FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - CPUs improving ?
View Single Post
Old May 14, 2013 | 12:58 pm
  #463  
channa
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,092
Originally Posted by star_world
EUA doesn't exist anymore - it was an old CO process. This is United now.
Nonsense. EUA exists. The system is still called EUA. If you read a PNR, you'll even see if EUA upgraded the passenger.


Originally Posted by star_world
You're making the rookie mistake that you chastise people for here on a regular basis. This simply isn't how the system works - it's very possible that the CPU process *did* sweep the flight and allocated *nothing*. That isn't a bug if it happens. You or I don't have the data to show whether that happened or not, so I'd be fascinated to know how you know this a bug.

The existence of R inventory has no bearing on whether the CPU process will run. How many hundreds of examples and statements from UA representatives are needed to show that this is the case?
The last I heard from a UA rep was that EUA will dump all of R except in some markets, 1-2 R seats. A holdback of 9+ seats is not the design.


Originally Posted by star_world
And as for calling in? What makes it *your* upgrade to get manually? If there are 10 people ahead of you on the list and the CPU process doesn't hand out any upgrades for whatever reason (e.g., high likelihood of buy-ups on this route / flight / day of week / month / year, data shows likely last-minute purchases on this route / flight / day of week / month / year, didn't run due to an error, or any other reason) why does that automatically mean it's your upgrade to get? And what do you tell them to include in these "bug reports"? I'm pretty sure I know what they do with them
I don't know if it's my upgrade or not. All I know is it didn't run like it was supposed to. That's a bug, and that's what I report.


Originally Posted by star_world
This is a classic case of somebody with no insight into the actual data putting what they think is two and two together and arriving at a completely erroneous conclusion. You just don't have the data to be able to determine what you think you can determine.
The facts are R did not go down and I did not clear. Since R > 2, that's a bug. Nothing erroneous about it, something's wrong with the flight.
channa is offline