United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - The pmCO upgrade legacy

The weirdness, inconsistency, and general flakiness of the upgrade process doesn't seem to get any better. I'd almost forgotten, because it's been a few years ago since I stopped bothering with Elite status on pmCO, but a search brought it all back to me...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/425909-so-just-what-new-eua-rules-anyway.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/420503-eua-running-all.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/46883-more-checking-online.html

Now if they didn't fix it between 2003 and 2011, what are the odds that they'll fix it between 2011 and 2019?

The weirdness, inconsistency, and general flakiness of the upgrade process doesn't seem to get any better. I'd almost forgotten, because it's been a few years ago since I stopped bothering with Elite status on pmCO, but a search brought it all back to me...

Now if they didn't fix it between 2003 and 2011, what are the odds that they'll fix it between 2011 and 2019?

Despite wheatever happens to other people, actually I have gotten a lot more upgrades as PMCO gold than now being a platinum. And the upgrades were upgraded a lot more ahead of time too.

To me it is only getting to the worst since 3/3 of this year.

Despite wheatever happens to other people, actually I have gotten a lot more upgrades as PMCO gold than now being a platinum. And the upgrades were upgraded a lot more ahead of time too.

So did I (particularly on NW). The point I was trying to make was more about the process than the number of available upgrades vs the number of Elites. Although I do think that if there are way too few upgrades to go around, transparency is key.

The problem is TRANSPARENCY!!! I honestly believe that UA does not give us honest, consistent answers because they are as much in the dark as we are. Everyone knows how it's "supposed" to work but no one knows why it doesn't. I don't really think UA is lyeing or playing games as much as they just don't think it's that important to fix

I fly a lot of Full fare flights but not on UA. I Have no reason to as long as they give me upgrades & they work. I've also been lucky w a 100% success rate but another customer, same status as me w similar travel habits has a 50% success rate which is what makes no sense.

I honestly believe that UA does not give us honest, consistent answers because they are as much in the dark as we are. Everyone knows how it's "supposed" to work but no one knows why it doesn't. I don't really think UA is lyeing or playing games as much as they just don't think it's that important to fix.

You couldn't be more correct.

Upgrades were a lot more plentiful until they started holding back R inventory so they could sell TODs at checkin.

The capitalist in me can't hate them for that....but if that's how you're going to design your business model then don't tout upgrades as a key feature of your FF program.

I've done relatively well with upgrades as a 1K this year--to leisure destinations. Between EWR-ORD -IAH or anywhere in Cali it's been abysmal.

Not looking forward to falling from 1K status next year...but I'm starting to wonder what the point is anyway.

...Not looking forward to falling from 1K status next year...but I'm starting to wonder what the point is anyway.

My upgrades were much more consistent with pmCO as a Plat and with pmUA 1K than with the new UA 1K.
I have no problem if they really sell the upgrades for their real value and not just for whatever they get.
I also would like them to acknowledge that upgrades are no longer the main benefit of my 20 year loyalty and then maybe they can beef up the other benefits - free lounge?????

I will make it to Plat this year and I am debating really hard if it is worth even trying to go for 1K or just let it go. The problem is that without 1K the chances of upgrading will be zero even to FL on a Saturday morning.
I really like UA and CO and have for many years; if I let my 1K go and cannot get upgrades, slowly but surely my business will drift to other airlines and that will be sad.

The weirdness, inconsistency, and general flakiness of the upgrade process doesn't seem to get any better. I'd almost forgotten, because it's been a few years ago since I stopped bothering with Elite status on pmCO, but a search brought it all back to me...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/425909-so-just-what-new-eua-rules-anyway.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/420503-eua-running-all.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/46883-more-checking-online.html

Now if they didn't fix it between 2003 and 2011, what are the odds that they'll fix it between 2011 and 2019?



They've always had reliability issues with EUA.

But the issues now are compounded by things the system wasn't designed to handle well, such as OAL-issued tickets. UA has a lot more of those than CO ever did.

They've always had reliability issues with EUA.

But the issues now are compounded by things the system wasn't designed to handle well, such as OAL-issued tickets. UA has a lot more of those than CO ever did.

Now this is interesting. How well did UDUs work on pmUA when it was an OAL ticket or codeshare? Maybe you can explain? :)

Totally agree with people who say that there should be more transparency for CPUs but I think you'll find that the situation is *dramatically* better now than it was previously for UA pax flying on OAL tickets and codeshares. Hard to reconcile that with comments like "things the system wasn't designed to handle well".

They've always had reliability issues with EUA....

Odd. From 2001 to about 2009 the only "reliability issue" that I experienced was a near 100% EUA rate as a Plat. These blanket statements need to be more thoroughly vetted.

Now this is interesting. How well did UDUs work on pmUA when it was an OAL ticket or codeshare? Maybe you can explain? :)

Totally agree with people who say that there should be more transparency for CPUs but I think you'll find that the situation is *dramatically* better now than it was previously for UA pax flying on OAL tickets and codeshares. Hard to reconcile that with comments like "things the system wasn't designed to handle well".

pmUA didn't have UDUs, it had e500s which meant that upgrades were only offered to those who wanted and could support them, and the system worked like clockwork.

pmUA didn't have UDUs, it had e500s which meant that upgrades were only offered to those who wanted and could support them, and the system worked like clockwork.

That is absolutely not the case. They most certainly did have UDU since 2010, prior to the merger with CO.

They've always had reliability issues with EUA.

But the issues now are compounded by things the system wasn't designed to handle well, such as OAL-issued tickets. UA has a lot more of those than CO ever did.

Now this is interesting. How well did UDUs work on pmUA when it was an OAL ticket or codeshare? Maybe you can explain? :)

Can't comment on OAL, but PMUA didn't allow on codeshares to participate in UDU. Some reported luck in being added to the list at the airport, but by rule, this wasn't supposed to happen.

Now this is interesting. How well did UDUs work on pmUA when it was an OAL ticket or codeshare? Maybe you can explain? :)

Totally agree with people who say that there should be more transparency for CPUs but I think you'll find that the situation is *dramatically* better now than it was previously for UA pax flying on OAL tickets and codeshares. Hard to reconcile that with comments like "things the system wasn't designed to handle well".

PMUA did not have UDU. You needed to use something to support the U/G, either certificates (SWU, Regionals or E500's) or miles. In addition, UA offered immediate u/g from certain full Y/B fares. All required available U/G inventory.

A much better approach, IMHO.

I have since concluded that UA is now offering the U/G's for sale when there is too much demand. (Surprise, surprise: when you give something away for free, there's excess demand. Who knew?) But the problems are, as others have noted, it is far from transparent and elites often seem to be unfairly excluded from the process, or at least the bargain basement TOD's.

That is absolutely not the case. They most certainly did have UDU since 2010, prior to the merger with CO.

They were introduced after the merger but before the joint operating certificate - most certainly not before CO got involved.

Can't comment on OAL, but PMUA didn't allow on codeshares to participate in UDU. Some reported luck in being added to the list at the airport, but by rule, this wasn't supposed to happen.

And I don't think they ever had codeshares with OAL either - and if they did, they would not have been US domestic flights.

PMUA did not have UDU. You needed to use something to support the U/G, either certificates (SWU, Regionals or E500's) or miles. In addition, UA offered immediate u/g from certain full Y/B fares. All required available U/G inventory.

Not true, UA had UDU for a couple of years. Started in 2Q 2010. Before that, you had to sponsor an upgrade with something.

So sUA had unlimited complimentary elite upgrades for two full years.

They were introduced after the merger but before the joint operating certificate - most certainly not before CO got involved.

UA decided to to implement UDU about 7-8 months [Fall 2009] before the merger was announced.

The new UDU program was all sUA, mostly trying to keep their FFP competitive with the industry. sUA was the only airline that did not give out unlimited complimentary upgrades.

They were introduced after the merger but before the joint operating certificate - most certainly not before CO got involved.

Check your facts on this - you are completely wrong. UDUs were announced mid-October 2009, and launched in 2010.

And I don't think they ever had codeshares with OAL either - and if they did, they would not have been US domestic flights.

Also wrong - huge numbers of codeshares on domestic US routes with US Airways. See here for an example: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileageplus-consolidated/1211982-us-airways-codeshare-but-united-flight-am-i-eligible-upgrade.html

And there were huge numbers of codeshares with other airlines besides US - most of the international *A airlines have had codeshares with UA for years on the domestic segments.

UA decided to to implement UDU about 7-8 months [Fall 2009] before the merger was announced.

The new UDU program was all sUA, mostly trying to keep their FFP competitive with the industry. sUA was the only airline that did not give out unlimited complimentary upgrades.

AA? :confused:

AA? :confused:

EXPs? :confused:

Complimentary and 500-Mile Upgrades

As an AAdvantage Executive Platinum member, you don’t have to use 500-Mile Upgrades for your own travel – enjoy your upgrades on us! You may request unlimited complimentary upgrades confirmed at 100 hours prior to departure (subject to availability) when traveling on purchased, published fares on eligible American Airlines or American Eagle flights

http://www.aa.com/content/images/AAdvantage/EP_Member_Guide.pdf

Surely the newly appreciated EXP has read the documents? ;)

AA?
EXPs?

Precisely.

UA did not have any unlimited complimentary upgrades, and AA did for EXPs, which made UA the only airline at the time to not have unlimited complimentary upgrade benefit for their elites.

Also wrong - huge numbers of codeshares on domestic US routes with US Airways. See here for an example: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileageplus-consolidated/1211982-us-airways-codeshare-but-united-flight-am-i-eligible-upgrade.html

And there were huge numbers of codeshares with other airlines besides US - most of the international *A airlines have had codeshares with UA for years on the domestic segments.

Olympic Airlines is not, and has never been, a member of *A.

Now this is interesting. How well did UDUs work on pmUA when it was an OAL ticket or codeshare? Maybe you can explain? :)

They didn't work, and that was per the rules. The difference is they didn't break the whole flight like CO's systems do.

One issue is that CO's systems require the ticket to be in sync at all times, and if they manipulate something, they have to resync. Not usually a problem for their own tickets (016 and legacy 005), but it is a problem if it's someone else's ticket. But even on 016 tickets, you're not always in sync for a variety of reasons.

PMUA, OTOH, never cared about out of sync tickets. They resolved any ticketing matters at checkin, so if there was a ticket problem, it didn't impact your UDU, or anyone else's on the flight.

CO's systems halt when they run into an out-of-sync ticket, so nobody else on the flight gets EUA until that person's ticket issue is resolved, and the EUA system sweeps the flight again.

My point is in this environment, with UA's customers buying habits and deeper integration into the alliance than CO ever had, you're more likely to run into an out-of-sync ticket now than before on CO, because CO was never as partner or agency friendly, and tickets issued by or with OAL segments are more likely to be out of sync.

As an example, say I were to book ATL-UA-ORD, returning ORD-DL-ATL on one ticket through Expedia. This is an 016 ticket issued by UA.

With PMUA, ATL-ORD would go upgrade pending. On the DL side, I'd add my DL Medallion number, and it would also go upgrade requested. Say DL clears the upgrade first, no problem. UA then clears its upgrade, no problem. I get upgraded on both, and fly as ticketed in F all the way.

With PMCO (or new UA), ATL-ORD would be eligible, but it wouldn't show anything. ORD-ATL would be upgrade requested on the DL side. DL clears. My UA record now shows the segment ATL-ORD twice, the ticket is out of sync, ATL-ORD would never clear for me because it's out of sync, nor would anyone else on the flight clear. I just broke EUA for everyone on the plane.


Hard to reconcile that with comments like "things the system wasn't designed to handle well".

It's very easy to reconcile. If everybody now books their ticket from UA, directly through United, and does not fly any codeshares or OALs on the same ticket, EUA would be much more reliable than it is today.


Odd. From 2001 to about 2009 the only "reliability issue" that I experienced was a near 100% EUA rate as a Plat. These blanket statements need to be more thoroughly vetted.

Some of the EUA anomalies were more difficult to identify before we had some of the more recent tools (e.g., the PDA site). However, back to 2003, I was regularly identifying EUA anomalies and shenanigans. While some of the issues dealing with out-of-sync tickets still exist today, there were other issues back then that parallel the issues we have today.

The TOD issue we have today, for example, parallels the instant-upgrade at checkin issue from back then. Back then, any Elite checking in would be upgraded to the upgrade class if it were available. That's a problem if the bucket gets released before the EUA sweep.

While they have fixed that, they seem to be using that class as an indicator for upgrades, which may be a contributor to the TOD problem we've seen for the past few years (even before the merger).

I've already written at length about the out-of-sync issues, and we've had missed sweeps on CO going back 10+ years. Many of these seemingly missed sweeps can be attributed to the out-of-sync issue since the system halts when it runs into an out-of-sync record. I have even personally had out-of-sync tickets on PMCO and as such have caused EUA to fail for my whole flight, all while watching the F inventory remain constant until I got to the airport to resolve it. It's a real problem.

I think the out-of-sync issue is the fundamental issue affecting the perception of CPU reliability today.

They didn't work, and that was per the rules. The difference is they didn't break the whole flight like CO's systems do.

One issue is that CO's systems require the ticket to be in sync at all times, and if they manipulate something, they have to resync. Not usually a problem for their own tickets (016 and legacy 005), but it is a problem if it's someone else's ticket. But even on 016 tickets, you're not always in sync for a variety of reasons.

PMUA, OTOH, never cared about out of sync tickets. They resolved any ticketing matters at checkin, so if there was a ticket problem, it didn't impact your UDU, or anyone else's on the flight.

CO's systems halt when they run into an out-of-sync ticket, so nobody else on the flight gets EUA until that person's ticket issue is resolved, and the EUA system sweeps the flight again.

My point is in this environment, with UA's customers buying habits and deeper integration into the alliance than CO ever had, you're more likely to run into an out-of-sync ticket now than before on CO, because CO was never as partner or agency friendly, and tickets issued by or with OAL segments are more likely to be out of sync.

As an example, say I were to book ATL-UA-ORD, returning ORD-DL-ATL on one ticket through Expedia. This is an 016 ticket issued by UA.

With PMUA, ATL-ORD would go upgrade pending. On the DL side, I'd add my DL Medallion number, and it would also go upgrade requested. Say DL clears the upgrade first, no problem. UA then clears its upgrade, no problem. I get upgraded on both, and fly as ticketed in F all the way.

With PMCO (or new UA), ATL-ORD would be eligible, but it wouldn't show anything. ORD-ATL would be upgrade requested on the DL side. DL clears. My UA record now shows the segment ATL-ORD twice, the ticket is out of sync, ATL-ORD would never clear for me because it's out of sync, nor would anyone else on the flight clear. I just broke EUA for everyone on the plane.




It's very easy to reconcile. If everybody now books their ticket from UA, directly through United, and does not fly any codeshares or OALs on the same ticket, EUA would be much more reliable than it is today.




Some of the EUA anomalies were more difficult to identify before we had some of the more recent tools (e.g., the PDA site). However, back to 2003, I was regularly identifying EUA anomalies and shenanigans. While some of the issues dealing with out-of-sync tickets still exist today, there were other issues back then that parallel the issues we have today.

The TOD issue we have today, for example, parallels the instant-upgrade at checkin issue from back then. Back then, any Elite checking in would be upgraded to the upgrade class if it were available. That's a problem if the bucket gets released before the EUA sweep.

While they have fixed that, they seem to be using that class as an indicator for upgrades, which may be a contributor to the TOD problem we've seen for the past few years (even before the merger).

I've already written at length about the out-of-sync issues, and we've had missed sweeps on CO going back 10+ years. Many of these seemingly missed sweeps can be attributed to the out-of-sync issue since the system halts when it runs into an out-of-sync record. I have even personally had out-of-sync tickets on PMCO and as such have caused EUA to fail for my whole flight, all while watching the F inventory remain constant until I got to the airport to resolve it. It's a real problem.

I think the out-of-sync issue is the fundamental issue affecting the perception of CPU reliability today.

Does this issue, as you've described it, have the same impact on RPU or GPU clearance or is this unique to the UDU process?

Does this issue, as you've described it, have the same impact on RPU or GPU clearance or is this unique to the UDU process?


I'm not sure about whether an out of sync ticket impacts RPU/GPU clearance, but most certainly PMCO had issues with Regionals/SWUs prior to the merger. And while they did not have those upgrade for a long time, they also had issues clearing waitlisted mileage upgrades pre-merger (same issue we're seeing today - where the space is there but the upgrade isn't clearing).

Of course there are more waitlisted upgrades now than ever. With old CO (pre-merger, pre-UA partnership), when waitlisted mileage upgrades weren't clearing right (or worse, when EUA was trumping them inside the window), there were very few data points. After all, there were no SWUs/RPUs, so the only data you had were from the minority of people who used mileage upgrades, waitlisted them, were on FT, and were savvy enough to identify when something didn't look right. The problem was there, but there was little visibility into it, little impact (who uses mileage upgrades anyway?), so awareness was low.

However now, with more high-frequency customers coming from UA, more upgrade types (RPU/GPU), more miles on the books from the MP program, etc., the dynamic has changed, and waitlisted upgrades are far more common, which is driving attention to the problem.

Same problem as before, but there's more impact now because there's exponentially more use of waitlisting than CO's systems ever had to deal with previously.

Olympic Airlines is not, and has never been, a member of *A.

OAL = Other Air Line(s).

Precisely.

UA did not have any unlimited complimentary upgrades, and AA did for EXPs, which made UA the only airline at the time to not have unlimited complimentary upgrade benefit for their elites.

EXPs likely a small % of their total elites. For most on AA, it's a sticker system, NOT complimentary.

EXPs likely a small % of their total elites. For most on AA, it's a sticker system, NOT complimentary.

That doesn't make golfingboy's statement any less true than it is.

I fly 80-90K per year, mostly domestic on discount fare codes. I have been Plat for years and fly out of a fortress hub (IAH)

Prior to Y/B/M fares I was 100% on eligible upgrades on sCO.

Y/B/M fares dropped it to 50% for a while, and then it recovered to about 80%.

"New" instruments (rpu) and sUA elegibility dropped it to about 50% again.

Post 3/3, I am 0 for....

My observations:

None of the non-upgrades this year are obviously due to TOD or system failures.

The culprits (in my estimated order of importance):

My travel patterns have changed.

Many of the routes I fly have been completely, or nearly completely, converted to regional jets instead of 737.

I am no longer "top dog" as a platinum.

Anyone I talk to seems to have rpu's galore.


Sigh...... the good old days.

The problem is TRANSPARENCY!!! I honestly believe that UA does not give us honest, consistent answers because they are as much in the dark as we are. Everyone knows how it's "supposed" to work but no one knows why it doesn't. I don't really think UA is lyeing or playing games as much as they just don't think it's that important to fix.....Yup tho I would not say "it's not that important to fix as" the kettles are buying those ToD$ and as long as they keep doing that and $crewing elites, it wont change

PMUA did not have UDU. You needed to use something to support the U/G, either certificates (SWU, Regionals or E500's) or miles......Not true-PMUA did switch to a UDU system and it worked the way it was supposed to work (unlike what we have now :rolleyes:
===
And now a shameless plug for a good cause :)
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1379629-10-sept-near-sfo-ua-capt-denny-dinner-jason-dahl-scholarship-fund-raffle-draw.html

Yup tho I would not say "it's not that important to fix as" the kettles are buying those ToD$ and as long as they keep doing that and $crewing elites, it wont change

What about the fact that it already has changed? Don't want to recognise a step in the right direction for what it is?

What about the fact that it already has changed? Don't want to recognise a step in the right direction for what it is?

What has changed?

They've addressed some of the problem points (e.g., OAL/out of sync tickets) to reduce the frequency, but CPU issues are still problematic.

My most recent CPU issues were 2 weeks ago, with flights wide open in R not clearing.

...My most recent CPU issues were 2 weeks ago, with flights wide open in R not clearing.

I thought that it was established that R and CPU availability are not 1:1. Has that changed?

I am so over it. Checked in for a flight (Plat & gold) and neither of us are on upgrade list. I REALLY cant take anymore of it. rant over....

I thought that it was established that R and CPU availability are not 1:1. Has that changed?


They have established that CPU will not utilize the whole R bucket in some markets, but they've provided no further guidance beyond that. What I understand is the hold back a seat or two in some markets. We have no visibility in to that.

As for my issues two weeks ago, they were R7 to R9, so that was not what was happening. It was broken and acknowledged by UA as broken.

They have established that CPU will not utilize the whole R bucket in some markets, but they've provided no further guidance beyond that. What I understand is the hold back a seat or two in some markets. We have no visibility in to that.

As for my issues two weeks ago, they were R7 to R9, so that was not what was happening. It was broken and acknowledged by UA as broken.

Broken for those flights (e.g., via "out-of-synch" reservations) or...just plain, old broken?

Yup tho I would not say "it's not that important to fix as" the kettles are buying those ToD$ and as long as they keep doing that and $crewing elites, it wont changeWhat about the fact that it already has changed? Don't want to recognise a step in the right direction for what it is?What has changed?

They've addressed some of the problem points (e.g., OAL/out of sync tickets) to reduce the frequency, but CPU issues are still problematic.

My most recent CPU issues were 2 weeks ago, with flights wide open in R not clearing.Agreed ^ What has changed and what pray tell is the step in the right direction you speak of? :confused:

===
And now a shameless plug for a good cause :)
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1379629-10-sept-near-sfo-ua-capt-denny-dinner-jason-dahl-scholarship-fund-raffle-draw.html

OAL = Other Air Line(s).

OAL = ICAO code for Olympic Airlines. Check your facts!

Agreed ^ What has changed and what pray tell is the step in the right direction you speak of? :confused:

Showing upgrade status by segment, to keep PMUA pax happy. As seen on the preview site a few weeks back. Since the main gripe (today) appeared to be transparency, this most definitely *is* a step in the right direction.

Now if they would just release it and not delay its implementation further that would be even better ^

Broken for those flights (e.g., via "out-of-synch" reservations) or...just plain, old broken?

Broken. They told me it didn't run for those flights.

Again, without transparency, we don't know if it was a failure by design or an unintentional failure.


Showing upgrade status by segment, to keep PMUA pax happy. As seen on the preview site a few weeks back. Since the main gripe (today) appeared to be transparency, this most definitely *is* a step in the right direction.

But, they didn't make it work. They had so many problems with it, they didn't include it in the release.

I know when I previewed it, it certainly wasn't reliable. I had eligible flights where there was no upgrade indication whatsoever. I also had cleared some flights that had no indication on the preview site.

It was lipstick on a pig, not transparency. Unless the information they're providing us is reliable, it's not worth much.


Now if they would just release it and not delay its implementation further that would be even better ^

Honestly, I would rather they delay it and do it right than release something hastily with a number of bugs.

Now if they would just release it and not delay its implementation further that would be even better ^


Honestly, I would rather they delay it and do it right than release something hastily with a number of bugs.

Fixed that for you.

EXPs likely a small % of their total elites. For most on AA, it's a sticker system, NOT complimentary.

My point is, AA has such program, UA had zilch and was the only airline in the US that did not offer ANY unlimited complimentary upgrades.

That doesn't make golfingboy's statement any less true than it is.

As valid as a statement like "UA allows elites to upgrade award tickets"

30 for 32 thus year including tatl

30 for 32 thus year including tatl

Good for you - and are you Plat or 1K?

They were introduced after the merger but before the joint operating certificate - most certainly not before CO got involved.

And conversely, CO absolutely did not have SWU's until UA got involved.

And conversely, CO absolutely did not have SWU's until UA got involved.

A: it would be "similarly", if either of these statements were actually true. B: I see you have a similar grasp of history ;) also incorrect, again by several months.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/1025260-system-wide-upgrades-presidential-platinum-coming-mid-2010-a.html

Check out the date of that post.

A: it would be "similarly", if either of these statements were actually true. B: I see you have a similar grasp of history ;) also incorrect, again by several months.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/1025260-system-wide-upgrades-presidential-platinum-coming-mid-2010-a.html

Check out the date of that post.

My point is that for those who want to say that UA did not have UDU's before CO, they have to acknowledge that CO did not have SWU's before UA.

I will agree that the pending merger helped bring UDU's to UA. Why can you not admit that the pending merger brought SWU's to CO?

You people baffle me.

A: it would be "similarly", if either of these statements were actually true. B: I see you have a similar grasp of history ;) also incorrect, again by several months.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/1025260-system-wide-upgrades-presidential-platinum-coming-mid-2010-a.html

Check out the date of that post.

What a coincidence - UA introduced EUAs and CO 1Ks - and they had nothing to do with the impending merger...

1. The urban myth of TOD has recently been debunked in a number of threads in which it appears that UG's are being offered for sale to non-elites at roughly the fare difference to the lowest FC fare and for less to elites.

2. There aer fewer UG's because there is more paid F and less capacity.

3. Y/B/M-UP's seem to work quite well, although they certainly displace elites flying on el cheapo discounts. But, that's something are to take issue with.

4. UDU survives as CPU. These can be plentiful or not, but that's a function of # of seats left after the paying pax get them.

My point is that for those who want to say that UA did not have UDU's before CO, they have to acknowledge that CO did not have SWU's before UA.

I will agree that the pending merger helped bring UDU's to UA. Why can you not admit that the pending merger brought SWU's to CO?

You people baffle me.

:confused: try reading my post again, since you have assumed I said exactly the opposite of what i did. That may ease the bafflement.

What a coincidence - UA introduced EUAs and CO 1Ks - and they had nothing to do with the impending merger...

PresPlatinum was not 1K. More like GS.

Do you think they did have anything to do with each other? Or just trying to catch up with their peers in terms of FF program benefits?

Don't forget how quickly the CO-UA merger framework was put together.


1. The urban myth of TOD has recently been debunked in a number of threads in which it appears that UG's are being offered for sale to non-elites at roughly the fare difference to the lowest FC fare and for less to elites.

2. There aer fewer UG's because there is more paid F and less capacity.

3. Y/B/M-UP's seem to work quite well, although they certainly displace elites flying on el cheapo discounts. But, that's something are to take issue with.

4. UDU survives as CPU. These can be plentiful or not, but that's a function of # of seats left after the paying pax get them.

^ totally agree.

1. The urban myth of TOD has recently been debunked in a number of threads in which it appears that UG's are being offered for sale to non-elites at roughly the fare difference to the lowest FC fare and for less to elites.

It's been inconsistent. Since this thread is about the PMCO upgrade legacy, PMCO had the problem with TODs being offered too cheaply as well.

It's intermittent, it's difficult to catch, and when it happens, it seems like it may be related to other systems not working properly (e.g. EUA stalling).


2. There aer fewer UG's because there is more paid F and less capacity.

I'm not sure there's more paid F. It may be the presence of Y/B/M-Ups filling up F. Those are coach fares, not paid F.


3. Y/B/M-UP's seem to work quite well, although they certainly displace elites flying on el cheapo discounts. But, that's something are to take issue with.

Mechanically, they work well because they can be upgraded at will, and there is no ancillary system to rely on to get them. If there is no seat when you need it, you can come back and get the upgrade later once the seat opens up. They can't be waitlisted, though.


4. UDU survives as CPU. These can be plentiful or not, but that's a function of # of seats left after the paying pax get them.

Agreed, those are seats left over after the Paid F and Y/B/M-Ups get them.

In some cases, the list is a mile long. A week ago, we had 7 empties in F.

It's been inconsistent. Since this thread is about the PMCO upgrade legacy, PMCO had the problem with TODs being offered too cheaply as well. It's intermittent, it's difficult to catch, and when it happens, it seems like it may be related to other systems not working properly (e.g. EUA stalling).


And, yet, I've not seen one single message posted in FT wherein a 1K claims to have been given a BETTER price for a TOD than a GM they were traveling with. Odd how these observations always seem to benefit the Kettle and not the 1K.

And, yet, I've not seen one single message posted in FT wherein a 1K claims to have been given a BETTER price for a TOD than a GM they were traveling with. Odd how these observations always seem to benefit the Kettle and not the 1K.

Exactly. It's hilarious that some proclaim that "TODs are now a myth". They're not, they're happening. And you can't just explain away when they do happen as "glitches" and claim that when it does work as it should, it's business as usual.

I will continue to maintain that a 14 day V-up F price offered inside T-24 is a TOD, as they're clearly breaking their own fare rules to drop the price as cheap as possible. No shortage of those being offered.

And, yet, I've not seen one single message posted in FT wherein a 1K claims to have been given a BETTER price for a TOD than a GM they were traveling with. Odd how these observations always seem to benefit the Kettle and not the 1K.

:confused: I've seen dozens of examples. They're not TODs - they are buy-ups to an upgradable fare class. There are vast numbers of examples where 1Ks are offered a buy-up to M and a GM is offered a much higher price to buy-up to a higher fare class.

And yes, "even" on FT. Try searching. Or if you are particularly concerned, make bookings for refundable tickets using a 1K and GM's MP numbers.

I will continue to maintain that a 14 day V-up F price offered inside T-24 is a TOD, as they're clearly breaking their own fare rules to drop the price as cheap as possible. No shortage of those being offered.

Um, you are aware that UA has openly said that they will not take fare rules into account for fare buy-ups, right? You haven't uncovered a mystery...

I thought the pitchfork brigade tried to at least restrict their "TOD" braying to cases where the fee was vastly less than that available through a fare buy-up? Or has that modicum of discipline gone out the window too and *any* upgraded offered for cash is a "TOD" (a hundred or more tens, in some cases)?

:confused: try reading my post again, since you have assumed I said exactly the opposite of what i did. That may ease the bafflement.



You questioned my understanding of history.

I've said it before, and numerous others have concurred, you have a very strange way of agreeing with people.

Um, you are aware that UA has openly said that they will not take fare rules into account for fare buy-ups, right? You haven't uncovered a mystery...

UAI ONLY said that was for the (incredibly small) number of flights where there were more F seats than WL'd elites...nice try though.

You questioned my understanding of history.

I've said it before, and numerous others have concurred, you have a very strange way of agreeing with people.

I certainly didn't agree with you or Passmethesickbag, both of whom have posted wildly inaccurate message in this thread. I haven't got a clue what you're referring to.

UAI ONLY said that was for the (incredibly small) number of flights where there were more F seats than WL'd elites...nice try though.

I don't believe that is the case - when I have some spare time I'll do some digging around to see where I came across this.

I don't believe that is the case - when I have some spare time I'll do some digging around to see where I came across this.

What she did say (and what I'm guessing you're thinking of) is that, more or less, "F fares can fluctuate based on historical data", or something like that...which is what gives rise to examples like the 14-day V-up pricing being offered inside T-24.

If they didn't take any fare rules into account for the buy-ups, you could basically toss any credibility remaining in the MP program out the window.

That is absolutely not the case. They most certainly did have UDU since 2010, prior to the merger with CO.

That was COdbaUA's idea of an upgrade process and not UA's. UA's process of 500's, Regionals, and Systemwides worked great and kept the choice with the flyer. This shell game called UDU was a COdbaUA scam created by $misekie.....:td::td::td:

Agreed ^ What has changed and what pray tell is the step in the right direction you speak of? :confused:

Showing upgrade status by segment, to keep PMUA pax happy. As seen on the preview site a few weeks back. Since the main gripe (today) appeared to be transparency, this most definitely *is* a step in the right direction.

Now if they would just release it and not delay its implementation further that would be even better ^So PMUA had upgrade status by segment (which worked) and COdbaUA took it away but decided to bring it back yet it is still not working and thus not implemented and you call that a step in the right direction? I call it stupidity as COdbaUA broke something that worked because they didn't have the technology and is now trying to fix it using the same methods that the coyote tried to catch the road runner

That was COdbaUA's idea of an upgrade process and not UA's.

False.

UA's process of 500's, Regionals, and Systemwides worked great and kept the choice with the flyer.

True, but depends on one's flying patterns and routes. So, UDU was a win for some and a lose for some. IMO, at the time it was more of a win for most, because UA gave UDU and kept the CR1 program, which allowed elites to use those on routes where upgrades were pretty challenging like SFO-IAD, SFO-ORD, SFO-BOS, A319 transcons, etc.

FWIW, it seems more UA elites loved the UDU program over the e500 program at the time, here is an example (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2010/06/01/i-love-uniteds-unlimited-domestic-upgrades/)

This shell game called UDU was a COdbaUA scam created by $misekie.....:td::td::td:

False.

FWIW, it seems more UA elites loved the UDU program over the e500 program at the time, here is an example (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2010/06/01/i-love-uniteds-unlimited-domestic-upgrades/)

...and Lucky continued to love it so much that he fully abandoned UA for AA this year ;)

...and Lucky continued to love it so much that he fully abandoned UA for AA this year ;)

Makes me wonder where he will go if US swallows AA and implements the 3.5 hours rule for F meals and glassware :D

Back to UA? DL, no way with SkyPesos... AS, they don't fly to TPA... All we can say it will be an interesting turn of events ;)

False.



True, but depends on one's flying patterns and routes. So, UDU was a win for some and a lose for some. IMO, at the time it was more of a win for most, because UA gave UDU and kept the CR1 program, which allowed elites to use those on routes where upgrades were pretty challenging like SFO-IAD, SFO-ORD, SFO-BOS, A319 transcons, etc.

FWIW, it seems more UA elites loved the UDU program over the e500 program at the time, here is an example (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2010/06/01/i-love-uniteds-unlimited-domestic-upgrades/)



False.

False....if UA Elites were given the choice to vote for PMUA upgrade program or CodbaUA UDU's scam program the PMUA program would win hands down...of course COdbaUA does not care what the customer thinks so it is a mute point....;)

False....if UA Elites were given the choice to vote for PMUA upgrade program or CodbaUA UDU's scam program the PMUA program would win hands down...of course COdbaUA does not care what the customer thinks so it is a mute point....;)

*moot*, mot mute.

I think you'll find that you too have your history on UDUs mixed up. It was planned over a year before the merger, named by UA, implemented by the UA management team months before the merger. Not getting the CO connection here, especially the :rolleyes: COdbaUA :rolleyes: one.

Interesting how it became a *moot* point the moment it was pointed out to you that you're completely wrong. And of course you know best whether they "care" about customers or not ;)

Exactly. It's hilarious that some proclaim that "TODs are now a myth". They're not, they're happening. And you can't just explain away when they do happen as "glitches" and claim that when it does work as it should, it's business as usual.

I will continue to maintain that a 14 day V-up F price offered inside T-24 is a TOD, as they're clearly breaking their own fare rules to drop the price as cheap as possible. No shortage of those being offered.

Please let us know the routes and flights where these are offered so we can all schedule our travel accordingly.

1. The urban myth of TOD has recently been debunked in a number of threads in which it appears that UG's are being offered for sale to non-elites at roughly the fare difference to the lowest FC fare and for less to elites.


I'm not so sure that this is debunked or an urban myth. Last Wednesday I flew BOS-ORD-PVG. Flights 449/835. I have no status with UA, I am *G.

The all in ticket price for BOS-ORD-PVG-ORD-BOS in Y K Class was 1,674.10. I was offered a F upgrade at checkin BOS-ORD for $119, which I took. I when I got to the airport where I saw that there were 4 people on the upgrade list.

Today (sitting in China bored) I priced the cheapest F BOS-ORD for next week. All of the results were around $1,500; this is basically what I paid for my entire ticket. I was also offered an upgrade from Y to C ORD-PVG for $1,199, seemed pretty cheap. Did not take it as I would not be able to expense the difference.

That is absolutely not the case. They most certainly did have UDU since 2010, prior to the merger with CO.

And the UDU's were a step down when pmUA instituted them. Returning to the e500 cert method would be a change I think most people would like. :)

What has changed?

They've addressed some of the problem points (e.g., OAL/out of sync tickets) to reduce the frequency, but CPU issues are still problematic.

My most recent CPU issues were 2 weeks ago, with flights wide open in R not clearing.

My most recent flight (a month ago) was fine for me because I confirmed an upgrade at purchase, but when we were waiting to board in SFO for an IAD flight, I heard several other passengers grousing about the lack of upgrade transparency.

Perhaps UA has "fixed" the problem, and the reason why there are 50+ people on the UG list is because there are more Y/B/M buy-ups and more elites in the combined airline. The problem is, the perception is that the process is still broken, and UA ought to take steps to fix that perception.

2. There aer fewer UG's because there is more paid F and less capacity.



4. UDU survives as CPU. These can be plentiful or not, but that's a function of # of seats left after the paying pax get them.

I'm wondering how this can justify my upcoming flight, in CPU window, where every fare class is showing 9s, F through XN and R inclusive.




FWIW, it seems more UA elites loved the UDU program over the e500 program at the time



Some loved it some didn't. Place me in the latter category. My guess is that more elites are filtering into the latter category.



I think you'll find that you too have your history on UDUs mixed up. It was planned over a year before the merger, named by UA, implemented by the UA management team months before the merger. Not getting the CO connection here, especially the :rolleyes: COdbaUA :rolleyes: one.



It was argued at the time that UA's implementation of UDU and CO's implementation of SWUs were all about the courtship. Without the merger talks neither would entity would have introduced the programs.

What people fail to understand or do understand but don't want to accept is that UA, like all carriers, manages inventory & revenue. For instance, the example of the $119 UG BOS-ORD is not a TOD (whatever a TOD might be). It represents a reasonable attempt by a for profit business to monetize its operations. Whether that fare represents to the dollar the exact differrence between what the poster paid and F is immaterial.

Nobody complains that they pay $x for a seat in Y and that the guy sitting next to them bought that seat of 15% of $x. There's also no reason why UA can't or shouldn't sell F for what it can.

This thread really is a great example of the "sense of entitlement" which some on FT deried UA's CFO for openly discussing. It's about people who buy deep discount coach seats (since Y/B/M are -UP in the 1K example) who are complaining that people who either paid some cash for the UG or paid a higher fare got to sit in the FC cabin. These rants would get different reactions in an MBA program from a PhD Psychology program, but both sets of reactions would be that they make no sense.

None of these are mistakes. UA has a clear business plan to seek corporate loyalty over individuals and to reward those who spend more $, not fly more miles. It's a businesxs, not a marriage. Those who think that the business plan should absolutely switch their business to another carrier such as DL (whose elites complain that roughly the same thing is happening) or to AA (which rations UG's at lower levels through stickers and won't be AA for that much longer) or US (which has a limited domestic network and zippo to Asia).

Putting this in perspective, take a look at the RT F fare from IAD-Asia in the $20-25K range and understand that someone who buys just one of those a year is likely outspending the average domestic 1K. Whose business would you seek?

The weirdness, inconsistency, and general flakiness of the upgrade process doesn't seem to get any better. I'd almost forgotten, because it's been a few years ago since I stopped bothering with Elite status on pmCO, but a search brought it all back to me...


Now if they didn't fix it between 2003 and 2011, what are the odds that they'll fix it between 2011 and 2019?



IMO , they won't fix it: because it meets their objectives. Many here seem to forget (or perhaps never knew) that pmCO didn't ALLOW battlefield upgrades in the past. I've no idea WHY, but my suspicion has always been that they just didn't believe that a given traveler's loyalty was worth anything.

They were HubFortressed. So be it.

Today, I got an EF Alert, called and extended a previously GPU upgraded TATL segment to the domestic connection for the GF and me.
R2 when I did it. R0 after it was finished.

Any COA's out there who'd like to venture a guess as to whether I "took" someone else's upgrade because they didn't CALL and the waitlisting isn't dynamic ????

I'm betting there was at least ONE and perhaps several folks ahead of us on the "waitlist".

This airline just doesn't get it. :(
Dave

Please let us know the routes and flights where these are offered so we can all schedule our travel accordingly.

Hey, I'd love to know that, I'd stay off them too and fly AA instead.

Instead, you just have to hope their TOD strategy and never-ending "glitches" don't affect you.

What people fail to understand or do understand but don't want to accept is that UA, like all carriers, manages inventory & revenue. For instance, the example of the $119 UG BOS-ORD is not a TOD (whatever a TOD might be). It represents a reasonable attempt by a for profit business to monetize its operations. Whether that fare represents to the dollar the exact differrence between what the poster paid and F is immaterial.

Nobody complains that they pay $x for a seat in Y and that the guy sitting next to them bought that seat of 15% of $x. There's also no reason why UA can't or shouldn't sell F for what it can.

This thread really is a great example of the "sense of entitlement" which some on FT deried UA's CFO for openly discussing. It's about people who buy deep discount coach seats (since Y/B/M are -UP in the 1K example) who are complaining that people who either paid some cash for the UG or paid a higher fare got to sit in the FC cabin. These rants would get different reactions in an MBA program from a PhD Psychology program, but both sets of reactions would be that they make no sense.

None of these are mistakes. UA has a clear business plan to seek corporate loyalty over individuals and to reward those who spend more $, not fly more miles. It's a businesxs, not a marriage. Those who think that the business plan should absolutely switch their business to another carrier such as DL (whose elites complain that roughly the same thing is happening) or to AA (which rations UG's at lower levels through stickers and won't be AA for that much longer) or US (which has a limited domestic network and zippo to Asia).

Putting this in perspective, take a look at the RT F fare from IAD-Asia in the $20-25K range and understand that someone who buys just one of those a year is likely outspending the average domestic 1K. Whose business would you seek?

I think you want it both ways. First you argue that there is no such thing as a TOD (my definition = a very low cost grade offered when there are still elites on the upgrade list). I point out this is exactly what happened to me. So now you are arguing that it doesn't matter if TOD's exist, the business has a right to make a profit regardless of the rules they themselves have stated.

Two problems here, I have no loyalty to UA, I fly them when my prefered airline (AC) Asia fares are too high. I don't even have a MP account. So, UA receives no goodwill from me - they did get $119. For the $119 they may have received ill will from the people on the upgrade list. Secondly, the offer seems to contradict UA's stated policies, customers don't like doing business with companies they don't trust.

I have been in business a very long time. And I've seen a lot of businesses come and go. One of the major characteristics I've seen of the failed businsses, is that they did not understand or value their customers. Sure every business has a duty to make money and hopefully a profit. But they must always be careful of not making the profit at the cost of alienating their life's blood, their customers. Running a sucessful business requires a fine balance between making money and doing the right thing for the customers; sometimes great leadership requires a very gentle touch not a sledge hammer blow. At a time when UA's processes, operation and systems are clearly struggling, you would think they would be utilizing a very gentle touch with their loyal customers.

1. TOD is a term which is now dead and frankly, never existed. If by TOD you mean any up-fare which is less than the difference between the fare paid and the full F fare on the date the original steerage seat was booked, that isn't how the US domestic industry has run since the CAB was eliminated a generation ago. What a seat (including an UG) ought to cost is a function of supply & demand at a given point in time. UA bets that it can sell an F seat for $X, but sells it for less when it can't. That's predictive software. It's only so good. Hence the CPU.

2. Then the issue turns to individual "loyalty." MP is based on flying a lot of miles & segments. While there certainly are kickers for paying more, it's heavily biased in favor of distance / segments not $ spend. That is reflected in how UG's are handled. GS, which is largely based on spend or control of spend, is #1 on the UG hierarchy. Then comes people who pay the full price or close to it for their Y seat (-UP fares). That is followed by certs and then the remainder. But, of necessity, CPU is now for elites flying on deep discounts. Any elite flying on a full or close to full fare either got -UPPED at booking or before the certs & CPU's (other than for GS).

3. Lastly, consider who is the customer. UA is targeting large corporate accounts. In that case, the pax is rarely the customer. The customers are the corporate decision-makers. And those customers get taken care of with GS, GPU's and the like. In return, UA gets streamlined booking (corporate TA handles stuff) and anything from a preference to a mandate for flying.

Does this disenfranchise the solo? Likely, but that's simply a market share issue. All leading back to the fact that the decision to fly is a business not a marital decision.

*moot*, mot mute.

I think you'll find that you too have your history on UDUs mixed up. It was planned over a year before the merger, named by UA, implemented by the UA management team months before the merger. Not getting the CO connection here, especially the :rolleyes: COdbaUA :rolleyes: one.

Interesting how it became a *moot* point the moment it was pointed out to you that you're completely wrong. And of course you know best whether they "care" about customers or not ;)

Please....get it right....it was brought on by PMCO....PMUA already had an upgrade program that worked well, was transparent, was fair, liked by the UA FF'ers, made sense, and was not used as a fake front for buy-ups.....it is another idea from COdbaUA that we did not like.....please do not try an re-write UA history....:p

Do you dream the party line at night? :rolleyes:



3. Lastly, consider who is the customer. UA is targeting large corporate accounts. In that case, the pax is rarely the customer. The customers are the corporate decision-makers. And those customers get taken care of with GS, GPU's and the like. In return, UA gets streamlined booking (corporate TA handles stuff) and anything from a preference to a mandate for flying.



Those GS who use company SWUs and don't clear (because the SWUs are considered to be form a GM) are being taken care of? Seriously? Is there anything you can't spin?

1. TOD is a term which is now dead and frankly, never existed. If by TOD you mean any up-fare which is less than the difference between the fare paid and the full F fare on the date the original steerage seat was booked, that isn't how the US domestic industry has run since the CAB was eliminated a generation ago. What a seat (including an UG) ought to cost is a function of supply & demand at a given point in time. UA bets that it can sell an F seat for $X, but sells it for less when it can't. That's predictive software. It's only so good. Hence the CPU.

2. Then the issue turns to individual "loyalty." MP is based on flying a lot of miles & segments. While there certainly are kickers for paying more, it's heavily biased in favor of distance / segments not $ spend. That is reflected in how UG's are handled. GS, which is largely based on spend or control of spend, is #1 on the UG hierarchy. Then comes people who pay the full price or close to it for their Y seat (-UP fares). That is followed by certs and then the remainder. But, of necessity, CPU is now for elites flying on deep discounts. Any elite flying on a full or close to full fare either got -UPPED at booking or before the certs & CPU's (other than for GS).

3. Lastly, consider who is the customer. UA is targeting large corporate accounts. In that case, the pax is rarely the customer. The customers are the corporate decision-makers. And those customers get taken care of with GS, GPU's and the like. In return, UA gets streamlined booking (corporate TA handles stuff) and anything from a preference to a mandate for flying.

Does this disenfranchise the solo? Likely, but that's simply a market share issue. All leading back to the fact that the decision to fly is a business not a marital decision.

The airline industry is one of the most susceptible to outside influences I've ever seen. The next recession? A major problem in the Middle East with much higher oil prices? Another major issue in the EU with the resulting effect of major cut backs in air travel? A major terrorist attack involving an airline? It’s not that any of these are possibilities; history has taught us that one of these things will happen. Right now things are good, reduced capacity and full loads. This will not continue; it’s a very cyclical business.

You need to retain all of your customers not just the few “Special” corporate ones. And by the way the corporate accounts are among the most fickle, they will leave you in a heartbeat. All it takes is one very disgruntled senior executive and you’re done.

For a case study reference General Motors. They too had lots of corporate customers; corporate fleets and rental car companies. Ask them how things worked out when they took their eyes off of the ball

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

Classic CO. F9 R9 RN9 on flight 9/5 passed the 96 hour mark and what a surprise
No upgrade.

What people fail to understand or do understand but don't want to accept is that UA, like all carriers, manages inventory & revenue. For instance, the example of the $119 UG BOS-ORD is not a TOD (whatever a TOD might be). It represents a reasonable attempt by a for profit business to monetize its operations. Whether that fare represents to the dollar the exact differrence between what the poster paid and F is immaterial.

I do realize that United is a business, and needs to make a profit. UGs are nice to have, and no, we aren't entitled to them. The problem is this. I've seen first hand non status passengers get UG offers for $$ at check in, while status passengers didn't get the same offer. If United wants to monetize its operations, I'm all for it. Just be consistent about it, and don't penalize the frequent fliers.


I have been in business a very long time. And I've seen a lot of businesses come and go. One of the major characteristics I've seen of the failed businsses, is that they did not understand or value their customers. Sure every business has a duty to make money and hopefully a profit. But they must always be careful of not making the profit at the cost of alienating their life's blood, their customers. Running a sucessful business requires a fine balance between making money and doing the right thing for the customers; sometimes great leadership requires a very gentle touch not a sledge hammer blow. At a time when UA's processes, operation and systems are clearly struggling, you would think they would be utilizing a very gentle touch with their loyal customers.

^^ Because I didn't want to get caught up in the mess surrounding 3/3, I transferred a lot of flying that would have gone to United to AA and DL, and what I've found is that there are alternatives to flying United. My UG percentage as a plat on AA is roughly the same as I have on UA as a 1K, and as a DL Silver, I get outstanding customer service that doesn't involve the "premier desk" putting me on hold while they call the "1K desk" to get an answer to my question, and "no, I can't understand why your seat assignment was changed" responses.

I've some seriously excellent CS from United over the past four months, but CS in general is still way too uneven. I'll likely make 1K this year, but United's disappointing lack of regard for their frequent customers is not a factor that makes me want to maintain that status for the long run.


All leading back to the fact that the decision to fly is a business not a marital decision.

You are right, it isn't. United used to care about the individual flyer - or at least they created the illusion of caring. But those days are over, and as a result, so far this year I've flown 30K on DL and 20K on AA that would have been on UA in past years, because I recognize that I have the ability to change my flying patterns in a way that provides the best benefit to me.

I do realize that United is a business, and needs to make a profit. UGs are nice to have, and no, we aren't entitled to them. The problem is this. I've seen first hand non status passengers get UG offers for $$ at check in, while status passengers didn't get the same offer. If United wants to monetize its operations, I'm all for it. Just be consistent about it, and don't penalize the frequent fliers.

Exactly. I don't care what UA charges for F.

Just make sure I get the best offer available. If some GM is going to pay a total of $400 for an F seat on that flight, make sure I get the same offer.

And for the record, I prefer UDU over the old certificates system. It's one of the major reasons when I left DL I went to CO over UA.

And it's not like the certs are gone - you can still put yourself at the front of the upgrade queue with a RPU.

Please....get it right....it was brought on by PMCO....PMUA already had an upgrade program that worked well, was transparent, was fair, liked by the UA FF'ers, made sense, and was not used as a fake front for buy-ups.....it is another idea from COdbaUA that we did not like.....please do not try an re-write UA history....:pAbsolutely 100% correct ^ but there are oh so many flavors of COol-Aid for folks to drink ;)

Unreal the "facts" that have been posted here by pmUAers. How many threads do we need about how much you hate the combined airline? And there are plenty of pmUA execs on the combined BOD.

Unreal the "facts" that have been posted here by pmUAers. .... And there are plenty of pmUA execs on the combined BOD.can you state the facts for me -- how many former pmUA execs are on the new UA BoD?

all I see is Glenn F. Tilton on his way out.
James J. Heppner is the ALPA rep
The only new UA management on the BoD is Smisek

suspect you really was referring to the exec ranks (Management (http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-govmanage)) -- not BoD
And for those counting
Exec VP or higher -- 5 PMCO, 2 PMUA, 1 neither
Senior VP -- 11 PMCO, 7 PMUA, 1 not stated

can you state the facts for me -- how many former pmUA execs are on the new UA BoD?

all I see is Glenn F. Tilton on his way out.
James J. Heppner is the ALPA rep
The only new UA management on the BoD is Smisek

suspect you really was referring to the exec ranks (Management (http://http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-govBio&ID=204738)) -- not BoD
And for those counting
Exec VP or higher -- 5 PMCO, 2 PMUA, 1 neither
Senior VP -- 11 PMCO, 7 PMUA, 1 not stated

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Putting this in perspective, take a look at the RT F fare from IAD-Asia in the $20-25K range and understand that someone who buys just one of those a year is likely outspending the average domestic 1K. Whose business would you seek?

UA has to seek business from many different market segments. That's the whole reason they have multiple classes of service.

A few weeks of focusing solely on those who spend $25K on a RT would be enough to bankrupt any scheduled carrier. Your hands are sufficient to count the number of people actually paying that fare on any given day (not upgraded, not corporate discounted). That's not going to fill the nearly 700 aircraft operated by UA.

suspect you really was referring to the exec ranks

I did, thank you for correcting me.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

yes, it was a mistake, one I have no problem admitting.