Yank - Yes, I think once your OP number is in the record, it's in. You would have to keep it out and then request for the mileage credit later. Also, you would not get the opportunity to upgrade at the gate...

OK, so the web site is "sticky". If you know you do not want the upgrade, then do not enter the number in the first place.

As for the system being broken. I do not agree. An opt-in system would still create more work for everyone. More work for me by forcing me to call CO and more work for CO by forcing them to take my call.

I think it would be fair to say that I am NOT a CO apologist. If they are wrong, I say so. But, I try to balance that by saying they are right when the do that. All things considered, it is my oh so humble opinion that they got EUA right.

FCTSTY,

In your case, you would have to leave the number out and ask for mileage credit later.

Try going to your PC, to the CO website, and buying a ticket without putting in your one-pass number. Unless you delete your cookies, it goes in. Also, if you could manage to do it, why should the only way for someone not to get an upgrade also force them not to get an on-line booking bonus?

Did you buy a CO ticket? How did you tell them you wanted to? How did you tell them what cities, flights, times, etc? You already called them (or filled out a web form) one or two more questions or clicks -


would you like to request an elite upgrade if one becomes available? Would you like to be placed on the waiting list (by elite status and date of purchase) if one is not?


would have been easy for you to do, and easy for any IT person with half a brain to author. It was NOT done, because EUA was NOT imposed to make anything simple. It WAS imposed to hide revenue management tactics and make it appear that CO was giving more of a benefit than they really are.

I never accused you of being an aoplogist. I'm glad that EUA has worked for you. Do not however be decieved into thinking it was imposed to make anything better for you. It was imposed to reduce the number of telephone operators at CO and, as I mentioned, hide revenue management tactics to make it appear that CO was giving more of a benefit than they really are.



[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 12-02-2002).]

On this whole opt-in, opt-out thing, I think it would make sense to allow people to opt-out (vs. a manual opt-in) for the simple reason that people likely want to opt-in the vast majority of the time. The desire to opt-out is an anomoly (at least in my case...)

So it's true -- you do see a conspiracy behind every door. I think that for the vast majority of folks who are EUAd that they're just tickled pink and not unhappy at all with the system. The crowd that hangs around here is not an average cross section of CO customers. Nothing's perfect but the EUA thing is pretty darned good IMHO.

i haven't tried it, but according to the NW worldperks elite member's guide, if you want to opt out of upgrades on a flight, all you have to do is call NW. in fact, if you extend the preferred coach seating privelege to a companion, the system will supposedly prevent you from upgrading, even if you're on different PNR's. (that may not be automatic--i suspect i tried this a few days after a memo came out...)

NJDavid,

I do not purchase my tickets through either one of the options you described. I purchase them through my T/A. So, an opt-in system would add a phone call to my routine.

How does EUA hide revenue managment tactics? I don't care what system is being used: "Tastes Great", "Less Filling", "Opt-In", "Opt-Out", SWA, VIPOW, Etc.. it cannot hide or expose revenue management. If revenue management does not release upgrade seats, no upgrades are available. Period. Pick any system you want, no U/G Seats = No Upgrades. That does not make EUA bad. It makes CO's revenue management either morons or geniuses. Only time will tell which is accurate.

AMEN! FAR too many members here do not understand this statement!

This is by no means a slap at NJDavid. I have met David more than once and both respect him and his opinions. He is one of the nicest FT'ers I have met.

This is a general statement that many of us need to realize that the views expressed here do not in any way represent the average traveller.

That one is easy. Change the algorithms behind it to upgrade. You can sort based on revenue, on the number of stars next to you http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif, your contributions to FT and whether they are positive, negative, etc., selectively stop upgrading when only low fares are on the waiting list even if there are seats in the upgrade bucket, etc.

Basically, it can do anything that is not in the published rules and no one will be wiser because anything you notice will be due to a "software glitch" which cannot be corrected manually by CO agents, of course. This is what NJDavid objects to.

You are assuming that EUA program as run by CO is independent of the Revenue Management decisions. If this was the case, then it would be working as well as at NW.

It's always worth the effort even if you reach only one. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

That argument has NO bearing on Revenue Managment.

NW's EUA system is for all intents and purposes the same as CO's. The difference is in the philosophy of the respective revenue management groups.

For anyone to say that CO's EUA is broken, yet NW's is not is a VERY flawed argument.

Pulling my reply from the archives:

Are you saying that EUA is not broken because it is doing exactly what CO revenue management group wants it to do (and I don't just mean by dumping of seats A to F because CO EUA fails to upgrade even when there is F seats available)? If so, then I heartily agree with you over someone like CalGal who claims that the software has bugs to explain it.

Ok, now if we agree that the EUA on CO is following revenue management policies by not upgrading people when F bucket is available, then there is a hidden algorithm there that is against the published upgrade policies. What you have lost by taking away the ability of agents to do the upgrades manually is to enable such algorithms against published policies to continue.

On the other hand, if you say that the inability of the CO EUA to upgrade when F bucket is available is a software bug then why doesn't the NW EUA exhibit the same behavior?

And as long as we're looking at NW, they seem to be showing an awful lot more availability in "F" than CO does.

Perhaps their EUA works because it has availability in the upgrade classes. Perhaps their agents will issue manual upgrades because they have nothing to hide. Perhaps CO agents have told us that "they've been warned that they'll be reprimanded or fired" for issuing manual upgrades because the CO revenue management team wants the passengers to think that upgrades will get processed according to published rules, but actually upgrading according to published rules is not what is intended at all.

The next time you try to get down to the specific rules and algorithms of CO EUA with one of their employees, see how quickly they spout "did you get your upgrade" or "did you fly in first" with a battelfield promotion, instead of actually addressing the point that they advertise 5 day platinum upgrade windows, that don't happen more than half the time.

The two of you want to mix EUA with Revenue Management. As far as I am concerned, they are seperate.

The fact that Revenue Management does not allocate F class as often as we would wish does not make EUA broken.

Are there bugs in EUA, yes. I am sure of that becuase I am sure of one thing. There is NO piece of software in the world that is bug free. Bug's happen. That still does not mean that EUA is broken.

You guy's don't like EUA, so you will look for anything to back up your argument that EUA is broken. Neither one of you has been able to tell me why the fact that Revenue Management is holding back F class seats means that EUA is broken.