As a relative newcomer to the program (I was comped Gold last year, but easily requalified this year) I have a couple of observations. Firstly, I don't think AS had much of a yield management system before, and they probably didn't need one. Plenty of frequencies on a linear north/south route system, consisting of lots of flights under 800 miles. Upgrades seem to have been based on first come, and the front cabin was treated like a promotional vehicle. I have lived part time in Seattle for many years, and I don't think I ever met anyone that didn't mention they were upgraded on a recent Alaska flight. It simply would never have been that easy at most other carriers. It also produced the sense of entitlement that so many people are, understandably, projecting on these threads. Then came the transcons. It seeems that these are what caused the problem, and apparently they are what is still the major rub. Let's face it. With one or two flights a day to these east coast destinations, you are only talking about 12 to 24 chairs in each direction. Forget about it. Other carriers are offering many more seats, and frankly, they are more comfortable, especially in the legroom department. Meanwhile, Alaska is screwing around, trying to allocate a tiny number of seats, and to do it in the context of a prior system that would have upgraded a water cooler it was so primitive. These are "boutique" flights, with no seats, only certain aircraft in the fleeet which can make the distances, and even those are designed for short and medium haul, yet being used where Jumbos used to ply. A few months ago, we took a mechanical on the Seattle to Newark flight. If they had not been able to readily fix it, with no comparable spare aircraft available, we would have been there until the next day if other carriers didn't have space. History (liberal upgrading) and reality (no seats) are colliding on this one. It will satisfy nobody.