I am not the expert most of you are--so forgive my ignorance. But it seems to me that one of the most frustrating issues for CO FTers is glitches/abuses--perceived and real--in the EUA process.

For many FFers, including me, the EUA is the most valued benefit of elite status. And we pay for it: we are loyal and often pay higher fares for that loyalty because we know we're getting something out of it--a reasonable chance for first class service at discount prices.

As a PLAT who rarely purchases domestic J/C/Z fares or Y/B or even M, I have unquestionably benefitted greatly for my loyalty: I get upgraded about 75 to 80% of the time.

However, I sometimes question whether the process strictly follows the published guidelines. Despite the clear benefit I receive, I still believe it's important for CO to follow those criteria to a tee, as so many of us base our purchasing patterns on the fact expectation CO will do just that.

I have noticed a variety of postings on this issue. And it seems to me there's a relatively simple way to resolve suspicions regarding EUA processing AND to help catch/resolve any actual glitches or abuses. That would save neurotic FFers like me some anxiety over whether we're really getting the full benefit we are entitled to and likely score major kudos from COs most loyal customers.

The Proposal:

Make EUA processing more transparent.

CO already publishes upgrade standby lists online. We know how we are individually ranked on the list. But we do not know why.

The "why" causes many of us to question what's going on--when we watch the list and see scores of other passengers upgraded ahead of us, despite our status, lack of IRROPS, and a higher Y-cabin fare class (as is the case with one of my flights tomorrow).

Why not give a 2 or 3 letter code for each passenger on the list--cleared or still on standby--indicating that passengers reason for being on the list?

OPUPs could be indicated as such. First letter could be status if any. The last letter could be fare class. For example, a Platinum traveling on an H fare who has not used miles for an upgrade could be NPH (N = No miles, P = Elite status, H = fare class).

There could even be codes for exceptional situations--of course, CO loyalists love CO in part for their great customer service, so CO has to reserve the ability to upgrade some customers for exceptional reasons.

CO could even put a clear table on the websites--HTML and PDA--ranking the various codes in order of preference. This would clear up confusion regarding the process (most people who don't know care wouldn't bother to check). And it would help identify instances where there have been real glitches (or abuses) in the system.

When customers have the same hierarchy code, the numerical ranking would correspond to either time of purchase or time of check-in, whichever tie-breaker is then applicable.

As I mentioned, I'm not the expert most of you are, so this may seem silly. I'm also not a IT person, so maybe there's a different/better way of implementing the idea.

But the basic point is simple: Adding indicators to the public upgrade standby lists as to why people are ranked where they are would clear up confusion/distrust regarding the process and help ensure that the process functions as advertised.

Counterarguments:

1. Privacy: This wouldn't add any additional personably identifiable information to the list besides first 3 letters of last name + first initial, which is already published.

2. Customer confusion/complaints: If people were not well-versed on the hierarchy rules, more customers might try to argue the system with GAs. However, if a clear table were provided, this would probably save GAs stress--like introduction of the online list did (fewer PAX asking about their ranking on the list).

3. Customer service/CO discretion: As mentioned above, CO could retain discretionary upgrades for IRROPS and for exceptional instances. It could even create a code for this. Or it could exempt these individuals from the published list and deal with them exceptionally.

4. The EUA process has additional non-published criteria of which we are not aware: If this is the case, CO would obviously want to implement. I personally doubt this. But when I see 12 people on a non-elite heavy route upgraded ahead of me, I sometimes question whether something else is going on besides what I thought I had bargained for!

Again, I love CO and am grateful for the incredible service and regular upgrades. Just a thought for improving things.

Yea or nay?

Yea, but we need to list all the reasons:

Reasons for being on Stanby Upgrade List

Actually, an interesting proposal....can't say at this late hour I find major fault with it, except maybe posting the fare class. Not sure why, but that might be going too far - imagine being a Silver in Q, watching that &*% Plat in L above you. And there may be other reasons why one may not wish to have the 'price paid' posted.

I'm sure sbm12 will weigh in later on the technical issues with your proposal, and we may get a better debate, but honestly, it's not a bad idea overall.

QED. I searched before I posted and didn't find this. But these categories could be coded too. For example, number 2 on your list would be .... And number 4: 4IS.

Yup I can't say it makes sense at this late hour too! I'm sure there are a million things wrong with it. But if there isn't some other set of criteria at play (like inventory management to ensure that some silvers actually get upgraded), it seems there's every reason to be more transparent. Not necessarily every bit of info (I agree price is way too far--fare class is appropriate).

And if there are other criteria/considerations at play, just be upfront about it.

Yeah, I'm sure the Silver on Q is upset when the Plat on L gets upgraded--and seeing it might rub it in. But not exactly different than a non-elite on Y sitting in a middle seat while a Silver on L is upfront. After all, those are the rules.

Plus it wouldn't cost anything after initial implementation. Except that FT traffic might go WAY down--once everyone knows that 95% of the time the upgrades were processed according to the rules, and they still didn't get upgraded.

I like the idea and, perhaps, CO could look at it as a marketing initiative...
If you know that everyone was on H that got upgraded on your flight recently then you'd be more likely to consider buying the more expensive ticket than trying your (non-existent) chances with an S or L! Overall CO could see a revenue boost from such an enhancement (oops).

So would SGN be coded for Shenanigans?

Nothing technically wrong with it that I can see, but I actually am not in favor of it.

CO already tells us where we stand on the list. I don't really think that they should be publishing even more internal data on their sales numbers for every flight online for other companies to see. And knowing WHY you are where you are on the list may make you feel better, but it isn't going to stop the actual problems - the real shenanigans - from happening and messing things up.

In other words, I see very limited up-side for the customer and tremendous down-side for the business. Why would they do that?

I think this isn't a bad idea. But...this idea is trying to remedy the symptom rather than the cause. It effectively would make us police the rules CO makes.

The real issue that we need to tackle is two-fold. One, I believe COs upgrade rules are too conveluted. Two, CO has engineered the system so it can be and is gamed frequently by agents and therefore by some passengers.

If CO implemented an upgrade policy and implementation similar to AA for example, I think the complaints would go away virtually overnight.

Even if CO kept a more conveluted system like DL, UA, or its own, it could tighten the system so agents can't abuse it. If pax get confidence that CO is honoring the published upgrade rules, then fewer complaints should arise.

My 2 cents from the peanut gallery.

SP

When the upgrade standby list functionality was first released to the public, CO Insider mentioned that they were looking to add some sort of probability factor to the list to indicate a person's relative odds of getting upgraded, ostensibly in lieu of releasing the proprietary information you discuss in the proposal.

Since that never happened, I highly doubt CO will be going any more transparent with the upgrade standby list than they are at present.

How so? By requiring stickers?

They have, IMO. With the change to frequent sweeps inside 24 hours it is much harder for seats to be left at the gate for agents to shenanigize or for lower tier passengers to game with repeated OLCI requests.

I believe the idea was that you'd see your current number and expected final number assuming everyone booked checked in. So a silver on an L fare EWR-SFO who is SEQ 1 would see themselves as currently 1 and expected at 81. I agree that we're unlikely to see this happen.

Not sure I follow: What exactly is the downside to the business?

CO's competitors likely already have very detailed information on CO's price/fare structure for particular flights (as inventory in buckets is already accessible), percentages of elites, etc. If they don't, they could extrapolate this information to a fairly high degree of specificity from the information already published, in aggregate, with the standby lists.

Any of CO's competitors could probably even personally identify all us, if they wanted, along with our flying and spending patters. We are not just random 4-letter combinations on a list. We are based in specific cities, take some routes much more frequently than others, get cleared off the upgrade standby list at different times based on our status, get cleared at different times further based on the fare class purchased, etc. And most of the true FFers in the bunch have multiple accounts with competing programs and occasionally (or frequently) fly on competitors' metal.

My point: I doubt any of this information isn't a secret today, with technology being what it is; if it is, there's enough published information where a competing airline wouldn't have to go to a lot of effort to get very detailed info--right down to individual FFers and their spending/flying patterns.

So if this info is already available, what's the downside to the business?

The only downside that I see (and maybe I missed the point of your post) to CO's business is only if CO has not been forthright with its presentation of the EUA process. Publishing the status of passengers on the list would expose, for example, if a Gold in a higher non-Y/M bucket clears before a Plat in L. If CO didn't change the published rules of the process, that kind of information getting out would obviously harm CO's business.

Again, I'm sure I'm missing something here, but not sure I follow.

SNGs (shenanigans) would be less likely to occur: More transparency = less opportunity to game the system = better experience for customer = increased customer loyalty.

And CO GAs and customer service would get harassed even less regarding upgrade issues, continuing the trend that began with publishing the upgrade standby-list to begin with.

So unless I completely missed your point, I'm still seeing upside/upside or win/win.

There is certainly some extrapolation going on, but there is absolutely no way for anyone to know right now how many elites of which level are on any individual wait list or how much they paid for their tickets. Yes, there is some aggregate data, but truly only at the VERY macroeconomic level, like average fare paid between city pairs in any given quarter. This proposal is asking for VERY SPECIFIC data to be provided not just to the consumer but to the competition as well. Were I running the business there is absolutely no way I'd release that data.

No way. Could AA mine my posts on FT and figure out my AAdvatage number? Maybe, but probably not. Certainly not based on my posted CO itinerary information.

This is the part I disagree with. The system is completely transparent in terms of where you are on the list. Why do you also need to know WHY you are in that position? Shenanigans happen when the list is simply ignored. Knowing that the three people ahead of you on the list are Platinums on Q fares doesn't matter at all when a non-rev is given a seat up front instead.

I agree with sbm12 - no reason to know why everyone else is on the list. The sorting is done automatically so at least where you are on the list should be accurate.

Now at one time when CO started this on the PDA site the plan was to add your probable position - based on number of elites, their elite level, and their fare codes. But that never happened.

- Nothing to do with stickers necessarily. If CO went to an AA-like system where status is the primary driver of upgrades as opposed to fareclass, then a Plat wouldn't have to worry that a Gold can bypass him by purchasing a ticket 3 days before the flight. Now, using stickers would help in so far as everyone would not opt to upgrade each leg (would have to be more selective), or at least they would have to pay for it. That will result in higher upgrade percentages for sure.

- IMO, the 24 hour sweeps haven't done much. The problem is that CO still holds back generous amounts of seats at 24 hours on the routes that count, so a sweep is only a good as the number of seats it gives out at that point. Granted, I have not flown since April or May, so things might have really changed in the last few months. I defer to you for that judgement. I will fly with them a lot starting in September, lasting through the end of the year, so I should get a pretty good picture soon.