Seat assignment foolishness

 
Old Nov 1, 2008, 1:33 pm
  #16  
Moderator: United Airlines
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,579
Originally Posted by mre5765
No need to stay home. When willing to pay full fare, one has many choices of airlnes. One of them would have given OP a seat assignment.
IAD-TPA -- but none of the alternatives would be non-stop.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 2:00 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: BUR/LAX
Programs: UA 1K/2MM, HHonors Diamond, IHG Diamond Elite
Posts: 2,504
This subject about full fare tickets keep on coming up but I think United has it right in this instance. The full fare passenger that does not have status on United is not a frequent customer of the airline. Simple as that. Any business values frequent and repeat customers and why should United be any different? Perhaps, on this particular flight, this one passenger spent more on his full fare ticket than some elite members but who's to know when he's going to fly United again whereas the 1Ks, the 1Ps and the 2Ps are flying United over and over again. It may sound unfair to deny a passenger with a full fare economy ticket a seat assignment in E+ but is it really unfair?
wilp888 is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 2:08 pm
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: JAX
Programs: Delta, Korean Air, Emirates, ANA, & American
Posts: 37
Amplifying information

Thanks for the comments.

The ticket was purchased one week in advance so it wasn't a last minute deal. We did have the option of USAirways back to Reagan National but since capacity reductions USAirways no longer flies an afternoon TPA-DCA run. We'd have to wait until 6:30pm.

When discussing this with the UAL attendant she tried to explain how my seat assignment would depend on how many others opted to upgrade to E+. So in effect what they do is "shuffle the deck chairs".

I was not implying I deserved an E+ seat. But from my perspective, I paid full fare, refundable. If E+ was all the seats that remained open on the flight, then put me in that seat and move on. No need for this kabuki dance at the gate

Nervous traveler? No not really. Just one who like efficiency and proper customer service.
crarmstrong is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 3:41 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,228
Originally Posted by wilp888
This subject about full fare tickets keep on coming up but I think United has it right in this instance. The full fare passenger that does not have status on United is not a frequent customer of the airline. Simple as that. Any business values frequent and repeat customers and why should United be any different? Perhaps, on this particular flight, this one passenger spent more on his full fare ticket than some elite members but who's to know when he's going to fly United again whereas the 1Ks, the 1Ps and the 2Ps are flying United over and over again. It may sound unfair to deny a passenger with a full fare economy ticket a seat assignment in E+ but is it really unfair?
The comparison to other business might not be relevant as most other businesses have standard pricing. I may be a regular at a restaurant, and get a bottle of wine sent to my table by the owner, but my steak costs the same as the first-time guest.

It is UA that says those E+ seats are available for an extra fee, and a full fare should qualify. Someone who pays $150 for a cheap ticket and is offered an E+ seat for an additional $60 should get the seat ahead of the guy who put down $800 for the full fare seat? That, it seems to me, would insure you would not get that big spender as a frequent customer.
flyinbob is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 3:49 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: GA
Programs: VA-PLT, QF-GLD, DL-GM, UA-ex1K, AA-exPLT, HH-DM, IHG-PLT, MR-GLD
Posts: 8,241
Originally Posted by wilp888
This subject about full fare tickets keep on coming up but I think United has it right in this instance. The full fare passenger that does not have status on United is not a frequent customer of the airline. Simple as that. Any business values frequent and repeat customers and why should United be any different? Perhaps, on this particular flight, this one passenger spent more on his full fare ticket than some elite members but who's to know when he's going to fly United again whereas the 1Ks, the 1Ps and the 2Ps are flying United over and over again. It may sound unfair to deny a passenger with a full fare economy ticket a seat assignment in E+ but is it really unfair?
Is it unfair? No, it's actually very fair. However, I think it is bad business practice.

A full fare customer is one that UA wants. Whether they fly 25k a year or not, they are far more profitable for UA, probably make UA more money with that one ticket than 25k worth of L fares.

UA should impress these customers and give them E+ IMO, as good business practice. Even if they only fly 3-4 times a year, if it's full fare, these customers are something UA should want as a repeat customer.
CPMaverick is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 4:29 pm
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Originally Posted by CPMaverick
A full fare customer is one that UA wants. Whether they fly 25k a year or not, they are far more profitable for UA, probably make UA more money with that one ticket than 25k worth of L fares.
Probably true, but United has long made it obvious that they value status above all else. Upgrades are based on status. Compensation is based on status. Seating is based on status. It seems the only thing that's based on fare paid is meal preference (and even that's primarily based on status).
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Nov 1, 2008, 4:46 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA-1K-MM AA-EXP-MM
Posts: 726
Opportunity for UA

In these type of situations where E- is completely full and it is likely that the passenger is going to end up in E+ who paid full fare on a refundable ticket, an offer of a complimentary upgrade to E+ by a check in agent would make good business sense. Chances are they are not giving away anything that will cost UA money and there is a chance that the free upgrade to E+ given by someone who thanks the passenger for their business and makes it clear they are getting a free upgrade to a better seat, could result in future business. To do this the check in agents would need to be empowered to do this and care about presenting a positive impression.
ORD4R is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 12:19 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: GA
Programs: VA-PLT, QF-GLD, DL-GM, UA-ex1K, AA-exPLT, HH-DM, IHG-PLT, MR-GLD
Posts: 8,241
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
Probably true, but United has long made it obvious that they value status above all else. Upgrades are based on status. Compensation is based on status. Seating is based on status. It seems the only thing that's based on fare paid is meal preference (and even that's primarily based on status).
Yes, but United also has fare as a secondary ranking for upgrades, standby, etc. Yet there is nothing for the full-fare GM vs the regular GM. This is one opportunity for that. Perhaps allow a same-day free upgrade to E+ for full fare tickets, it would keep full fare customers from doing the 'gate dance' without compromising the elites.

And besides, I wasn't speaking of what UA seems to value, I was talking about what is IMO good business sense! And I certainly see lots of discrepancy between the two in many areas!
CPMaverick is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 1:28 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,638
Originally Posted by gre
OP implies a sense of entitlement ("better treatment") that UA does not bestow on any E pax (whether full fare Y or discounted L). For better treatment a non-status pax must buy a premium seat.
And all non-status pax end up flying the competition because they're sick and tired of the crap that UAL gives them, United has no elite pax to extort from, and then when the current generation of elite pax stop flying, United goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Good move.

You know, the current generation of 1Ks, 1Ps and Global Services members will eventually die or stop flying because they're people. And because they didn't bother to create a new generation of 1Ks, 1Ps and Global Services members that are loyal to UAL because UAL treated potential 1Ks and 1Ps like crap when they were general members and they walked to Continental or god forbid US Scareways, then UAL HAS no base of frequent customers. And that's how UAL will cease to exist. Which is totally fine by me.

Last edited by stupidhead; Nov 2, 2008 at 1:37 am
stupidhead is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 2:26 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near SEA
Programs: UA MM, AS MVPG75K, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,969
Originally Posted by crarmstrong
The ticket was purchased one week in advance so it wasn't a last minute deal.


I'd call 1 week last minute.. seems like UA did the right thing on this one.
bmvaughn is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 7:11 am
  #26  
gre
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: IAD, DCA
Programs: UA-Plat, Marriott-Plat, AAI, AAII
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by CPMaverick
...UA should impress these customers and give them E+ IMO, as good business practice...
What about the other benis of status? Premium security line? Extra baggage?

Originally Posted by stupidhead
And because they didn't bother to create a new generation of 1Ks, 1Ps and Global Services members that are loyal to UAL ...
Not that I have any inside info, but OP did not sound like he was likely to become a UA elite even before this incident.
gre is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 9:02 am
  #27  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: JAX
Programs: Delta, Korean Air, Emirates, ANA, & American
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by gre
Not that I have any inside info, but OP did not sound like he was likely to become a UA elite even before this incident.
Used to be Elite with UAL but lost it because their schedules did not mesh with my business travel requirements and I needed a different airline. In addition I found DCA a much more convenient airport than IAD even though I had to fly US.

Some folks make it sound like I was trying to horn in on their Elite privileges. Simply not true. I stand in line with the Ma and Pa Kettles, pay for any snacks or drinks I want, and pay the baggage fee if necessary.

I just thought it shoddy treatment that a full fare paying customer could not get a seat assignment at check-in.

Will this encourage me to fly UAL more in the future? No not really.
crarmstrong is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 9:32 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: About
Programs: Some good, some bad
Posts: 811
Originally Posted by gre
You got more than you paid for. Where's the gripe?
Its the same gripe as to why UA puts GM C or F passengers into E- on domestic portions of an international itn on a one cabin aircraft. Its stupid.
stanfordhokie is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 9:40 am
  #29  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Originally Posted by stanfordhokie
Its the same gripe as to why UA puts GM C or F passengers into E- on domestic portions of an international itn on a one cabin aircraft.
It's not quite the same. In your example, UA should give the closest possible match to what you pay for, so E+ would be appropriate for "disserviced" F and C passengers. In the OP's case, he paid for Coach and got exactly what he paid for.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Nov 2, 2008, 10:04 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SAN
Programs: AS MVP 100K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Lifetime Titanium Elite, UA 1MM,
Posts: 1,702
I am not following what the OP expected UA to do. All the seat assignments were assigned, thats why there was no seat assignment available. This happens regardless of what fare you purchase. So would UA be expected to bump someone out of their seat assignment? That would be ridiculous.

Yes, this was considered a close-in purchase as the seats were all assigned at the time he/she purchased. It really is a first come first served situation with seat assignments.

This happens to every airline, so taking that ticket to another carrier will not solve the problem. The reason for this, is that airlines oversell planes to maximize revenue. Even if the plane was not oversold, and sold close to capacity, not all seats (156 in this case) are available for preassignment - exit rows and not being eligible for E+ will restrict the OP from being able to assign a seat. Again, this would have happened regardless of the fare he/she was on. The airlines solve this by assigning the seat at the gate. Happened to most of us at some point in time, and we just accept that seat and get on board. Its not that big of a deal to wait that long to most, but it apparently is to the OP and I respect that. Its just one of those things that happens while traveling.
JC5280 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.