emcampbe

Does anyone know how (or if) a PNR split affects pax connecting onto a partner. i.e. if you book a TPAC, first leg domestic on UA, second on NH. If you are on a PNR of two, and say yes to be added to the upgrade list at check in for the domestic segment, will it cause problems with the partner record (will it split partner PNR, cause problems with both boarding subsequent segmentss, etc.)

SFOTurtle

This just happened to a colleague on the first leg of SFO-EWR-FCO. He is a 1P, and was traveling on the same pnr with his wife and three kids. Sometime before they got to the airport, there seat assignments were scattered to the wind. They were not able to fix for the first leg. I warned him the other flights would be simillarly affected, and he was able to fix when he got to EWR. But to say he was furious at the change is an understatement. He has been a loyal UA flyer but not sure after this.

chinatraderjmr

It could have been worse. Lucky there was no IROPS and they were not protected on different flights

UA may get away with this crap of saying "seat assignments are not guaranteed." But they have no right whatsoever to split up a reservation made by a customer. NEVER!! UA may have the right to swap aircraft, overbook, downgrade, etc....But they have no right to change who we decide to travel with!!!

It's funny. UAInsider has been silent these days but popped up yesterday on a thread when someone was discussing letting the DOT know about a problem. This is something that needs to be reported. Especially if it results in split families etc. I'm not a UA apologist, but will be glad to point out when people on FT start blaming them for silly things or things beyond there control. But this can turn into a serious situation very quickly and they need to stop it now!

ibuyyoufly

+1000 and a Here! Here!

I've been able to fix mine. Two times in the last month, but as I've said before on this subject, if I get split from my family and they get put in harms way, or for that matter a Co-Worker because we want to spend flight time working without distraction, I will be on UA like a "Duck on a June Bug". I "plan" the use of my time accordingly and if I don't get what I "should" very easily expect, the gloves will be coming off this Irishman.

This IS absolutely an IT thing, with the worst/wrong/unknowing algorithms assigned to the this task. Again I say, bring in a CIO that knows this business and things like this get cleaned up.

laangelsfan

May I ask how you fixed it? I spoke to three United agents who vehemently argued they couldn't help, and one supervisor who basically blamed me for the problem...

ibuyyoufly

I called the Premier Desk. Keep in mind, mine became split "after" both of us got Domestic outbound CPU's and on both occasions. So we were fine on the outbound, but then the split comes into play for the return trip. Of course the system doesn't recognize my split PNR mate and they didn't get offered the CPU on the return. I called both times and they gave them the CPU.

Both times I heard the usual, "What happened to cause this, let me see....I can't see a reason." and "We did that at CO so a single person could get upgraded when only one seat is available", but I mentally dismiss all that, because I know it's just "noise". I nicely go on my way and just explain how the system/program should work and thats what I am expecting.

Had two F seats not been available, I understand that, and would have no complaints.

So it's not that they "fixed" a split PNR, the didn't, they just offered the benefit that should have existed had it not split. i can't imagine having to do any of this on a multi-seg itin. I'd lose my patience. Thats what COMPUTERS are for, to streamline redundancy.

Mine have been the easiest of all the splits, compared to IRROPS, Multi-Segment, etc. This whole subject is a CF, and when that day comes it bites me, and I know it will, I'm not sure how I will handle it. I'm good at writing letters to Washington DC, Wacker Drive and NYC.

SFOTurtle

I tried explaining this problem to a number of colleagues today, and all of them were dumbfounded. They kept asking, "why hasn't UA fixed the problem?" I didn't have any response other than to say that it appears it isn't a priority. It will become one as folks choose to fly competitors to avoid the stress of being separated from family members with no notice.

UA Insider

Hi vg247, sorry for the lack of details in the response you received. We indeed have room to improve here. For more details on why this works the way it does, please see my response to chinatraderjmr below.

Hi chinatraderjmr, I know you PM-ed me about this as well and I apologize for the delayed response. It’s no excuse, but, some issues and questions are simply easier to respond to in quick hit fashion than other. It’s not that the others (such as this one) are being ignored or not read. It’s just that it warrants more than a ‘quick hit’ response.

So, I do understand the frustration with reservations being split at check-in when there is a Premier member traveling with a companion. While we know that is not optimal, it’s also not a quick “fix”. The reason is because this is how SHARES was initially architected to handle eTickets. This was also in the day well before we had automated systems that cleared complimentary upgrades (much less complimentary companion upgrades).

I’ll do my best to offer some insight. Not sure how many of you remember back in the day of paper tickets?? As you know, there are two basic components to getting on a flight - a) you must have a reservation on the flight and b) you must have a ticket for the flight.

Until the days of eTickets, flight inventory and reservations were booked and managed in the host system (e.g. Apollo, SHARES, etc.) and the ticket, which was paper, was an independent thing. This means that your reservation could be booked in a particular class of service, but, someone (e.g. an airport agent, travel agent, etc.) could ultimately change your paper ticket to something else. In other words, your reservation did not necessarily have to match your ticket. They were separate. Saying that, one would think that there are all kinds of good reasons why that could be a problem as well. But, that’s the way it worked.

When eTicketing came along (yes, I remember the first eTicket, so I’m dating myself), SHARES was developed in such a way that required the eTicket to ultimately match the reservation. If the reservation is booked in B, the eTicket needs to show B, etc.. When it doesn’t, the system will give you an error. Some of you have seen it, I’m sure. This is what is happening when you see the message “a modification has been made to this itinerary...” This means that your reservation does not match your eTicket.

When two customers are booked in the same reservation, they both had (and still have) to be booked in the same fare class, etc. One reservation, party of two. But, behind that sits two separate tickets. In the paper world (again, long before automated upgrades), it was absolutely possible to keep both customers in the same reservation yet change each ticket independently to reflect something else. This was also possible in Apollo. But, in SHARES, since the ticket has to match the reservation, it is not possible to change one without changing the other.

Fast forwarding to today’s complimentary premier upgrade and companion process, this creates some well documented and valid concerns. There are many ways to solve this problem. For example, we could re-architect the system so that the reservation does not have to match the eTicket (which can create a new set of problems), or we could create a thoughtful way to “link” reservations together so that things like reaccommodation and upgrade systems recognize which travelers they need to process together. But, whatever the solution ends up being, doing it right (which is critical) requires working diligently through all the other use cases that will also be impacted that may sit outside these processes. We’re working on the right solution with high priority. But, it’s a big project. And, doing it right has a longer turn time that I know many would like.

Just so that everyone has an understanding of the process today, here’s a quick review. If you’re a Premier member who has not been upgraded prior to checking in, and you’re traveling with a companion, you’ll see a question asking you if you’d like to be added to the upgrade standby list. When you indicate a companion as part of this, the companion will be divided out into a new reservation and an indicator will be added to the companion reservation so that they are recognized as traveling with the Premier customer. This also allows the companion to receive Premier baggage benefits and Economy Plus seating on the return flight (even though they have been divided from the Premier).

I know this does not solve the problem, but, I hope that knowing it’s a critical item being worked on is helpful.

Shannon

dsquared37

Allow me to express my incredulity.

pigx5

Shannon,
Thank you for your lecture. Somehow, I don't understand that since
the problem has been there since the e-ticket and complimentary upgrade
was born, how can it not been fix until now? I thought this has higher
priority than devalue elite benefits and change the wording about lifetime
benefit of MM. If United doesn't care about what elites think about the
changes why people need to understand the difficulty of fixing this problem?
Will chinatraderjmr's propose make it become highest priority?

Sincerely,
pigx5

emcampbe

Shannon - thanks as always for the clear explanation and continuing to post to this board. I have a huge appreciation of the knowledge and insight you bring here, even if some others don't (in the other CPU thread, was just referred to as still drinking the "UA Insider kool-aid.")

I just wanted to point out that the portion I quoted above, while may be how the system was designed, in my experience, is not working this way.

When I, as a 1P, was traveling with my 2P companion in late March, I was asked about us being added to the upgrade list at check in, despite us both clearing upgrades in advance on the eligible segment that day (the other was one-class equipment). It being 4:30am at check in, and me not thinking, I clicked yes for both of us, which split our record. However, on the return, we did not clear together at all. On the initial return flight, I was upgraded at my 48 hour window, and my companion at 24. On the connection, I again cleared at 48 hours prior, but my companion did not clear in advance at all. When designated as my companion at the connection point (the agent checking me in thought she had done so, but wasn't sure), she eventually cleared into the last F seat at the gate, but it was close. Had she not been given my status designation, I am pretty certain she wouldn't have cleared.

On this reservation, I know agents on the phone could tell that it was split off, but apparently, the CPU system, at least, could not. Perhaps the issue with my reservation above was an anomaly, or perhaps fixed since then, but any insight you can provide on this would be appreciated. I've seen at least a couple of similar stories on the board, so can't imagine there aren't other situations like it.

goalie

Shannon-

I am old enough to not only remember paper tickets but also having to apply milage account stickers to paper tickets but (and no offense meant ) where you give a nice history lesson, it still doesn't solve the problem. PMUA's system with all its "quirks" did not auto-split PNR's and the only way a PNR could be split was with human intervention with the pax initiating the split request and I can't for the life of me figure out why that in this day and age of technology, SHARES can't be programmed (or de-programmed as the case may be) to remove this feature which does nothing imho to benefit the customer, creates a poor customer service situation and creates more work for employees who have to try and fix the split.

mmack

Another reason to GET RID OF SHARES!!!

mmayer

Shannon,

I have to agree with emcampbe. This isn't how it is working.

I flew ORD-NRT 6/1. Since my traveling partner was Premier Platinum, he booked us both on one PNR so that I could get E+ at booking, 3 bags, etc. At the time I was a GM, this flight put me past 25k for the year and I turned to Silver while in Tokyo.

After Check in, I noticed he was gone from the res -- I kept the original PNR. He had done the miles and copay upgrade, and texted me while he was in process to go for it as well. Luckily, I was able to call in and snag an upgrade as well, so no big deal on the outbound.

But now, alone on the PNR, whenever I looked at the return (6/8), if I clicked around in the available E+ seats, it was shown that I would be charged for the seat. In this instance his Platinum status _did not_ remain in the original PNR for the purpose of free E+ seat assignment. I did retain the originally booked E+ seat with no issue.

Can't tell about the baggage allowance, since I only had one bag and my Silver status kicked in 3 days before the return, so my one bag was no charge.

If it worked the way as described, I would feel better about booking vacation with my family, but as of now, I have serious reservations.

---Matt

UA Insider

Hi emcampbe, I know we had some added issues in March that were corrected in early April. It looks though like mmayer may have a recent example though, so we’ll take a look.

Hi mmayer, although I’ve been seeing this work correctly lately, I’ll take a look at this particular use case. It could be that we’re not handling things correctly when there is a status change mid-trip. When you earn status (or a higher status), your reservation is refreshed with your new status. I’m guessing at the moment, but, it could be that it is trumping the previously noted status. We’ll take a closer look at this.

Shannon