Oh, I definitely understand.

But it also has to be pointed out that you are based in HNL --- You likely mostly fly widebody or 757 aircrafts to the west coast for your CPUs. So that puts you at an advantage as opposed to other locations, because they are mostly leisure routes and very large supply of F seats.

Out of SFO, A319s, A320s, et al where the upgrade list can easily reach 50+ with many 1Ks sitting in the back. Out of HNL, you'll never have a plane with less than 16 seats, and more likely 24-36 seats with less 1Ks, crossing the pacific.

Its not just upgrades that frustrate me, it's the upgrade process. I just can't see why when a flight is R9 and 3/4ths empty that the system can't upgrade ONE 1K at the window. Moreover, I don't understand why we have to wait until 24 hours LATER before the next upgrade processes either!

My stats are up on diditclear and at least coming from DCA / IAD / BWI, I've had a fair amount of success so far this year, including my DCA - ORD flight this upcoming Friday morning on an L fare which cleared yesterday at T-96 (got an email at the exactly T-96).

Granted I have a bunch of IAD-LAX (both ways) coming up so we'll see whether I get hammered or not in the second half of the year, but at least in my case I've had a pretty solid CPU success rate.

IAD-LAX used to be a gimme route. But now that COdbaUA cut LAX, it's much more difficult. Good luck.

I used to clear it regularly as a 1P using 500s. It's been very difficult the past year and a half, unfortunately. I think capacity cuts have to do with it, as does the Y/B/M situation.

ROFL, given the large number of posts from you that have no factual support whatsoever. :)

TOD is understood by every single person on this thread - yourself included - to mean "paid upgrades" from Y to F/J. So a long semantic post is not getting you far... ;)

Every single person on this thread also knows by now that UA runs a reverse auction. price keeps dropping until it gets very cheap when R is substantial at less than T=24. Its cheapest an hour before the flight. Go to easy-chicken, most of the real TODs ("tens of dollars") come there.

I posted what UA said on the call. Its a QUOTE, you may not like that (truth kinda hurts, what sounds good to Wall Street, does not sound so good to 1Ks, Plats, gold, etc, with upgrade rates in the toilet) but its what UA told the markets. :eek:

And if your upgrade rate is really that high, bully to you. :D It does not reflect the reality for most folks.

As I have noted before, as a GS flying higher fare categories, I usually get upgraded, but even my stats (on the little flying of mine UA gets) are not the 99% they used to be. I am 7 out of 10 on upgrades (70%) this year, with one additional paid F, and two additional flights on planes with no F. So been up front 8 of 13 times.

But a combination of large numbers of people flying on heavily discounted Y (30-40% off rack rate) and TODs, I am finding I clear later or not at all.

The result is that I fly AS or DL, and am loving it. I love UA, love its people, and its sad for me, I know if I am bailing, lots of people who had far less attachment to UA are long gone.

All I can say is good luck with the current business model. People are only suckers for so long...:rolleyes:

Yup, and good to see you got the point that Star seemed to miss in your first sentence.

I doubt anyone not flying mostly on Y/B/M, or flying from a leasure destination (HNL e.g.) is getting that upgrade rate at this point.


Yup, and good to see you recognized what I meant by using TOD, its at this point a FT "term of art" :D

But the bragging from the call by UA management about the rate of upsells to F (up over 40%) was very real. That they don't appear to recognize in this internet age that people would get their statement and equate it to their personal loss of upgrades is what surprises me.

DL, US, and most of all AA appear to get it. ;)

Is the use of 500s comparable to getting a CPU? (I ask out of sheer ignorance -- I haven't been in the game long enough to understand just how free-flowing the 500s were.)

They were limited in that you earned 4 per 10k miles flown, or could buy them in sets of 4 (at a slight discount for elites). You also occasionally got them for minor compensation (instead of $-off e-certs, etc.). The upside to this limitation was that only pax who really wanted an upgrade tried for a given flight (via E-500, SWU/GPU, CR-1/RPU, or miles), which meant less competition on many flights.

As a Gold in 2013 I'm 4/12 on CPU-eligible flights (all on deep discount G/K/L/N fares). My CPUs are as follows: EWR-IAH; IAD-LAS; LAS-LAX; SFO-SNA.

I would agree with this. After lots of flights sitting up front, at the end of each flight, when asking myself if i would pay personal $$$ for that experience, I have not found any that I said yes to. It's just not worth it to me. So I would have burned my free 500 milers and never bought any extra. In today's upgrade world, I indeed enjoy the CPUs I get, but wont ever buy a TOD. I'm currently at 76% CPU rate after 60k domestic miles out of SAN this year.

And to the posted Whois considering all paid upgrades as TODs, I always thought that stood for Time of Departure, i.e. within 24 hours. That's different than someone taking an upsell offer a week out. Is there another definition here?

While my upgrade rate is fairly good, I would never pay to sit up front in the many RJs the UA flys. As I have said before, United Express First Class is an oxymoron. The only advantage is maybe a free adult beverage. The seats are marginally better than E+ and the cheese & crackers in box used on 3+ hours flights are a joke.

My last two flights that cleared at 96 hours AUS-IAD and IAD-AUS were L fares.

I will add my data [give me 12 hours to put them all in]... That should pull the SFO 1K upgrade rate down a little.

ex-AUS CPUs are not too difficult. I have a friend who is 1K that is based there has had more problems upgrading his IAH-XXX-IAH connections as opposed to flying AUS-SFO/ORD/DEN/IAD-XXX where he regularly clears. I don't believe he takes the AUS-EWR flight.

The issue is right there - you may have adopted it as such, but it's simply not accurate. Nor is it a "term of art" :rolleyes: that is commonly used here to mean same. IT's a ridiculous term that was maybe relevant for about a week when there were cheap "tens of dollars" upgrades erroneously being sold. It should have died long ago.

I don't think you understand this well enough to make such a statement. We've seen a handful of examples where upgrades are offered in such a "reverse auction" way, and it seems to happen on a small number of flights. We see plenty more posts where upgrades are offered days before the flight, and/or the price for a paid upgrade never changes.

Taking one extreme and trying to convince us that it's what always happens just makes you look uninformed.

I have zero issue with what UA said on the call. My (very specific) issue is with how you've totally misrepresented it and then try to claim some victory here.

Ex-ORD, flying mainly to NYC and DCA, I'm close to 90% this year, excluding one M-up at the start of the year. I know plenty more people with similar travel patterns and similar upgrade rates.[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

I quoted what UA (I think it was Compton) said on the 1Q in my post. I even BOLDED it. see: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/20678417-post349.html What the 40% figure referred to was VERY VERY clear. If you did not understand, to quote Steve Martin "I am so SORRY" :rolleyes:

That you may not like the terminology I used - "TOD" - to describe what I quoted and BOLDED UA said "paid premium upgrades" is not causing me any pain. :D

And if you want to dispute that UA does not use a reverse auction, post some data, don't just assert it. There have been hundreds of folks who have posted the patterns they see, not a few. And arguing that there are posts "where upgrades are offered days before the flight" is simply a diversion. For the price to drop (which is what happens in a reverse auction) higher prices have to be offered earlier. ;)

The pattern I have seen when I have track it, is price goes like this: at purchase [what is actually usually a v-up/m-up into P] > e-mail offer [not always send] > check-in at t-24 > right before departure at machine. I have personally never seen the offered price go up. Nor can I recall very many examples (if any) that people have posted that the price has gone up over time. There are certainly situations where R=1 or R=2 and the price does NOT fall, it stays the same, but you would expect that to be the case.

If you really want to contribute, then do an analysis of the experience of those who have gotten multiple offers, post it. :cool:

UA has repeatedly said that it is using dynamic pricing, and a reverse auction like UA is using is a form of that. I don't think UA set out to do a reverse auction, they want the price to go up as you got closer to departure, and they have set up reminders to try to goad folks into buying a "paid premium upgrade" rather than waiting for the GPU/CPU to clear. But that would require lots of folks to be willing to pay hundreds or thousands more for UA F/C product that has gone for lowest common denominator.

There is also very little evidence (in the form of people admitting they took them) of people paying for the very high offers made at time of booking, instead reports are of people buying the cheap up-sells at time of sale, or the later per-departure offers that are heavily discounted. The problem for UA (and perhaps why you are rushing in to try to respond like you are) is that after a while folks figure it out, and if they are looking for a "paid premium upgrade" what they really want is a "TOD" :D and they wait for the lower offer. FT has informed people about UA's pricing strategy.

And assertions that your personal upgrade rate is great, or for that matter any assertion you make, is not going to change my view of what is happening, nor I expect others. :eek:

Stopped reading after this - please try harder to be civil, you'll be taken much more seriously. Maybe if you actually read my post instead of proceeding to rant about it you'd notice that I have zero issue with the quote from UA that you posted. The issue is what you think it means - or what you're trying to have us believe you mean, to further an agenda. Until you can have a calm, rational discussion about it without resorting to calling people's understanding of the subject into question there's really no point - your rants serve no useful purpose.

FWIW, I thought your points responded directly and well, and am disappointed that spin's response was so... non-responsive.

Spin: take the time to read star's post and actually respond to it. For example, you made a very specific claim:

Star then provided a counterexample: him/herself. Rather than admit you were a little off base, you were defensive and not responsive:

This discussion would benefit greatly if everyone would take the time to read and respond thoughtfully to what others write, which is just what star did.