FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   American Airlines | AAdvantage (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage-733/)
-   -   Changes to the upgrade priority list [NOT for AA] (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1676260-changes-upgrade-priority-list-not-aa.html)

luvmywife Apr 29, 2015 4:05 pm
Changes to the upgrade priority list [NOT for AA]
 
I have noticed a change in the upgrade priority list and an Angel at the AC confirmed it. EQM for the current year now determine the order on the upgrade list. I have been flying the same route for the past 9 years (EXP all 9 years) and I have been fortunate enough to get an upgrade 95% of the time. This year I am around 5%. AA has also done away with the through passenger priority so it looks like my upgrades are a thing of the past. Have others had the same experiences and seen a lower success rate on upgrades?

Mark_T Apr 29, 2015 4:19 pm
Originally Posted by luvmywife (Post 24741389)
I have noticed a change in the upgrade priority list and an Angel at the AC confirmed it. EQM for the current year now determine the order on the upgrade list. I have been flying the same route for the past 9 years (EXP all 9 years) and I have been fortunate enough to get an upgrade 95% of the time. This year I am around 5%. AA has also done away with the through passenger priority so it looks like my upgrades are a thing of the past. Have others had the same experiences and seen a lower success rate on upgrades?
Through passenger priority has gone, that has been confirmed, any other change you think may have happened would have to be filed as unconfirmed until we hear otherwise.

JonNYC, one for you I think :)

bdemaria Apr 29, 2015 4:27 pm
Originally Posted by luvmywife (Post 24741389)
I have noticed a change in the upgrade priority list and an Angel at the AC confirmed it. EQM for the current year now determine the order on the upgrade list.
This is not correct.

Originally Posted by luvmywife (Post 24741389)
AA has also done away with the through passenger priority so it looks like my upgrades are a thing of the past. Have others had the same experiences and seen a lower success rate on upgrades?
This is correct.

Add'l data point to consider: more often than not a very minimal cost differential between coach and first so that many passengers - myself included - simply buy F rather than waiting to see if an upgrade clears.

pa3lsvt Apr 29, 2015 4:33 pm
The pmUS system for upgrades was to prioritize by level (CP, Plat, Gold, then Silver), then within the level to prioritize by BIS miles for the past year.

It sounds like the AAngel was trying to describe that system, which hasn't been confirmed as a policy for the new program.

How exactly would EQM prioritizing work on the first day of the qualification year, if it was by EQM for the current year, when everyone has 0 at the same time?

krlcomm Apr 29, 2015 4:35 pm
Originally Posted by bdemaria (Post 24741480)
Quote:





Originally Posted by luvmywife


I have noticed a change in the upgrade priority list and an Angel at the AC confirmed it. EQM for the current year now determine the order on the upgrade list.




This is not correct.


Quote:





Originally Posted by luvmywife


AA has also done away with the through passenger priority so it looks like my upgrades are a thing of the past. Have others had the same experiences and seen a lower success rate on upgrades?




This is correct.

Add'l data point to consider: more often than not a very minimal cost differential between coach and first so that many passengers - myself included - simply buy F rather than waiting to see if an upgrade clears.
I'm with you on the buying at F, too many bargains to pass up. And if they did move to current year EQM then why EQM and not EQP?

COnned Apr 29, 2015 4:37 pm
Logically this just doesn't make sense. What about those who qualify with points or segments?

coswellnc Apr 29, 2015 6:29 pm
Originally Posted by COnned (Post 24741513)
Logically this just doesn't make sense. What about those who qualify with points or segments?
I'm not agreeing with the factuality of the OP's post but in the old US World EQM's always trumphed EQS and the at airport upgrade list went by status first, then check-in time, then EQM's. So two Elites of the same level who checked in at exactly the same time would have their previous year's EQM's as the tie breaker. Those qualifying primarily on segments were always at a disadvantage in those tie-breaker situations. We had no EQP system in the US World.

outwrdbound Apr 29, 2015 6:39 pm
I sure hope this isn't going to be the case. As a segment qualifier, I hated that US factored this in. I would much prefer a tiebreak being check-in time and/or fare class paid (such as the case on DL).

Segments Apr 29, 2015 8:23 pm
Originally Posted by pa3lsvt (Post 24741499)
How exactly would EQM prioritizing work on the first day of the qualification year, if it was by EQM for the current year, when everyone has 0 at the same time?
pmUS system works on a rolling 12 month BIS number, not prior qualification year.

rasheed Apr 29, 2015 9:00 pm
I am just not sure of this change on the AA side. Doing the math, I still see 100 hour upgrades are still possible for EXP if there are seats in the specific class available. So, I really doubt a EQP/BIS check was added if they didn't move to an actual 4 days window.

Rasheed

JonNYC Apr 30, 2015 9:17 am
Rumor is not rue for the AA side of things.

For US, as I understand it, this is how it's supposed to work (unclear to me if it -has- been working that way since the program merge.)

But on the AA side, anyone experiencing any huge changes in % of upgrade is obviously experiencing the elimination of -T designation, nothing relating to YTD-EQ activity.

JonNYC May 1, 2015 7:58 pm
deleted


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:22 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.