I am not the expert most of you are--so forgive my ignorance. But it seems to me that one of the most frustrating issues for CO FTers is glitches/abuses--perceived and real--in the EUA process.

For many FFers, including me, the EUA is the most valued benefit of elite status. And we pay for it: we are loyal and often pay higher fares for that loyalty because we know we're getting something out of it--a reasonable chance for first class service at discount prices.

As a PLAT who rarely purchases domestic J/C/Z fares or Y/B or even M, I have unquestionably benefitted greatly for my loyalty: I get upgraded about 75 to 80% of the time.

However, I sometimes question whether the process strictly follows the published guidelines. Despite the clear benefit I receive, I still believe it's important for CO to follow those criteria to a tee, as so many of us base our purchasing patterns on the fact expectation CO will do just that.

I have noticed a variety of postings on this issue. And it seems to me there's a relatively simple way to resolve suspicions regarding EUA processing AND to help catch/resolve any actual glitches or abuses. That would save neurotic FFers like me some anxiety over whether we're really getting the full benefit we are entitled to and likely score major kudos from COs most loyal customers.

The Proposal:

Make EUA processing more transparent.

CO already publishes upgrade standby lists online. We know how we are individually ranked on the list. But we do not know why.

The "why" causes many of us to question what's going on--when we watch the list and see scores of other passengers upgraded ahead of us, despite our status, lack of IRROPS, and a higher Y-cabin fare class (as is the case with one of my flights tomorrow).

Why not give a 2 or 3 letter code for each passenger on the list--cleared or still on standby--indicating that passengers reason for being on the list?

OPUPs could be indicated as such. First letter could be status if any. The last letter could be fare class. For example, a Platinum traveling on an H fare who has not used miles for an upgrade could be NPH (N = No miles, P = Elite status, H = fare class).

There could even be codes for exceptional situations--of course, CO loyalists love CO in part for their great customer service, so CO has to reserve the ability to upgrade some customers for exceptional reasons.

CO could even put a clear table on the websites--HTML and PDA--ranking the various codes in order of preference. This would clear up confusion regarding the process (most people who don't know care wouldn't bother to check). And it would help identify instances where there have been real glitches (or abuses) in the system.

When customers have the same hierarchy code, the numerical ranking would correspond to either time of purchase or time of check-in, whichever tie-breaker is then applicable.

As I mentioned, I'm not the expert most of you are, so this may seem silly. I'm also not a IT person, so maybe there's a different/better way of implementing the idea.

But the basic point is simple: Adding indicators to the public upgrade standby lists as to why people are ranked where they are would clear up confusion/distrust regarding the process and help ensure that the process functions as advertised.

Counterarguments:

1. Privacy: This wouldn't add any additional personably identifiable information to the list besides first 3 letters of last name + first initial, which is already published.

2. Customer confusion/complaints: If people were not well-versed on the hierarchy rules, more customers might try to argue the system with GAs. However, if a clear table were provided, this would probably save GAs stress--like introduction of the online list did (fewer PAX asking about their ranking on the list).

3. Customer service/CO discretion: As mentioned above, CO could retain discretionary upgrades for IRROPS and for exceptional instances. It could even create a code for this. Or it could exempt these individuals from the published list and deal with them exceptionally.

4. The EUA process has additional non-published criteria of which we are not aware: If this is the case, CO would obviously want to implement. I personally doubt this. But when I see 12 people on a non-elite heavy route upgraded ahead of me, I sometimes question whether something else is going on besides what I thought I had bargained for!

Again, I love CO and am grateful for the incredible service and regular upgrades. Just a thought for improving things.

Yea or nay?