davetravels

My point is, that, in more than 1700 posts, I can't remember a single instance like this one. There always seems to be some type of plausible explanation - whether we like it or not - or it's Shena. This one has us stumped. One or 2 people can slip thru the cracks of the UG system, but, 6?!? Even that's a lot for a Shena situation.

Again, surely, there has to be a way that someone who knows what happened here can message someone else, who can post at least an inkling of a hint of something logical, without an employee getting in trouble. None of us wants that!

And I do know that the average employee with DLnet can't look it up anymore, since it's after the next calendar day.

apolloms

when i looked it up i posted all i knew...and that was that they were revenue passengers upgraded and not non-revs, so it wasn't employee non-rev shena....that's all the digging i did into it and like posted above, all that stuff gets cleared out of the system 2 days after.....i liked the fact that i could now potentially help other FTers out...but as soon as i posted something, people start calling me out and saying i'm making up the info because it doesn't match what they 'think' happened....so very hesitant to do the same in the future.

PRWeezer

Well then there's this from your employer, study up on social media policy:
https://connect.delta.com/my.logon.php3?check=1
CONTENT
You must not copy, reproduce or forward any content from DeltaNet outside of Delta Air Lines, including posting on any personal or public Web pages, blogs, or social media sites, including, but not limited to Flyertalk, Facebook, or Twitter.

apolloms

please tell me where i did that? I'd hardly say saying "no non revs were put in FC" is doing any of that.

PRWeezer

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...l#post23776263

apolloms

so pretty much exactly what i said in the last post.......but noted, in the future no more responses in shena thread

davetravels

I can only speak for myself, but, I am certainly NOT one of those who would say you're lying to cover up and "take care of your own". Certainly FT posters DO appreciate the tiny crumbs of real truth in information that we find on here, since the Company isn't interested in chatting with us. Thanx again, and I certainly DO NOT wish any repercussions on you for this.

My point is simply that - You say that 6 revenue pax were UG'ed. Where were they a few minutes earlier? They should have been on the list. Surely, as a new employee, you wouldn't know this, but can a non-rev pax be coded somehow to appear as an UG on a paid ticket?

Could the pax have been on paid tickets been lower on the list, and pushed ahead of the higher names and the OP - out of order - perhaps employees all on paid tickets for some unknown reason?

I don't know. I'm just an adamant ShenaBuster, as, coming from the former NW side of the merger, the GAs took this VERY seriously, and knew the consequences if they didn't follow UG procedure to the letter! The former DL side GAs, in many cases, just seem to come from a "culture" that they can do more or less whatever they want - AND the company really doesn't give a hoot. So - we FlyerTalkers have to "Look out for, and take care of OUR OWN"!!

Thanx for listening!

Bicostal

And that is the crux of the story - and the insider info suggests that they were coded as revenue customers - keystroke-shena happened?

As FFs we have some responsibility to call out shena at the time it happens - not to complain about it here or worse, look for an answer from Delta's employees. Not having insiders post half-fact snippets discounting that shena happened will be welcomed by some.

However, reported results of shena encounters in the wild by us lowly travelers are always an interesting read - so keep 'em coming.

clr4t8koff

I'll second that ^. (though never fun when you're the victim on the receiving end).

davetravels

My recent posts above sparked a few PMs. One from an employee, and one from, I believe, a spouse of an employee who I have met. All claim that what they saw in this case appeared to be legit paid pax UGs, but nobody looked into it deep enough to know if, perhaps, some people from lower on the list were somehow pushed to the top out of order, or any other anomaly. One actually told me that since they changed the UG codes, they aren't able to see the actual pecking order any more, just whether or not it's a paid pax or a non-rev.

My only possible thought as I re-read the OP was, that, POSSIBLY, if boarding had already started, some people fell off the viewable list on the GIDS, but were still on on the original list in the GAs computer. I dunno.

Unfortunately, I think we'll never get any deeper into this one, since any info after the next day is gone from view without some higher-up supv access.

ALSO, I want to plainly state - and I believe I speak for everyone here - that, we DO NOT want to get any employee in trouble for trying to help us in these situations! They bend over backwards to help us, and then we chastise them with their results. Let's try to be friendlier to these people who are helping us with info that technically shouldn't provided to us. If not, they will simply crawl back into a hole and not post.

Thanx for listening!

Ben and Jerry

Big fat +1 ^

GRALISTAIR

+2 ^

DCATraveler

Nope... Gate agent started adding people to the cleared list at T-1 hours before departure and boarding had not started yet. It's been a week and I was over it not long after I landed, plus it was only a 3.5 hour, red-eye flight. NBD, but thought I'd bring up it up to the group.

+1 here... I really appreciate the 'insider' information one way or the other, but don't want to get anyone fired for trying to help us out. To those that helped track this down, thanks!

NotHamSarnie

Aha! I think I got it then: these are people with RUCs or GUCs that were incorrectly coded and complained and got bumped up. It actually makes sense.

DCATraveler

Very possible. It could definitely happen. It doesn't sounds like the insiders can see whether certs were used or not, but something to think about.

My only question would be... 6 different people using a certificate that were coded incorrectly? Seems a bit odd, but then again I've talked to quite a few agents who couldn't do it right... you may be on to something.