FlyerTalk Forums
Page 6515 of 13960
« First
5515
6015
6415
6465
6505
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6525
6565
6615
7015
7515
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Continental OnePass (Pre-Merger) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger-488/)
-   -   The Penalty Box (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/710031-penalty-box.html)

Anglo Large Clawed Otter Oct 12, 2009 3:15 pm
We can only hope for some sort of glitch in the (hopeful) implementation of Y/B/M instant-upgrade fares on UA for CO Elites, akin to that experienced when CO did so (B-UP to NRT, anyone?). :D

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:17 pm
Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 12611535)
SWUs are more likely, IMO.
I agree at this time. If they were to go e+ i'd like to see it go to an upgraded service more like a virgin e+ but i doubt either will happen before SWU.

Anglo Large Clawed Otter Oct 12, 2009 3:19 pm
Originally Posted by Steph3n (Post 12611666)
I agree at this time. If they were to go e+ i'd like to see it go to an upgraded service more like a virgin e+ but i doubt either will happen before SWU.
I still have doubts whether CO will pursue an E+ cabin. However, I see SWUs as a distinct possibility (as well as raising the threshold for Plat for 2011).

Anglo Large Clawed Otter Oct 12, 2009 3:20 pm
Adding E+ would require significant capital expenditure on CO's part. Implementing EUAs does not require UA to reconfigure its entire fleet. Likewise, adding SWUs would not require significant up-front expenditure on CO's part. :-:

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:21 pm
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter (Post 12611560)
UA probably wanted to give its elites access to CO EUAs, as part of the marketing/operations alignment. CO probably said "not unless you give EUAs to our peeps." CO had all the leverage, in this regard.
great now I am a yellow marshmellow!

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:22 pm
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter (Post 12611631)
We can only hope for some sort of glitch....
not going to expose our plans are you!?

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:24 pm
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter (Post 12611699)
Adding E+ would require significant capital expenditure on CO's part. Implementing EUAs does not require UA to reconfigure its entire fleet. Likewise, adding SWUs would not require significant up-front expenditure on CO's part. :-:
not entire fleet, but a lot of their IT system, I wondering with UA wonderful It just what will happen....I know CO has their share of IT issues but UAs are just :o...I don't think I have the right words for how bad. A step above US maYbe.

Anglo Large Clawed Otter Oct 12, 2009 3:27 pm
Originally Posted by Steph3n (Post 12611752)
not entire fleet, but a lot of their IT system, I wondering with UA wonderful It just what will happen....I know CO has their share of IT issues but UAs are just :o...I don't think I have the right words for how bad. A step above US maYbe.
Considering the depth and breadth of the proposed UA/CO alliance, I suspect they are already working to harmonize their IT systems (so the expenditure is already being made). UA does not have to reinvent the wheel with regard to EUA. They can just borrow CO's programming.

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:29 pm
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter (Post 12611805)
Considering the depth and breadth of the proposed UA/CO alliance, I suspect they are already working to harmonize their IT systems (so the expenditure is already being made). UA does not have to reinvent the wheel with regard to EUA. They can just borrow CO's programming.
Their core backend is not the same however, isn't CO still on SHARES while UA is on another? not sure if "code"sharing in this case will work.

colpuck Oct 12, 2009 3:33 pm
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter (Post 12611805)
Considering the depth and breadth of the proposed UA/CO alliance, I suspect they are already working to harmonize their IT systems (so the expenditure is already being made). UA does not have to reinvent the wheel with regard to EUA. They can just borrow CO's programming.
Don't forget CO's EUA code is currently marginally broken.

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:35 pm
Originally Posted by colpuck (Post 12611898)
Don't forget CO's EUA code is currently marginally broken.
:D imagine how much worse it would get with UA IT doing it. On the other hand I bet EDS is taking this alliance with TO THE BANK!!

icurhere2 Oct 12, 2009 3:37 pm
4:37 p.m. Central and I'm eating for the first time today. Have to love those afternoon dentist appointments ...

FT Lurker Oct 12, 2009 3:39 pm
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike (Post 12611480)
I admit that I have not been paying much attention to the other side of the equation, but "alignment with CO"? :confused:

Has UA been doing more to align with CO than this? I thought CO was the one shifting a bunch of stuff around so as to play nice with UA and Star.
I don't follow the UA side of the equation much either, but one upcoming change that jumps out is the addition of a co-pay for mileage upgrade awards.

mnmag Oct 12, 2009 3:45 pm
Post 3700!^:-::cool::rolleyes:

Steph3n Oct 12, 2009 3:49 pm
Originally Posted by icurhere2 (Post 12611946)
4:37 p.m. Central and I'm eating for the first time today. Have to love those afternoon dentist appointments ...
u iz almost 2 10,000


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:08 pm.
Page 6515 of 13960
« First
5515
6015
6415
6465
6505
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6525
6565
6615
7015
7515
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


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.