers have to count on to save our lives.
Even with all the complaints we as passengers might have about changes in UA's programs or crappy treatmeant might have to endure from time to time. UA has one hell of a good record when it comes to Flight safety.
Lest we forget the Iowa DC-10 crash and the job those Pilots did in landing that plane.
Or more recently the (737) Pilot at O'Hare about to take off and had a Fire Light come on, and imediately evacuated the Plane (the Light was Faulty).
It sure beats the Value Jet guy at Hartsfield, who wanted to make sure there was a Fire before ordering a evacuation of the Plane. Even though other aircraft crews could see flames coming from the Value Jet aircraft.
I not only appreciate the service I get but the Standard of training UA's Pilots receive.
I don't want a flight crew to Hesitate for One Second when it concerns Passenger Safety, worry about how much it is going to cost to repack the safety slides or replace the emergency exits.
My primary concern is safety, and if this means the flight crews get to sit up front so be it.
PremEx posted 08-05-98 06:17 PM MST (US)
My primary concern is safety as well. But in all the reams and reams of research I've read on the airline industy, I've never seen anything to support the first class = safety theory as far as flight attendants go. It is not something that the Flight Attendants Union has insisted on. I'm sure that if they thought that this was important, it would be an issue. My point is not that PE's get special access to these seats...it's that ANY customer who pays for an upgrade (regardless of how he pays-money, points, certs), should get priority over employees. If there is an empty seat and no one wants to pay for an upgrade, fine, let a FA sit up there. Pilots are a different issue and I believe there are rules in place regarding traveling to a flight assignment to insure safety. But if they are deadheading, I've seen 'em in coach.
On the upgrade list, customers, any customer, should always come first, period. And I might add that this IS United's policy (although I too have seen my share of supect upgrade over the year, though it seems much less frequent these days).
Based on statistical emergency probablilities, it would not be rational to seat FA's in first based on the slight chance of a FA's performance being reduced by them not haveing flow in FC! Adreniline alone overcomes most problems focusing. If you want to talk about real safety issues, let's talk safer fuels, personal breathing equipment, backward facing seating, and a host of other issues.
JJSAN58 posted 08-05-98 10:32 PM MST (US)
PremExc, Your points on safety issues is well taken, though the Human factor is still the most important. The Fuel issue is one that I for one have never understood why the FAA has not required the use of military grade fuel in commercial passenger carrying flights.
Matt Wald posted 08-07-98 07:27 AM MST (US)
As a former "white-knuckler" myself (its amazing how flying 70,000 miles a year can eliminate any nervousness about flying), I appreciate these safety comments -- many of which I was unaware of. Isn't there some group (air passenger's association??) that lobbies for these safety changes? Does anyone have more info about such a group?
Rudi posted 08-07-98 09:11 AM MST (US) there is one. IAPA = International Airlines Passengers Association. http://www.iapa.co.uk/ Thye are (more or less) recognized by medias (often seen on CNN as discussion-partner on airline safety-issues) representing some 100'000 members. I am a basic-member (I can use sometimes their rebates for hotels, I don't use any of their insurance-offers).
Rudi posted 08-07-98 09:51 AM MST (US)
safety: I love this opness/approach of "our" UA (this is from USToday): United lets passengers listen in Most airlines offer their passengers in-flight music. United Air Lines also lets them listen in to their pilot's radio communications.
In an offering that some passengers may find reassuring, and others less so, Channel 9 on the airline's in-seat audio system carries the flight crew's conversations with air traffic controllers.
The idea is not only to please aviation buffs who understand the staccato, jargon-filled transmissions, but to reassure nervous passengers that someone is hard at work up front looking after their safety.
''A lot of people have some apprehension when they fly,'' says Mary Jo Holland, a spokeswoman for United. Channel 9, she says, ''gives them a certain comfort zone.''
Suppose passengers hear over their headsets that there's an emergency aboard? Even then, says Hart Langer, United's senior vice president for operations, Channel 9 ''more often than not gets passengers involved in what'sgoing on and provides a comfort factor.''
He cites an incident two years ago when a United DC-10 had one engine fail on a flight from Los Angeles toWashington. The captain told the passengers that the plane would have to return to Los Angeles and encouragedthem to keep tuned to Channel 9 to follow the plane's progress. Listening in, Langer said, helped keep thepassengers calm.
Madison Walton, a Boeing 727 captain at United, believes the calm, professional radio procedures pilots pridethemselves on in emergencies can be especially comforting to passengers. (Channel 9 doesn't carry pilots' private comments to each other in the cockpit.) United believes it is the only airline now offering an air traffic channel. American had such an offering in the1970s and early 80s, but dropped it when it rewired its planes and focus groups showed little passenger interest, spokesman John Hotard said.
Even on United, Channel 9 isn't guaranteed. ''There are some pilots who are a little antsy about doing this andthey turn it off,'' Langer said. Sound quality sometimes is poor. But even when it's clear, it still takes an almost professional knowledge ofaviation and a lapful of charts to understand exactly what's going on.
Aside from self-evident terms like ''Clear for takeoff'' and ''Clear to land,'' most of the back-and-forth consists of pilot jargon, strings of numbers and geographical references that ordinary maps won't explain. Passengers listening to Channel 9 aboard a plane recently approaching O'Hare airport in Chicago heard theirflight being directed to ''Deana,'' but it would take an aeronautical chart to know that Deana is a point planes pass just before making an eastward landing. When pilots refer to ''flight level 24,'' they mean an altitude of 24,000feet. But even if passengers don't understand much, hearing their captain gives them confidence that ''there's a living, breathing human being up front'' looking after the flight, said Walton.
By Thomas Kent, Associated Press
Catman posted 08-07-98 12:32 PM MST (US)
I like listening in to the air/ground communications channel on Channel 9. It's often more entertaining than the movies or the same music or other stuff on the music channel. It gives me the sense that I'm "flying" the plane.
And once upon a time I had a paralyzing fear planes. So what I did was buy a cheapset of coach tickets and flew around teh world (EWR to London to Hong Kong to San Francisco to Mexico city to San Juan and back to EWR.) It was the 80's and I was on summer break from college. (Also on Scholarship and no job prospects) It took 4 wks but I had a BLAST!
Kick myself now that I wish I was not "enlightened" about Frequent Flyer programs until a few years ago. Imagine the miles I missed!
But now I'm not afraid of planes or flying or most other forms of transportations. I am afraid of the mob of passengers chargin gate at teh same time! CATMAN
Rudi posted 08-07-98 12:38 PM MST (US)
there were no miles yet to earn at that time. and if I am first (for inner USA-flights I am practically always upgraded: the 100 hrs confirmable vouchers - as aEuropean based fligher I have many of those and I can use them only on inner-USA-Canada-Mexico-Puerto Ricoflights or I can exchange the unused one's, at the end of the year, against miles). And as first I don't mind to board after the stampede - why do you?
msg53 posted 09-05-98 10:17 PM MST (US)
If a pilot is deadheading he gets preference over anyone.It's in united's contract with pilot's union.
The Jesuit posted 09-28-98 10:27 PM MST (US)
Recently, on UA001 (LAX-HKG), on of 8 trans-Pacific crossings I've done in the month of Sept., 1998, I wasdenied a complimentery upgrade to Connoisseur class from economy while a UA stewardess was upgraded to Connoisseur. For my own part, I can say that this was a bit unnerving. I got the distinct impression that, since UA is now owned by its employees, they care more for themselves than the folks who are paying the freight. A clear example, in live, living color, of what an ESOP can do to the attitudes of the worker bees. When the ESOP went through, I said to myself 'United Socialist Airlines'. I also predicted that when pressed for an answer to the question of what ought to be done with extra operating cash, a typical UA flight attendant would opt for a raise in pay before any other customer-based need. Indeed, it is turning out to be true. You can see it in the attitudes ofthe front-line employees (most of them, most of the time). This is now, in the words of F.A. Hayek, 'production foruse' and not 'production for profit'. Trouble is, it is one step worse because employees' attitudes and the generaldegree of concern I'm seeing reflect the dreariness that goes along with the 'production for use' idea. At the sametime, however, UA still seems to want the 'production for profit' theme to be alive and well. Employees just don'tseem to want to work for the money like they used to. I will make 1K for 1999 for the first time (up from 1P1992-98); if I see that kind of preferential treatment given a (for all practical purposes) non-dismissable employee (regardless of her performance) again, though, it will be the end of my love affair with UA (which began after my first UA flight at age 3--37 years ago). On another note...hey, you guys are great. I'm happy to find a forum here totalk about UA MP specifically. Bonus: I'm not always this down on UA.
PremEx posted 09-28-98 11:58 PM MST (US)
The only time I get mad over not getting an upgrade is when I am willing to pay for one (in the form of money, miles, certs, whatever), and do not clear the waitlist, and then see employees seated in business/first class. I do not feel that I should expect an upgrade just for being a PE or 1K if I am not willing to "pay" something for it. Upgrading employees is fine as long as they've taken care of any customer who wanted to pay for one. It has never been United's policy to upgrade PE's into a vacant business/first seat just because they are PE's (unlesscoach is oversold...then they do a status upgrade). They don't want you to avoid paying or using your banked for an upgrade with the hopes of getting a comp upgrade at the airport. This just makes good businesssense. If you want a comp upgrade it is a gamble, and you should not expect it or be mad if you don't get it. Ifyou want an upgrade, use those miles/certs that you earn. That's what they are there for. If you are lucky to get acomp upgrade, consider it a nice little extra perk of being a PE. IMHO.
Matt Wald posted 09-29-98 08:33 AM MST (US)
hello, Jesuit! Nice to have a "man of the cloth" online here. I appreciate your treatise on employee-ownership at United. I've been looking for examples of both "positive empowerment" and "arrogant haughtyness" since the employee buyout. IMHO, things seem about the same. Some CS reps, both on the phone and at the airport are sweet and accomidating. Some are self-important a**es. Just like always. In fact, I have recently taken to my 5-year old's favorite tactic: "shopping for an answer." If I dont get what I want on the phone, I'll call back and talk to another CS Rep. If I still dont get what I want, I ask for it from the check-in agent. If they don't help, I ask at the RCC. If they dont help, I try the gate agent. If the lines is short, I'll even try the customer service desk near the gates. Usually, I eventually run into one of the "accomidators."
But Rudi has done the impossible: he found a way to turn the a**es into accomidators: bribe 'em with swisschocolate!! :-)
Catman posted 10-06-98 09:24 AM MST (US)
I was in First EWR-SFO-OGG and then OGG-SFO and then after two days SFO-EWR (I flew business since First was full with 1k's and three honeymoon couples who paid for First. To my surprise... No United Employees (at least in Uniform) in First or Connisure. In fact, on the SFO-EWR flight they upgradeda few Premiers to Business and said they had some upgraded seats available. So it's hit or miss but this "employee upgrade" policy needs to be strictly monitored. CATMAN
United
Upgrade-Requests: Premier versus UA employee's
Rudi posted 07-22-98 09:14 AM MST (US)
If we (1K, Premier Exe, Premier) are on the upgrade-waiting list (confirmabel 100/72/24 hours), how does that compare/conflict with UA-employee's chances to be upgraded?
Matt Wald posted 07-29-98 08:59 AM MST (US)
This is completely anecdotal, but based on what I have seen, the priority seems to go 1k, pe, pilots, p, flight attendants...At least based on what I have observed waiting for gate upgrades last year as p and this as pe...
JJSAN58 posted 07-29-98 02:54 PM MST (US)
I agree with Matt Wald but with this exception, 1k pilots, flight attendants pe and p, for what ever seats are availabe at the gate. I only fly a couple of dozen domestict flights a year, but this has been my observation concerning upgrades at the gate.
Internationally I recently flew a direct flight to Hong Kong and two thirds of the First Class seats were occupied by uniformed UA personel. It stands to reason that UA employees are going to show a greater preference to their co-workers rather then the paying public.
Though it would be nice if every once in awhile the UA gate people would pick at random some 1k, pe or p member and surprise the poor sod with a complimentery upgrade to the next class of service. But at least in my experince this practice seems to be a thing of the past.
I think to be fare to the UA gate people they always look stressed out of their minds ( to few people to do the job at the gates properly) to even think about a upgrade isn't at the top of their priority list.
Catman posted 07-29-98 05:19 PM MST (US)
On my last couple of flights, all domestic there was a mix of the 1k's, Executives and a few United workers in First and to my surprise United workers in the first row of coach. I was even more surprised that my last five upgrades went through.
There were two pilots in the first row of coach and a pilot training instructor next to me. He told me it depends on if the employees have long haul flights or short turnaround for going to first... noting "they need the rest."
On my last trip to Hong Kong I strolled around the plane and found a section between and business class where there were a group of seats a large curtain and a sign when curtain pulled "crew resting, please be quiet." I got shussed once.
Continental to my surprise has three flight attendants resting in the back seats in COACH and a pilot snoring in the seat next to me also in COACH. For the record: this was the continental flight from Newark to Houston. There were also a lot of angry business travelers that filled fast.
dlbrown1 posted 07-29-98 08:15 PM MST (US)
I, for one, am glad to learn that United air crew get priority for first or business class seats. Think about it - if they had to fly back in coach they would become extremely irritable, perhaps even psychotic, and do we really want people in that frame of mind to have control of our airplane?
pjaucutt posted 07-30-98 07:03 PM MST (US)
All transatlantic flights and transpacific I imagine have crew rest areas on United.
JJSAN58 posted 07-30-98 07:48 PM MST (US)
UA's 747(400) have a pilots bunk area behind the cockpit, and a flight crew bunk are in the tail of the aircraft. UA's 777 and 767 aircraft I beleive utilize passenger seats.
Rudi posted 07-31-98 07:45 AM MST (US)
in eco (IAD-FRA or vice-versa) I noticed several times UA-active crew informing their travelling UA colleagues about empty-rows to occupy them (the whole lenght for sleeping-position) even befor "normal" people board.
And at the same time they can get quite nasty if you/I try to do that before their counting starts .... But this is probably the same with any airline.
Matt Wald posted 08-04-98 02:15 PM MST (US)
The more I think about it, the more it seems ok to me that these folks get whatever special treatment possible. After dealing with drunk, billigerent customers screaming about how **** important they are and why the he** don;t they get their upgrade,they wnat their da** pillow, blah, blah, blah, I figure the flight attendents deserve special treatment from colleagues when they deadhead. As for pilots, the happier they are, the happier I am!!
Rudi posted 08-04-98 02:58 PM MST (US)
ok Matt ok - I agree: Airlines should in the future only "ship" their employees/retired employees/employees on vacation etc. etc. around the world - why should they care about costumers?
PremEx posted 08-05-98 08:45 AM MST (US)
I don't see how having a rough day geting "pillows, dah, dah, dah" is any tougher than the normal business day or other day to day pressures that passengers have. As a Customer Service specialist, employees should never have priority over the General Public. I would tell them that it is a privilege to sit with our Coach customers. I would want them to experience coach travel just as our customers do. Then they would develope empathy towards just how rough it is for our passengers back in those tiny seats.
Matt Wald posted 08-05-98 02:09 PM MST (US)
Alright already! I agree that as customers (esp. premex customers)that United ought to kiss our butts more than they do. But you will not dissuade me from the notion that ACTIVE flight attendants (whose primary job, as they so often say, is passenger safety) ought not get the treatment they do. Maybe I just appreciate their service more than you folks?...
JJSAN58 posted 08-05-98 05:42 PM MST (US)
I agree with Matt Wald about the Flight Attendants, but I also want to be sure that the Pilot is also a happycamper. Afterall these are the folks that in-case of a emergency that we as passengers have to count on to save our lives.
Even with all the complaints we as passengers might have about changes in UA's programs or crappy treatmeant might have to endure from time to time. UA has one hell of a good record when it comes to Flight safety.
Lest we forget the Iowa DC-10 crash and the job those Pilots did in landing that plane.
Or more recently the (737) Pilot at O'Hare about to take off and had a Fire Light come on, and imediately evacuated the Plane (the Light was Faulty).
It sure beats the Value Jet guy at Hartsfield, who wanted to make sure there was a Fire before ordering a evacuation of the Plane. Even though other aircraft crews could see flames coming from the Value Jet aircraft.
I not only appreciate the service I get but the Standard of training UA's Pilots receive.
I don't want a flight crew to Hesitate for One Second when it concerns Passenger Safety, worry about how much it is going to cost to repack the safety slides or replace the emergency exits.
My primary concern is safety, and if this means the flight crews get to sit up front so be it.
PremEx posted 08-05-98 06:17 PM MST (US)
My primary concern is safety as well. But in all the reams and reams of research I've read on the airline industy, I've never seen anything to support the first class = safety theory as far as flight attendants go. It is not something that the Flight Attendants Union has insisted on. I'm sure that if they thought that this was important, it would be an issue. My point is not that PE's get special access to these seats...it's that ANY customer who pays for an upgrade (regardless of how he pays-money, points, certs), should get priority over employees. If there is an empty seat and no one wants to pay for an upgrade, fine, let a FA sit up there. Pilots are a different issue and I believe there are rules in place regarding traveling to a flight assignment to insure safety. But if they are deadheading, I've seen 'em in coach.
On the upgrade list, customers, any customer, should always come first, period. And I might add that this IS United's policy (although I too have seen my share of supect upgrade over the year, though it seems much less frequent these days).
Based on statistical emergency probablilities, it would not be rational to seat FA's in first based on the slight chance of a FA's performance being reduced by them not haveing flow in FC! Adreniline alone overcomes most problems focusing. If you want to talk about real safety issues, let's talk safer fuels, personal breathing equipment, backward facing seating, and a host of other issues.
JJSAN58 posted 08-05-98 10:32 PM MST (US)
PremExc, Your points on safety issues is well taken, though the Human factor is still the most important. The Fuel issue is one that I for one have never understood why the FAA has not required the use of military grade fuel in commercial passenger carrying flights.
Matt Wald posted 08-07-98 07:27 AM MST (US)
As a former "white-knuckler" myself (its amazing how flying 70,000 miles a year can eliminate any nervousness about flying), I appreciate these safety comments -- many of which I was unaware of. Isn't there some group (air passenger's association??) that lobbies for these safety changes? Does anyone have more info about such a group?
Rudi posted 08-07-98 09:11 AM MST (US) there is one. IAPA = International Airlines Passengers Association. http://www.iapa.co.uk/ Thye are (more or less) recognized by medias (often seen on CNN as discussion-partner on airline safety-issues) representing some 100'000 members. I am a basic-member (I can use sometimes their rebates for hotels, I don't use any of their insurance-offers).
Rudi posted 08-07-98 09:51 AM MST (US)
safety: I love this opness/approach of "our" UA (this is from USToday): United lets passengers listen in Most airlines offer their passengers in-flight music. United Air Lines also lets them listen in to their pilot's radio communications.
In an offering that some passengers may find reassuring, and others less so, Channel 9 on the airline's in-seat audio system carries the flight crew's conversations with air traffic controllers.
The idea is not only to please aviation buffs who understand the staccato, jargon-filled transmissions, but to reassure nervous passengers that someone is hard at work up front looking after their safety.
''A lot of people have some apprehension when they fly,'' says Mary Jo Holland, a spokeswoman for United. Channel 9, she says, ''gives them a certain comfort zone.''
Suppose passengers hear over their headsets that there's an emergency aboard? Even then, says Hart Langer, United's senior vice president for operations, Channel 9 ''more often than not gets passengers involved in what'sgoing on and provides a comfort factor.''
He cites an incident two years ago when a United DC-10 had one engine fail on a flight from Los Angeles toWashington. The captain told the passengers that the plane would have to return to Los Angeles and encouragedthem to keep tuned to Channel 9 to follow the plane's progress. Listening in, Langer said, helped keep thepassengers calm.
Madison Walton, a Boeing 727 captain at United, believes the calm, professional radio procedures pilots pridethemselves on in emergencies can be especially comforting to passengers. (Channel 9 doesn't carry pilots' private comments to each other in the cockpit.) United believes it is the only airline now offering an air traffic channel. American had such an offering in the1970s and early 80s, but dropped it when it rewired its planes and focus groups showed little passenger interest, spokesman John Hotard said.
Even on United, Channel 9 isn't guaranteed. ''There are some pilots who are a little antsy about doing this andthey turn it off,'' Langer said. Sound quality sometimes is poor. But even when it's clear, it still takes an almost professional knowledge ofaviation and a lapful of charts to understand exactly what's going on.
Aside from self-evident terms like ''Clear for takeoff'' and ''Clear to land,'' most of the back-and-forth consists of pilot jargon, strings of numbers and geographical references that ordinary maps won't explain. Passengers listening to Channel 9 aboard a plane recently approaching O'Hare airport in Chicago heard theirflight being directed to ''Deana,'' but it would take an aeronautical chart to know that Deana is a point planes pass just before making an eastward landing. When pilots refer to ''flight level 24,'' they mean an altitude of 24,000feet. But even if passengers don't understand much, hearing their captain gives them confidence that ''there's a living, breathing human being up front'' looking after the flight, said Walton.
By Thomas Kent, Associated Press
Catman posted 08-07-98 12:32 PM MST (US)
I like listening in to the air/ground communications channel on Channel 9. It's often more entertaining than the movies or the same music or other stuff on the music channel. It gives me the sense that I'm "flying" the plane.
And once upon a time I had a paralyzing fear planes. So what I did was buy a cheapset of coach tickets and flew around teh world (EWR to London to Hong Kong to San Francisco to Mexico city to San Juan and back to EWR.) It was the 80's and I was on summer break from college. (Also on Scholarship and no job prospects) It took 4 wks but I had a BLAST!
Kick myself now that I wish I was not "enlightened" about Frequent Flyer programs until a few years ago. Imagine the miles I missed!
But now I'm not afraid of planes or flying or most other forms of transportations. I am afraid of the mob of passengers chargin gate at teh same time! CATMAN
Rudi posted 08-07-98 12:38 PM MST (US)
there were no miles yet to earn at that time. and if I am first (for inner USA-flights I am practically always upgraded: the 100 hrs confirmable vouchers - as aEuropean based fligher I have many of those and I can use them only on inner-USA-Canada-Mexico-Puerto Ricoflights or I can exchange the unused one's, at the end of the year, against miles). And as first I don't mind to board after the stampede - why do you?
msg53 posted 09-05-98 10:17 PM MST (US)
If a pilot is deadheading he gets preference over anyone.It's in united's contract with pilot's union.
The Jesuit posted 09-28-98 10:27 PM MST (US)
Recently, on UA001 (LAX-HKG), on of 8 trans-Pacific crossings I've done in the month of Sept., 1998, I wasdenied a complimentery upgrade to Connoisseur class from economy while a UA stewardess was upgraded to Connoisseur. For my own part, I can say that this was a bit unnerving. I got the distinct impression that, since UA is now owned by its employees, they care more for themselves than the folks who are paying the freight. A clear example, in live, living color, of what an ESOP can do to the attitudes of the worker bees. When the ESOP went through, I said to myself 'United Socialist Airlines'. I also predicted that when pressed for an answer to the question of what ought to be done with extra operating cash, a typical UA flight attendant would opt for a raise in pay before any other customer-based need. Indeed, it is turning out to be true. You can see it in the attitudes ofthe front-line employees (most of them, most of the time). This is now, in the words of F.A. Hayek, 'production foruse' and not 'production for profit'. Trouble is, it is one step worse because employees' attitudes and the generaldegree of concern I'm seeing reflect the dreariness that goes along with the 'production for use' idea. At the sametime, however, UA still seems to want the 'production for profit' theme to be alive and well. Employees just don'tseem to want to work for the money like they used to. I will make 1K for 1999 for the first time (up from 1P1992-98); if I see that kind of preferential treatment given a (for all practical purposes) non-dismissable employee (regardless of her performance) again, though, it will be the end of my love affair with UA (which began after my first UA flight at age 3--37 years ago). On another note...hey, you guys are great. I'm happy to find a forum here totalk about UA MP specifically. Bonus: I'm not always this down on UA.
PremEx posted 09-28-98 11:58 PM MST (US)
The only time I get mad over not getting an upgrade is when I am willing to pay for one (in the form of money, miles, certs, whatever), and do not clear the waitlist, and then see employees seated in business/first class. I do not feel that I should expect an upgrade just for being a PE or 1K if I am not willing to "pay" something for it. Upgrading employees is fine as long as they've taken care of any customer who wanted to pay for one. It has never been United's policy to upgrade PE's into a vacant business/first seat just because they are PE's (unlesscoach is oversold...then they do a status upgrade). They don't want you to avoid paying or using your banked for an upgrade with the hopes of getting a comp upgrade at the airport. This just makes good businesssense. If you want a comp upgrade it is a gamble, and you should not expect it or be mad if you don't get it. Ifyou want an upgrade, use those miles/certs that you earn. That's what they are there for. If you are lucky to get acomp upgrade, consider it a nice little extra perk of being a PE. IMHO.
Matt Wald posted 09-29-98 08:33 AM MST (US)
hello, Jesuit! Nice to have a "man of the cloth" online here. I appreciate your treatise on employee-ownership at United. I've been looking for examples of both "positive empowerment" and "arrogant haughtyness" since the employee buyout. IMHO, things seem about the same. Some CS reps, both on the phone and at the airport are sweet and accomidating. Some are self-important a**es. Just like always. In fact, I have recently taken to my 5-year old's favorite tactic: "shopping for an answer." If I dont get what I want on the phone, I'll call back and talk to another CS Rep. If I still dont get what I want, I ask for it from the check-in agent. If they don't help, I ask at the RCC. If they dont help, I try the gate agent. If the lines is short, I'll even try the customer service desk near the gates. Usually, I eventually run into one of the "accomidators."
But Rudi has done the impossible: he found a way to turn the a**es into accomidators: bribe 'em with swisschocolate!! :-)
Catman posted 10-06-98 09:24 AM MST (US)
I was in First EWR-SFO-OGG and then OGG-SFO and then after two days SFO-EWR (I flew business since First was full with 1k's and three honeymoon couples who paid for First. To my surprise... No United Employees (at least in Uniform) in First or Connisure. In fact, on the SFO-EWR flight they upgradeda few Premiers to Business and said they had some upgraded seats available. So it's hit or miss but this "employee upgrade" policy needs to be strictly monitored. CATMAN
Oct 23, 1998 | 10:08 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a United 1K member, I have had no problems in upgrading when I request my upgrade in advance. It is a mixed bag for last minute trips since by then the upgrades are usually taken. My only personal experience with upgrades vs crew was once when I used a one way confirmed upgrade. I was upgraded on the first leg but there was no space on the second leg. On the second flight I took my seat in coach, and then a United employee came over and handed me a boarding pass to a first class seat. When I got to the front, a United crew member was leaving that seat.
Also on 777 planes where I upgrade from coach to business (no double upgrades to first allowed), I have noticed that many of the first class seats are occupied by United crew.
Also on 777 planes where I upgrade from coach to business (no double upgrades to first allowed), I have noticed that many of the first class seats are occupied by United crew.
Oct 23, 1998 | 11:33 am
#6
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: houston, tx usa
Posts: 308
Being a Gold Elite on CO, I have not seen pilots or flight attendants upgraded before the Gold upgrades are. A couple of years ago CO did the pilot/FA upgrade on a regular basis. I, and apparently other Golds, complained very loudly to CO about the
non-rev upgrades. I have not been on a flight in 2 years that had pilots/FA's in
first class.
non-rev upgrades. I have not been on a flight in 2 years that had pilots/FA's in
first class.
Oct 23, 1998 | 11:56 am
#7
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London,UK. Ok, about 100 miles from London really, but how many Americans know where Market Harborough is?
Posts: 409
I think the worst for this within Europe has to be Aeroflot. The 'pointed-end' is filled with airline employees, their spouses, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, dogs cats...
Ok, perhaps not dogs and cats, but you get the idea.
Somethings about Russia just don't change. Oh what the hell, I am shutting up now before they take my Visa off me.
MF
Ok, perhaps not dogs and cats, but you get the idea.
Somethings about Russia just don't change. Oh what the hell, I am shutting up now before they take my Visa off me.
MF
Oct 23, 1998 | 12:25 pm
#8
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Reno, NV (RNO)
Programs: AA LT Platinum, AS, UA Premier Silver, DL, HHonors Gold, Marriott LT Titanium, Hyatt, IHG Platinum
Posts: 4,723
I differ with jaws43 view on CO. I am a Gold Elite also and have seen a number of occasions where pilots/flight attendants are given first class seats. I must admit that I have no idea if they were upgraded over Golds/Silvers/Bronzes but my hunch is this happens more than occasionally. In any case, the issue still boils down to this: should an airline upgrade employees before any paying passengers? I continue to believe they should not be upgraded unless there are no eligible, statused paying customers available to upgrade. I suspect that those airlines that charge for upgrades and are much less liberal than CO in providing freebies (i.e. United, Delta, US Air) have more situations where employees are upgraded over paying customers.
Oct 23, 1998 | 3:26 pm
#9
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 45
I do not recommend trying to upgrade late afternoon or night flights between CVG-ATL on Delta. With Platinum/2 Million Miler status, I OFTEN fail to clear the First Class waitlist, only to witness uniformed Delta employees in First Class seats.
In fairness, I must add that the Delta CVG hub is the only station which I have experienced NRSA passengers boarded out- of-order.
In fairness, I must add that the Delta CVG hub is the only station which I have experienced NRSA passengers boarded out- of-order.
Oct 25, 1998 | 4:31 pm
#10
Commander Catcop
Join Date: May 1998
Posts: 10,259
On four flights EWR-DEN-SAN return SAN-DEN-EWR... three of the four I got upgraded... There was at least ONE UA employee in Uniform on each of these flights.
But on the DEN-SAN flight the three flight
attendants had to sit in the back of the plane. Even THEY could not get upgraded because of all the revenue tickets in First.
I too sat in Coach, but further up the plane.
As I said... as long as everyone who is entitled to and get upgrades gets upgraded,
then I don't find an pilot or flight attendant in First or Business.
I'll post a funny story somewhat related to
this under Want to fly the plane. CATMAN.
But on the DEN-SAN flight the three flight
attendants had to sit in the back of the plane. Even THEY could not get upgraded because of all the revenue tickets in First.
I too sat in Coach, but further up the plane.
As I said... as long as everyone who is entitled to and get upgrades gets upgraded,
then I don't find an pilot or flight attendant in First or Business.
I'll post a funny story somewhat related to
this under Want to fly the plane. CATMAN.
Oct 25, 1998 | 9:37 pm
#11
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: New York
Posts: 2,115
I've seen CO FA's sitting in first class, but if my memory serves me there were still
open seats in First Class.
As for policy, It would make sense for employees to get the upgrade if they are flying out that day. Like most sane people I'd like the Cockpit crew to be well rested and in good shape. If the employees are just flying for personal reasons then I'd vote for rev passengers getting the upgrades first.
open seats in First Class.
As for policy, It would make sense for employees to get the upgrade if they are flying out that day. Like most sane people I'd like the Cockpit crew to be well rested and in good shape. If the employees are just flying for personal reasons then I'd vote for rev passengers getting the upgrades first.
Oct 26, 1998 | 5:18 am
#12
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 6,932
I was denied a paid upgrade (which I attempted to reserve in advance and was waitlisted for) on a UA flight YYZ-SFO. Four uniformed UA crew were occupying four of the 12 first-class seats on the A320. I asked the gate agent about it and she aid UA's contract with the flight attendants guarantees them first-class seats if they are "deadheading," which apparently refers to UA requiring them to fly somewhere to get to an assignment.
Hey, UA, I got news for you: I'm probably flying to or from an "assignment" as well, and I'M A PAYING CUSTOMER! Please rethink this policy.
Hey, UA, I got news for you: I'm probably flying to or from an "assignment" as well, and I'M A PAYING CUSTOMER! Please rethink this policy.
Oct 27, 1998 | 4:20 am
#13
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AS 100K, BAEC GGL
Posts: 580
I fly between PDX and SEA on Delta. The flight usually has several F/A's headed home to Seattle after flying in from Asia. They usually stand by for first but they have never displace me when I upgrade with a 800 mile segment upgrade. I have seen many times that they have to find a seat in coach.
JayJ
JayJ