danM

So a few months ago I benefited from a GA skipping over a bunch of people in the upgrade list to get to me (IIRC I was around 9th), to the point where I was confused when she paged me and handed me a FC boarding pass. She took me aside and explained that they needed my seat (bulkhead window) for a wheelchair passenger and so she upgraded me. (This was one of those gift horse/mouth situations).

I actually think that she did the best possible option (vs. moving me to a less-desirable seat), but that's a different discussion. The question I have (based on the comments above) is, "was it really difficult for her to do that in SHARES?"

njcommodore

Probably not, because she likely thinks she could justify it if audited.

mgcsinc

Isn't the real problem that the GA had his own rule, involving the prioritization of passengers originally scheduled on the flight, and that this is not a real rule?

GoAmtrak

I appreciate that a lot, and I know that most of your colleagues are professional and do their utmost to juggle the competing demands of OT departure, SHARES limitations, extenuating circumstances, and by-the-book procedures. But there are just too many posts since last year about the "wrong" person taking the upgraded seat, either through the GA manipulating the system or rightfully assuming that the poor sucker in Y won't update their mobile BP to see that they rightfully cleared into C/F.

If there's an audit trail as you describe, and the forensics back up the claims of shenanigans, such incidents should be cause for immediate termination. These GAs give you and your honest, hard-working colleagues a very bad name.

ibuyyoufly

+1

This single incident, by what I would call a rogue GA, has caused the Company more harm that whatever personal justification the GA could have come up with in their own mind. Multiply that by however many times it could happen over the course of a day and across the entire Route Map and the damage to Goodwill speaks to why "polices" are in effect and should be abided.

It's bad enough SHARES is inconsistent. Add wrongful human intervention and it becomes a free-for-all, which is close to what it has become.

FlyWorld

Is there an audit trail for everything or only some things?

When I was on a paid F ticket and the front agent told me that I never bought a ticket in F, she had no way to look up my seat history, and the 1K desk had no way to look up my seat history, and the "help desk" had no way to look up my seat history, and I was told the only option I had for getting someone to look at my seat history was to email customer relations then sit at the airport for 6-12 weeks while waiting for a reply.

So, it makes me curious about the extent to which history is viewable in SHARES.

Was it a full flight? The way things are done now, I'd have expected them to throw you into the farthest rear middle seat next to the lavatory and tell you to take it or leave it. Wondering if they did it to be nice, or if there was no other option.

njcommodore

1 experience =/= "the way things are done now" @:-)

halls120

What's worse for United is that even if the system works as it should, at this point, it is a widely-held perception that the system IS a free for all, and this is damaging enough. Last week I had a last minute r/t IAD-LAX that involved a red-eye return. Had I gone with United, I would have one leg confirmed UG at purchase, the other leg a crap shoot. I went with AA, because I got one leg confirmed at purchase and I simply trust the fairness of the AA system at this point over UA's.

wxguy

Question for our UA agents: Is there a Shares equivalent of the FFCC list? In pmUA, that was the list of passengers ticketed for a premium cabin where the seat was not available, and initially seated in a lower cabin. As I recall, the FFCC list was cleared before the upgrade list. Could this explain the "skip over"?