Just a quick question for UA Insider -does the system recognize elites on reservations that are out of sync in calculating F cabin availability for selling seats? Or do these reservations go into some sort of black hole?

I've probably had a dozen or so reservations go out of sync year to date and my upgrade percentage is south of 20%. I'm sure there's a correlation between those two numbers.

I'm curious as to the depth of the interoperability issues between legacy CO and UA's systems are impacting elites trying to upgrade on mixed-metal itineraries.

Also, for the record, I've have found this to be one of the more amusing threads. :-:

Well, I guess nobody wanted to put their money where their mouth is. :rolleyes: ;) (To be fair, I acknowledge Shannon's quick response did not allow much time for wagering...)

I agree with this. :eek: I know my buddy who can go nonrev on UA does have a website to see somewhat detailed load information so he knows what flights to list for. There may not be a mobile version, but still, I really don't see any reason why nonrevs should show on these lists.

Not so sure about the negative perception, at least for elites who are actually on the flight and see themselves much higher up on the list (relatively speaking) than they would if the non-revs weren't on there. If you're tracking a specific flight/route for future booking, then, yes, the upgrade standby lists as displayed are misleading. But anyone who reads FT regularly should know that. ;)

I guess one other learning from UA Insider's post is that there can be a lot of employees traveling in confirmed coach on a given flight. Some of us have historically suggested that names on both the upgrade standby list and flight standby list were most likely employees. This is true, but I think it's clearer now that this may not come close to revealing the full picture of employees/nonrevs on a given flight, and that a meaningful proportion of names on the upgrade standby list can be employees.

I think part of this is market. It's former CO HQ to current/new UA HQ, so there are likely a lot of employees on that route. In other markets, it may not be so high.

I fly IAH-ORD weekly. It's an employee shuttle on Monday mornings and Thursday afternoons.

Why is it an issue for employees and non-revs to show up on the upgrade list? Don't worry; we're always below elites.

We like to use the app too. It's very handy in the airport.

BTW, non-revs at PMUA are also listed on the upgrade/standby list at the airport on the overhead monitors at the gate, so I don't see how this is an issue.

Just thought I'd give this thread a good old fashioned BUMP so people can see that UA Insider actually follows the board and actually gives a crap about what we have to say :-:

Offered to buy-up, even though waitlisted
 

Earlier this fall, I flew EWR-ORD-HKG and had waitlisted for a mileage upgrade to the forward cabin for the outbound and return (the EWR segments were on CO metal, the HKG on UA.) My EWR-ORD waitlist didn't clear, but I was offered to buy a confirmed seat in F for $149. I didn't want to start the long day of flying in coach, so I splurged on the $149.

Although thinking about it, as both an elite and waitlisted for a mileage upgrade, I suppose I shouldn't have been charged the $149?

(Shannon, this is the same HKG route that gave me mileage credit posting problems.)

Yes, it looks much better to be #12 of 24 than #12 of 12 :D

12 is 12 when there are only three seats left.

tim in san jose

It's more of a perception issue. As you can see with this thread, the OP assumed there was a TOD anomaly because of what was displayed on the upgrade list.

Maybe if CO's systems worked as reliably and cleanly as they should and there weren't this cloud of mystery behind their processes, there would be fewer reported anomalies and it wouldn't matter as much.

Remember that UA uses real-time waitlisting which really removes a lot of the anomalies and confusion around upgrades. UA also has more transparency into their upgrade system by displaying upgrade status (Pending, Waitlisted, Confirmed), all of which is visible on both the website and the agent system, so if there is any sort of problem, it can be easily dealt with by people who have tools to identify the problem, understand how the system works, and can fix it.

CO's is more of a black box -- the sweep runs when it runs, there's no visibility into whether you're eligible for the sweep, there's no agent access into when or whether the sweep ran or whether you were even considered (best they can do is guess at it, or BS you to get you off the phone), and so forth.

Until CO gets to the point where they can provide the same level of visibility and reliability into the upgrade system and process that UA has, there are always going to be these allegations of impropriety that will need a company representative to decipher. That's why I think it's best to have it as clean as possible for customers.

That said, I'm not saying that Jeff's co-workers shouldn't be able to see what they need. I think that so long as there's this dark cloud of confusion around what CO's systems are doing with upgrades, maybe the co-worker info should be available to you under a different portal.

I don't fly NRSA (but have the ability to do so), and will try this out on a flight in the next several days to see if the system is accurately reflecting what you have said in the post and report back.

Thanks for the detailed response Shannon....

There is a lack of transparency in both systems. Let's just say I got on a certain sUA flight the other night that was "oversold" by 26 for no reason. There were no misconnects or anything else that would indicate why this would be the case. In fact, there was no real data of what the actual PBT's were whatsoever. It was quite confusing for me and a lot of other standby passengers. Even the GA had to decipher what was actually going on.

I ended up getting on and having the middle seat next to me remain open. This happens quite a bit on sUA flights. Both systems are "special" at times ;)

Great detective work!

The item Goalie brings up is a good point... does the waitlist logic just look at elites or all non-employees?

I think this is a bit of a different issue, and I'm not doubting what happened.

What we don't see on UA is a lot of allegations about upgrades, and that's simply because customers and agents have visibility into the system. And when we do see a problem, they're either explained by board participants, or corrected by agents, because the visibility and access is there.

I remember once cancelling a UA flight for two of us, and my other half (separate record) had already been upgraded on one segment (I had not, but with same fare/same status, I assumed I was next). I cancelled her record first, and while the agent was doing that, the email came in for my upgrade (clearly her seat went back to NF which was immediately assigned to me). Very clean, very simple.

When upgrades work as clean as that, there's little doubt about things not working right.

Similarly, when I can watch myself at the window go from Upgrade: Pending to Upgrade: Confirmed or Upgrade: Waitlisted, again, customers are reassured that the system works.

CO needs to fix this stuff before people will trust the system. There are going to be some surprises in March when the UA people don't see what they're used to.

There are two issues here:

1.) In the case that Shannon explained.

An elite was waiting for the upgrade and the upgrade inventory was 0.

A non-elite was checking in to buy an upgrade and the system said "sure, we'll sell you one" This transaction was possible while the elite was still waiting for the upgrade and the elite only cleared so very close to departure. I think we (and UACO management) should agree that buy-ups should not be triggered until upgrade inventory is >1 and all the elites have been cleared.

2.) In the case highlighted by kokonutz where there 11 people on the list and the other cases that have been brought forth on this thread. UACO has either tons of non-revs flying or there is ...ahem.. a glitch in the system.