Taking months to "fix" the upgrade process?
Didn't PMCO have an upgrade process already in place in SHARES?

I flew DCA-IAH last August booked as UA on a CO flight with UAMP in the system. I got upgraded 2 days prior to departure under the UDU, simple and easy. That would have been facilitated through the SHARES system. So it did exist then, why is it such a pain now?

My cynical side says it's just footdragging to either garner ToD $$ (or burn up regional upgrades) to make up for the cost of the switch. Let' face it, there's a ton of 1K's out there now and more people than ever eligible for a free upgrade - and they are not adding seats to First.

PMCO planes had more seats in F than PMUA so TODs, and instruments and YB upgrades trumping 1K's wasn't a big deal. With fewer F seats in 319's and 320's (but E+) it's a huge problem.

Instruments and Y-Up doesn't bother the 1k. TOD does.

^^

Ironically, yesterday I got a targeted promotion from AA telling me that if I fly 12,500 miles on AA from May 1st through July 31st, I'll get DEQM and Plat status, and if I fly 25,000 miles during that period, I'll get ExecPlat. Just as I was geting ready to book 11 flights in May. I was going to split them 60/40 in favor of UA. Now it's going to be 9 flights on AA, and 2 on UA. :D

Funny, in my world, I'm often around people with exactly the opposite problem!

The idea that the upgrade process should take months to fix is absurd.

I'm currently working on a large project that is very software intensive. If one of our existing software modules needs to be fixed it typically takes one or two programmers a few days to a week to make even fairly substantial changes. Then there's a a similar period of testing and it's released.

The upgrade system already exists in Shares so we're not talking about re-inventing the wheel here. The upgrade system is simply not being given priority in the queue for updates and yes, the cynical person sees ToDs and has to wonder...

I don't think any of us are in a position to judge how long this sort of upgrade should take. Remember that we're not dealing with a modern programming language or interface. SHARES technology is circa 1970's or so. Many of us who work in technology have to deal with legacy, but not that kind of legacy.

Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.

In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.

Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.

Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.

^
Bravo, you saved me minutes of typing.

I for one am glad they're finally being "open" with us.
I have to imagine this has been a severe culuture shock for the newly arrived management in Chicago, and kudos for all of us holding the paddles.

Shares must be such an old, antiquated system, as you say, that things might not be able to be simply fixed.
But if we keep the pressure on, maybe they'll figure out we all pay their salaries and maybe not fully return, but get an airline close to what we used to like and enjoy.

[QUOTE=channa;18457917]
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
-------------------
Imagine that at work a vendor came to you and said "we are screwing up, we promise to fix stuff" with no commitments on time, success criteria etc. Would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't...

These sort of promises are no different than a politicians campaign promises...

RN is not used. You need R.

If that's your biggest gripe, things are going pretty well. I appreciate the videos, and appreciate that there are more than one of them rotating throughout the fleet. I actually dislike when FAs deliberately skip over the video.

Since the current boarding process is pretty much exactly what PMUA had, I'm guessing it's not them that are "slow learners".. most likely PMCO GAs that are complaining.

+1
Glad to see some communication.

=============
Not fair to say.

============
Thank you.

===========
Thank you, as well.

I understand your point, but in this context, I think it's reasonable. Think of a large, arrogant company you may do business with (for me that would be Microsoft -- they're often late to the game with stuff, they're difficult with policies, pricing, etc., and customer service can be lacking). If they start coming forward acknowledging their errors, that's a huge step forward, IMO, even if it takes time to see the results.

Obviously if you need immediate results, you're always free to go elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the communication and admitting of problems is a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's a step in the right direction, and that this style of communication is radically different than what we've seen from the CO PR machine in the past.

Has anyone noticed at the bottom of this email:

To contact the sender, write to:
United Airlines MileagePlus
912 E. Centre St.
Rapid City, SD 57701

I thought South Dakota office was closed and everything moved to Houston.

That's why they want letters sent to SD



;)

I feel sorry for you that listening to PR nonsense from Jeff enhances your traveling experience.

I agree wholeheartedly.

As I previously stated (and others as well :)) taking several months to fix an issue (and not the only one, obviously) that was already provided in UA's system isn't acceptable.

It's great that they are working on it and it 'will be done' eventually, I for one will not wait several months for each of these changes to be rolled out.

CO's management gambled (or they were ignorant) that these expectations from PMUAers weren't that critical, and to me at least (others here on FT), they lost.

If it takes several months to add functionality to an already functioning upgrade system, it will take even longer to correctly handle companion upgrades (which it has never done), take even longer to process tickets instantly, take way longer to automatically return uncleared upgrade instruments and further take longer (or forever) for them to work out ToD issues, which are making Jeff money, so they'll keep those in the system on purpose...

I for one cannot wait several months multiplied by each of their problems for an airline that can handle my needs. In addition, top that off with the intangibles that won't ever get fixed: agents that don't care, elites that are all the same and yes: calling MPSC for everything and having front-line agents who need supervisor approval for everything, while spending hours on the phone for the simplest of tasks.

-jeremy

I certainly applaud the email and agree with channa that the (slowly) changing tone of their communications may be a positive sign. Also, I agree that fixing IT issues with missing and broken functionality will take time. However, where I think they are still missing the point is that it would be very simple for them to tell us how they want the program to work - in particular with respect to the TOD upgrade/CPU issues. That doesn't require any programming - just transparency. What is the policy to be? If it is currently somewhat broken, ok. If what we are seeing is the new policy, ok. Just be clear about the intended policy, and if bugs exist, what the short term mitigation approach is and what the long term fix timetable is likely to be. Flyers can decide how they want to react to the policy if they know it, but this mail continues to ignore this question - which then suggests what the policy answer probably is. At least be honest about it though.

What they don't realize is by the time they fix all this crap, the damage will have long since been done.

Maybe that email just went to PMUA folks or the highest up of the elite levels....I did not get it but I am just a 20+ year Elite with CO who has fallen to the lowly level of silver now...Some of my email complaints have been answered, not very well but answered. One even included a $100 e-cert and another included 3000 MP miles, that have still not posted to my account after 10 days. Anyone want that e-cert? I have having a very hard time clicking the buy now button on the UA web site for my up coming trips, even with the e-cert and some travel bank money to use....

Nah, I'm just a PMUA silver. I got it last night.

1K and MM. I did not get this email either.

Those of us who were long-time PMCO pax (and not Blue COolAid drinkers) can tell you that there lack of transparency is precisely the way it's supposed to work, and the way it worked at CO for years.

If the program becomes too transparent, then the impediments to upgrades and other benefits will be too obvious and that would cost them a lot of business.

The GMs at my house got it, too.

You need the opacity for the "bait" part of the "bait and switch" operation that is "unlimited" upgrades.

Precisely.

-----------------------------------
You say its reasonable, I say its not good enough. Lets agree to disagree. On the vendor example, the situation here is that there are multiple vendors who provide equal or better service. So when one of them is being opaque about when they will resolve problems, and not clear about exactly what their offer is, I have other options. If this was the only vendor, I would have to grin and bear it.

Yes, it may be a positive sign. It also may be nothing more than a p.r. exercise to respond to a barrage of fiercely negative customer feedback, or the simple realization that everything is currently spinning out of control.

Unless and until UA addresses your second point above, I'm inclined to consider such efforts as desperate damage-control. Full disclosure: As a 1K "Million Miler" cynical is now my middle name in regard to UA. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I didn't receive the e-mail either - symbolic? - but Mrs. Fredd forwarded hers to me.

The videos may be fine by themselves ... but the disconnect between what Smisek says and the ground reality is what makes them pathetic.

+1...as in 'Changes you will like'

+1

I hate seeing him on flights. It makes me want to punch the screen. Seeing him gives me a target to blame the devaluation of upgrades, status, etc.

Humm, no offense to you. But I am thinking it is a serious lack of ownership or accountability. Just imagine if the was your company; meaning you were the CEO or board. You have customers, that liked you, now hate you, and tell everyone that, and your employees "just do not like their job" and tell the customers "sorry, its not me, its this crap company I work for".

So, the question, what do you do?

Somebody needs to be let go.

GS and 2MM. Didn't get the email.

GS and 1.8MM, no email
 

I am always interested how they prioritize these things. I guess they cannot send them all out at once due to creating a flood of traffic (?). But just as with the mailing of the new card packets, it seems that GS tend to be the last to get these?

GS and 3MM - received it this morning.

GS/2MM got it this morning. GS/0MM friend still hasn't received it.

+1

You start by realizing the laa-dee-dah rhetoric that you've been using for the past 20 years is not going to cut it anymore and start communicating more frankly and apologizing for screwups, and come up with a plan to fix them.

It's not the fix, but as I said, it's a step in the right direction.

And it still seems that under new regime, one HAS to check in ahead of time -if not already cleared for an upgrade- to even be on the list 24- before flights..Corrrect? I used to not want to til the airport for several good reasons. And United PM you didnt have to worry.

Completely agree.

I suspect though, this letter was drafted by sUA senior staff.

There is no "apology" in sCO's dictionary.

Their culture is always "we are the best". :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Until, that is, they status match to EXP and then we dont care - cos it's one less high spender getting in the way of selling TOD's. ;)
Dave

I might be inclined to agree.........fabricated by what very few sUA staff are left, and that were let out of their cages.