Very rude SFO RCC agent re: mileage runs
May 25, 2008, 5:45 am
#76
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ani Ichibanya
Programs: WWMFD
Posts: 6,292
I think I know which goof this is... he needs to be put out of our misery.
I was on int'l first (paid, not miles, not that it should matter) on my return home when connecting to my domestic flight, and i encountered him.
I showed my boarding pass, and he said, "Oh, you figured out the super
secret way to get in. This is a private club. United should really enforce members-only blah blah blah..."
I was on int'l first (paid, not miles, not that it should matter) on my return home when connecting to my domestic flight, and i encountered him.
I showed my boarding pass, and he said, "Oh, you figured out the super
secret way to get in. This is a private club. United should really enforce members-only blah blah blah..."
May 25, 2008, 6:47 am
#77
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,138
I remember thinking at the time that the day I don't get home on time because I got DB'd by some laughing mileage runners (as unlikely as this is, since I'm a consistent 1K paying pretty high fares most of the time) will be a dark day on FT. I've always supported MR's in concept, but the fact that you guys were amused by the fact that you inconvenienced some people who were actually flying because they had to made me sick.
I suggest irrops will still result in people getting DB'd and who are angry. UA is operating planes at very high load factors these days, giving very little margin for error. I would doubt very seriously that MR'ers are more than even 1% of those pax, and even if they just went away, IM would work to keep those seats filled, either through fares or capacity cuts, and you'd be in the same boat, still.
May 25, 2008, 7:18 am
#78
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA MM, SQ KrisFlyer, SPG/Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,231
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
no, you can be literal in this case...
no, you can be literal in this case...
May 25, 2008, 7:28 am
#79
Senior Moderator; Moderator, Eco-Conscious Travel, United and Flyertalk Cares
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Fulltime travel/mostly Europe
Programs: UA 1.7 MM;; Accor & Marriott Pt; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 17,831
That I'm aware, the last "official" word we had on Mileage Plus' stand on mileage runs came from a 2001 FT chat (Sahadevan is VP for Mileage Plus. I don't know if Davidovich is still with MP.):
PremEx2000
Does United frown on "mileage runs"? Next week, I'm flying to Singapore and back in a couple of days just for the miles -- and I'm flying on a really inexpensive ticket.
Randy Petersen
Ohhhh, good question.....
Robert Sahadevan
It's allowed in the program. Have at it!!!!!!
Randy Petersen
Straight from the boss..... I guess that's an endorsement to fly....
Jim Davidovich
We appreciate loyal customers!!!!!
PremEx2000
Does United frown on "mileage runs"? Next week, I'm flying to Singapore and back in a couple of days just for the miles -- and I'm flying on a really inexpensive ticket.
Randy Petersen
Ohhhh, good question.....
Robert Sahadevan
It's allowed in the program. Have at it!!!!!!
Randy Petersen
Straight from the boss..... I guess that's an endorsement to fly....
Jim Davidovich
We appreciate loyal customers!!!!!
May 25, 2008, 9:32 am
#80
Moderator: Mileage Run, United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The City/Honolulu
Programs: UA 3MM; Hyatt Glob*****; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,473
Since so many FTers have had similar, or worse, treatment by this RCC agent, perhaps a concerted effort to compile and send all of these confrontations to someone at SFO would be met better? Otherwise it could be viewed upon as the agent having a bad day.
May 25, 2008, 9:41 am
#81
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
I agree that once a policy is set, or if something is possible under the rules, then employees should not go and try to make customers feel bad about something that is allowed. It is like the SFO SQ lounge that I have commented on before, where they will let you in, but not without a whole lot of pouting and making you feel like you're a huge burden. What is the point of that? Be of good cheer, and do what is in the rules. If it is not to their liking, they are the ones who can change the rules, after all. But it is not the time and place to individually "discipline" a particular customer and hope to have an effect.
Ok, there are situations where customers can be absolutely unreasonable and "deserve" being chewed out -- the kind of stories where a harried agent is saved from a bad customer by the sharper wit of another customer standing in line. But this does not seem like one of those things.
Ok, there are situations where customers can be absolutely unreasonable and "deserve" being chewed out -- the kind of stories where a harried agent is saved from a bad customer by the sharper wit of another customer standing in line. But this does not seem like one of those things.
May 25, 2008, 10:34 am
#82
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 739
At risk of diverting this discussion, does anybody else have a problem with the way the UA employees are referred to as "matrons" or "$12/hour employees"? Do we really need to denigrate these employees? It's particularly ironic because these terms are often used in conjunction with complaints about being treated rudely. While everyone on these boards always claims to be calm, reasonable and polite in dealing with agents or FAs, something tells me that people who speak of the employees in these terms may actually come off quite differently.
It doesn't excuse the rudeness or commentary from the employees. That should not happen under most circumstances. (Yes, there are times when it is called for -- some customers are not worth keeping -- as WN has recognized for years.)
Perhaps we all spend too much time on these boards . . .
It doesn't excuse the rudeness or commentary from the employees. That should not happen under most circumstances. (Yes, there are times when it is called for -- some customers are not worth keeping -- as WN has recognized for years.)
Perhaps we all spend too much time on these boards . . .
May 25, 2008, 10:37 am
#83
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: UA 1K MM, Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA PLT
Posts: 1,082
I agree - If UA SFO management knows about this guy's attitude towards UA's best customers and keeps him employed - shame on them! If mgmt does not know about him - then we need to be the ones to tell them so that they can make the right decision and either terminte him or re-deploy him to the baggage carousel.
Last edited by kenhawk; May 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm
May 25, 2008, 11:13 am
#84
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: IAD
Programs: 1K no more
Posts: 396
Ok Lucky.... you understand these people probably better than anyone on this forum but did you really have a problem? or were you pressing all the right buttons to test and/or see the response? Just asking... 
May 25, 2008, 11:14 am
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
TA-----
"Ok, there are situations where customers can be absolutely unreasonable and "deserve" being chewed out -- the kind of stories where a harried agent is saved from a bad customer by the sharper wit of another customer standing in line. But this does not seem like one of those things."
__________________________________________________ _____________
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree on both points, which is why I even registered to post on this forum!
No customer ever "deserves to be chewed out". There are more professional and diplomatic ways to handle irate customers. This incident in the RCC in SFO wasn't elevated to a chewing out situation that got out of control,(IMHO), but rather was an unsolicited expression of this dudes hatred for Mileage Runners, and he just couldn't keep his big mouth shut! A letter writing campaign might get his supervisors attention, but I doubt it?
Point #2---Why on earth would anyone feel that they are deputized by UAL, and as such, during their travels, and while running the gauntlet through the gate lice, they have the duty, right, obligation, or permission to get involved in a dispute between a passenger and a CSR employee. Most of these folks, that are still left on the front lines, have a lot of seniority, and I'm sure that they can take care of themselves, without band of vigilantes coming to the rescue, at the drop of a hat during a code-blue Ir-op .
I received a lifetime RCC membership as of a few months ago and I don't plan on doing too much visiting in these dens. It's almost like they are doing you a favor to let you in, and for what? --------Torn up furniture, filthy restrooms, loud & important cell phone conversations, and lazy assed matrons that make a big deal out of assisting with an itinerary change.
My RCC Ir-op # is the 1 800 IK line--- Never ever had any of these folks ever question my motives for flying anywhere I damn well pleased!!!
"Ok, there are situations where customers can be absolutely unreasonable and "deserve" being chewed out -- the kind of stories where a harried agent is saved from a bad customer by the sharper wit of another customer standing in line. But this does not seem like one of those things."
__________________________________________________ _____________
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree on both points, which is why I even registered to post on this forum!
No customer ever "deserves to be chewed out". There are more professional and diplomatic ways to handle irate customers. This incident in the RCC in SFO wasn't elevated to a chewing out situation that got out of control,(IMHO), but rather was an unsolicited expression of this dudes hatred for Mileage Runners, and he just couldn't keep his big mouth shut! A letter writing campaign might get his supervisors attention, but I doubt it?
Point #2---Why on earth would anyone feel that they are deputized by UAL, and as such, during their travels, and while running the gauntlet through the gate lice, they have the duty, right, obligation, or permission to get involved in a dispute between a passenger and a CSR employee. Most of these folks, that are still left on the front lines, have a lot of seniority, and I'm sure that they can take care of themselves, without band of vigilantes coming to the rescue, at the drop of a hat during a code-blue Ir-op .
I received a lifetime RCC membership as of a few months ago and I don't plan on doing too much visiting in these dens. It's almost like they are doing you a favor to let you in, and for what? --------Torn up furniture, filthy restrooms, loud & important cell phone conversations, and lazy assed matrons that make a big deal out of assisting with an itinerary change.
My RCC Ir-op # is the 1 800 IK line--- Never ever had any of these folks ever question my motives for flying anywhere I damn well pleased!!!
Last edited by DOS-XX; May 25, 2008 at 11:20 am
May 25, 2008, 11:39 am
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
At risk of diverting this discussion, does anybody else have a problem with the way the UA employees are referred to as "matrons" or "$12/hour employees"? Do we really need to denigrate these employees? It's particularly ironic because these terms are often used in conjunction with complaints about being treated rudely. While everyone on these boards always claims to be calm, reasonable and polite in dealing with agents or FAs, something tells me that people who speak of the employees in these terms may actually come off quite differently.
It doesn't excuse the rudeness or commentary from the employees. That should not happen under most circumstances. (Yes, there are times when it is called for -- some customers are not worth keeping -- as WN has recognized for years.)
Perhaps we all spend too much time on these boards . . .
It doesn't excuse the rudeness or commentary from the employees. That should not happen under most circumstances. (Yes, there are times when it is called for -- some customers are not worth keeping -- as WN has recognized for years.)
Perhaps we all spend too much time on these boards . . .
I personally have nothing but respect for nearly ALL of the employees at United, as well as most of the other FTer's on this forum apparently do. I in fact I wrote a 3 page letter commending 3 of UAL's finest in LAS a few months ago, for above and beyond service, and all three had their photos and a great write up posted on the United employees web site.
But to have anyone, let alone a Customer-Service-Rep speak to a paying customer and express his ignorance of the rules and his dislike of a loyal passengers flying habits is inexcusable. Perhaps "Matron" IS too strong of a word and is inappropriate---
How about this --- Lucky keeps pushing BUTTONS until the word "Pink Slip" or Unemployment Line" appears!
As far as spending too much time on FT---As the great philosopher Bart Simpson (who has been mention several times, in this thread) would say, "Don't have a cow, man"!
May 25, 2008, 11:44 am
#87
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UA, Starwood, Priority Club, Hertz, Starbucks Gold Card
Posts: 3,952
I also completely disagree that the agent cared about the company. How can any agent that gives a rat's rear about a company treat a customer like that? Regardless of whether or not the agent likes me flying that specific itinerary, for all he knows I could be flying paid C to NRT next week. An agent that cares about their company would think whatever they want in their head, and treat the customer with respect.
But I see his emotions as genuine, and having directed them at you didn't make them less valid. If he didn't give a rat's rear he would have acted like EasyChicken and spit out the BPs for the next available flights. Yeah, that's what he should have done (really
) but haven't we heard countless times on this board why agents can't be more proactive in a situation? At least this guy was thinking and breathing at the same time. I'm sure in critical times in the past, this guy (I think I know who he is) was able to pull some magic numbers out of his bag of tricks for many appreciative people.What I'm agreeing with the RCC agent is the opinion that UA did something right by doing away with the 500-mile per segment minimum, and the meaning behind his otherwise unsavory comment about UA not needing certain types of passengers. (I am not going to paraphrase him, because it was out of line to speak that way aimed at a customer.) But if customers stopped flying UA because of this rule change, that's a plus for UA, and the sooner this happens the better. Airlines have proven themselves incapable of catering to every type of traveling profile, and this is the right step in getting loyalty from customers that fit the airline's business model, or are at least willing to continue playing the game on the airline's terms.
My comments are not a criticism of you, but rather an observation that there are many frontline UA employees who care passionately about the direction of the company, and finally let it air that management for once did something they knew should have been done a long time ago.
May 25, 2008, 12:01 pm
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Nah, don't believe he was.
I'm not sure how you could "take the side" of an agent that called a customer worthless, but I guess to each their own. Look, I'm not saying one way or another that mileage runs do or don't make sense for UA, as I don't know. Revenue management, which is probably much better educated than this agent as a whole, seems to not have a problem with it, so some $12/hour frontline employee shouldn't either, IMO. There's no need to complicate something simple here, we're not talking about whether or not mileage runs are profitable for UA, but just how this agent decided to approach a customer.
I also completely disagree that the agent cared about the company. How can any agent that gives a rat's rear about a company treat a customer like that? Regardless of whether or not the agent likes me flying that specific itinerary, for all he knows I could be flying paid C to NRT next week. An agent that cares about their company would think whatever they want in their head, and treat the customer with respect.
What am I missing?
I'm not sure how you could "take the side" of an agent that called a customer worthless, but I guess to each their own. Look, I'm not saying one way or another that mileage runs do or don't make sense for UA, as I don't know. Revenue management, which is probably much better educated than this agent as a whole, seems to not have a problem with it, so some $12/hour frontline employee shouldn't either, IMO. There's no need to complicate something simple here, we're not talking about whether or not mileage runs are profitable for UA, but just how this agent decided to approach a customer.
I also completely disagree that the agent cared about the company. How can any agent that gives a rat's rear about a company treat a customer like that? Regardless of whether or not the agent likes me flying that specific itinerary, for all he knows I could be flying paid C to NRT next week. An agent that cares about their company would think whatever they want in their head, and treat the customer with respect.
What am I missing?
Was this guy tall with grey hair?
May 25, 2008, 12:13 pm
#89
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,040
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)
Like I had said, I do not condone the agent's outburst at you. It is not his position to gratuitously share his opinions about MRers to you or anyone, and then go on to verbally attack you personally. In other words, he needed to keep his mouth shut.
But I see his emotions as genuine, and having directed them at you didn't make them less valid. If he didn't give a rat's rear he would have acted like EasyChicken and spit out the BPs for the next available flights. Yeah, that's what he should have done (really) but haven't we heard countless times on this board why agents can't be more proactive in a situation? At least this guy was thinking and breathing at the same time. I'm sure in critical times in the past, this guy (I think I know who he is) was able to pull some magic numbers out of his bag of tricks for many appreciative people.
What I'm agreeing with the RCC agent is the opinion that UA did something right by doing away with the 500-mile per segment minimum, and the meaning behind his otherwise unsavory comment about UA not needing certain types of passengers. (I am not going to paraphrase him, because it was out of line to speak that way aimed at a customer.) But if customers stopped flying UA because of this rule change, that's a plus for UA, and the sooner this happens the better. Airlines have proven themselves incapable of catering to every type of traveling profile, and this is the right step in getting loyalty from customers that fit the airline's business model, or are at least willing to continue playing the game on the airline's terms.
My comments are not a criticism of you, but rather an observation that there are many frontline UA employees who care passionately about the direction of the company, and finally let it air that management for once did something they knew should have been done a long time ago.
UA isn't in trouble because of mileage runners. It is in trouble because oil is $135+ per barrel. Insulting a customer doesn't help anything. I'm in SFO again waiting to depart after a 1 hour turn. As out JFK to SFO landed this morning the purser announced a connecting gate "for our mileage runner" who was taking short hops out of SFO. I talked to the purser, he said they are getting a lot of them. He was quite professional and friendly to all. The actions of that SFO RCC towards customers should result in immediate termination. That mileage runner today may be on a full fare coach ticket next month or more and if someone said that to me I would cancel my full fare tickets in a heartbeat and tell UA why.
Originally Posted by sinoflyer
I also completely disagree that the agent cared about the company. How can any agent that gives a rat's rear about a company treat a customer like that? Regardless of whether or not the agent likes me flying that specific itinerary, for all he knows I could be flying paid C to NRT next week. An agent that cares about their company would think whatever they want in their head, and treat the customer with respect.
But I see his emotions as genuine, and having directed them at you didn't make them less valid. If he didn't give a rat's rear he would have acted like EasyChicken and spit out the BPs for the next available flights. Yeah, that's what he should have done (really
) but haven't we heard countless times on this board why agents can't be more proactive in a situation? At least this guy was thinking and breathing at the same time. I'm sure in critical times in the past, this guy (I think I know who he is) was able to pull some magic numbers out of his bag of tricks for many appreciative people.What I'm agreeing with the RCC agent is the opinion that UA did something right by doing away with the 500-mile per segment minimum, and the meaning behind his otherwise unsavory comment about UA not needing certain types of passengers. (I am not going to paraphrase him, because it was out of line to speak that way aimed at a customer.) But if customers stopped flying UA because of this rule change, that's a plus for UA, and the sooner this happens the better. Airlines have proven themselves incapable of catering to every type of traveling profile, and this is the right step in getting loyalty from customers that fit the airline's business model, or are at least willing to continue playing the game on the airline's terms.
My comments are not a criticism of you, but rather an observation that there are many frontline UA employees who care passionately about the direction of the company, and finally let it air that management for once did something they knew should have been done a long time ago.
May 25, 2008, 12:30 pm
#90
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: WAS - (BWI/DCA/IAD)
Programs: AA GLD, soon-to-be PLT in 2 weeks!
Posts: 3,086
When the RCC agent said "people like you," here's roughly how I would have responded.
"Oh, you mean loyal customers? Customers that stick with UA even with horrible service and rude remarks like that, customers that spend $300 a year to join the club and keep you a job? You're right, I'm a horrible customer."
I got the opposite response on my MR on AA yesterday -- got of the late DFW-SFO flight and waited 45 minutes to get on the redeye SFO-DFW. The plane and crew that brought me in to SFO and took me out of SFO laughed when they saw me walk back on the plane. The gate agent said, "Didn't you just get off this plane like 45 minutes ago?" The flight attendant said, "Hey I recognize you." I told them I wanted a weekend away and they laughed and said thanks for a degree of loyalty. ^^
"Oh, you mean loyal customers? Customers that stick with UA even with horrible service and rude remarks like that, customers that spend $300 a year to join the club and keep you a job? You're right, I'm a horrible customer."
I got the opposite response on my MR on AA yesterday -- got of the late DFW-SFO flight and waited 45 minutes to get on the redeye SFO-DFW. The plane and crew that brought me in to SFO and took me out of SFO laughed when they saw me walk back on the plane. The gate agent said, "Didn't you just get off this plane like 45 minutes ago?" The flight attendant said, "Hey I recognize you." I told them I wanted a weekend away and they laughed and said thanks for a degree of loyalty. ^^
Last edited by 777-DCA; May 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm Reason: Change "month" to "year" with RCC membership.