Originally Posted by
RedHeadFlyer
While it does makes sense to not waste effort trying to influence a policy change that United already agrees with us on, when there's no timeline to fixing the things not working, those things still need to be on a list. For some of these, someone will decide it's easier to make it policy rather than fix. When I'm not getting the right priority on a misconnect, I don't care whether it's policy, lack of training, or a buggy system, I just want it working. Some of the most frustrating things (especially around upgrades) are "stealth policies". When pushed, it's a broken system, don't blame us. But if there were a policy to make it better, it would get better. That make is a policy topic. ...
my reasoning for not to include is it will take us awhile to get to consensus and it would make little sense to raise an issue that might have been fixed by the time we reach consensus. Additionally UA has an easy answer/out (if we get a response at all), "we're working on it - end of discussion." It would undermine the process to include "problem issues", IMHO.
Originally Posted by
RedHeadFlyer
... Another example is the inconsistency in hard product. Tuesday on a SFO-BOS on a new 737-900 plane with nothing. Earlier this year, my JFK-SFO in C became non-PS. SFO-LHR 777s. Is that a transitory issue they are trying to fix, not worth pushing for a better plan on? New planes came in bare configs making things worse. ....
The seat/IFE issue on sCO is a problem but believe there have been responses to that already. The PS fleet is to be reconfiged later this year and the sUA 777s are slowly be reconfiged (3/4 done).
Agree these are significant problems, and may deserve a separate list -- but I'm still of the opinion we should separate problems and policies. Let's see what others have to say.