Originally Posted by
redwoman
I wonder if the uncontrollable auto-splitting occurs because the system was designed with the assumption that someone wants to be upgraded. We've thought of several instances where one would not want to be upgraded nor split from the rest of his or her party.
In 2010 or whenever it was that UA decided to adopt the CPUs, I remember that one had to call in to force the system to use an instrument to upgrade instead of waiting for a CPU. Or, you had to call in to cancel your CPU if it was to a crappy F seat, like on a 319/320 when you had a sweet E+ bulkhead or exit row seat. I recall agents capping on the software designers for assuming that there were never going to be cases in which people didn;t want the upgrade.
Anyway, whether that's true or not, the system as it stands now actually creates problems for customers, so it needs to be fixed IMO.
I agree, and while this is just my opinion, I'd rather have the PMUA situation where you would call (or in best case: click on the website) and tell them that you do not want an upgrade for a specific segment.
The way it stands now where I don't think they could even NOT attempt an upgrade, but with the auto-splitting of itineraries is not acceptable. It's a horribly convoluted way at handling upgrades the way UA promised (which it still doesn't do) in the obviously vastly inferior SHARES system.
That said, these technical glitches will continue to happen and even if they do something for auto-splitting, I'm sure it will only raise more issues to other things, since it seems that with all of these modifications and amendments to their systems, the reliability drops.
-jeremy