33teeth

Several months back I was only Gold and got upgraded to Delta One on a NRT-PDX flight.

I have no idea how, but I wasn't complaining.

bergamini

Yes.

davetravels

1) I think you're probably in the extreme minority here, even amongst people who might benefit from it.

2) Their investment in transparency in the upgrade system 《which admittedly, isn't 100%》would be totally wasted.

3) I can't imagine how it would work. . . .

"Delta values your business and looks forward to supplying you with Unlimited Complimentally Medallion Upgrades, in whatever priority an agent deems appropriate at the moment."

pvn

You don't read the shena thread???

Peatisback

I'll see if I can dig it up- If my memory is right (maybe it is not) there was a thread that linked to an article in which a Delta rep discussed how they will sometimes selectively upgrade someone who has recently missed upgrades so that person would stay happy. Sort of "throwing the dog a bone" to help maintain loyalty. The thread was one similar to this where someone was upgraded out of order.

MSPeconomist

Maybe people do get upgrades after all for dressing nicely and flirting with GAs.

bergamini

Let me say that I remain skeptical that this is a policy but as a whole I would agree with it because of course I was in a situation where I had been spending $800+/RT for MSN>ATL>JAN as a PM and went 3 of those trips without an UG, unless you count the forced overnight during the storms in ATL as an UG I wouldn't want it to happen all the time but it would be easy to say if customer X has spent $2500 on domestic flights without an RUP then we will throw them a bone. I highly, highly, doubt they do it, or will ever do it, but I live in a city (MSN) with a large software vendor (Epic Systems) that clog a lot of planes with 27 year old DM's, though I suspect the DM/AMEX waiver will change that. But yeah when I went 0/12 on K fares I was annoyed. So annoyed, in fact, that I drove to ORD and took a UA ORD>JAN direct flight the next week but it didn't have wifi so my infidelity to DL only lasted a week this year. Maybe next year longer!

davetravels

OK, so, it should be OK every now n' then to, simply throw the advertised, published benefit out the window, and just say . . . .

Sorry, Mr. #1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14 ,15 on the UG list, but, today, you all drew short straws. We are bypassing you and upgrading #1 6 on the list, simply because he hasn't felt the love in a little while. An anonymous agent somewhere in Delta's Global system chose #16 on this flight to bestow a gift upon, and alienate 15 other top flyers. You did everything right today, as far as earning your place on the UG list, but, we're just not giving it to you!

I think the bean counters who read this <> will be fascinated to know that, inflight wifi is more important to a road warrior than an upgrade!

bergamini

Isn't that the point of IROP upgrades? When I wasn't flying regularly, I got a SAN>MSP UG due to a very minor IROP that actually got me home sooner than my original SAN>SLC>MSN routing and I was FO and there were definitely GM/PM's sitting in back. I have no doubts that somewhere in the CoC or the SM T&C they reserve the right to upgrade who they want, when they want. I highly doubt they do this but yes if someone is repeatedly striking out and giving them good revenue, they could throw them a bone after X # of flights without. And nobody would know because most of us would chalk it up to a SDC or the like, whereas the OP here had a bit of inside knowledge because it was his traveling companion.

Edit: But, I maintain there's no way they are doing this. But I'd agree if they were!

Shhh, don't tell them about the wifi. Being able to document my prior week's work on Monday AM plane makes me billable and means I get to go to hotel that much sooner after getting up at 3:30 AM.

davetravels

I edited my post above to add the bolded part.

I think IROPS UGs are simply processing errors.

As far as any "wiggle room" in the CoC goes, they can do whatever they want with the upgrades - - They're their planes and seats. It's simply a question of potentially alienating other fliers to potentially pacify one from a customer service standpoint.

MSPeconomist

The problem with this reasoning is that DL wants to give a customer service gesture or gift to some particular customer, possibly as an apology for situations that were DL's fault, but the cost of that customer service gesture or gift is totally borne by some other "innocent" customers when DL decides not to give the others the earned published benefits to which they are entitled.

If DL wants to give a gift to some other customer, the appropriate thing would be for DL to pay to send the person a bottle of champagne, a fruit basket or a set of headphones, not give them my upgrade.

bergamini

I'm going to need to see what type of champagne it is before I agree or disagree on that

But I maintain that the CoC/SM T&C would allow them to do it if they want and if they risk losing someone at a lower status that is clearly, suddenly, generating a lot of spend it wouldn't be a dumb business idea. Most times nobody would ever know.

bergamini

FWIW, I've flown 5 segments this year in Y when I was on paid F tickets, due to IROPS. Twice, F left empty. You (at least me) learn to get over being slighted pretty quickly because there's always next week and always that D1 trip to Bali/Australia that you are stockpiling for. I'm sure this makes me a lemming!

flyerslc

This may be a very sophisticated application of Skinner's principles of the most effective method of operant conditioning. Intermittent reinforcement is more effective than continuous reinforcement in getting animals to perform the desired activity without extinction (ceasing the activity) when the reward is very infrequent. In other words, randomness of the reward is more likely to result in the animal continuing to perform the mostly unrewarding and futile activity (in this case, flying Delta and chasing status) than when the reward is predictable and according to fixed rules or schedules.

"In behaviorism, Intermittent Reinforcement is a conditioning schedule in which a reward or punishment (reinforcement) is not administered every time the desired response is performed. This differs from continuous reinforcement which is when the organism receives the reinforcement every time the desired response is performed. For example, on a continuous reinforcement schedule a mouse who pulls a lever would receive food (reinforcement) every single time it pulled the lever. On an intermittent reinforcement schedule the mouse would only receive food every few times (it is typically random and unpredictable). There is an increased likelihood the desired behavior will continue with intermittent reinforcement conditioning and the behavior lasts longer than continuous reinforcement."

davetravels

So, we've gone from being ham sandwiches - to animals - to organisms!