hockey7711

The reason they blocked EF is the same reason that the PQD spend is not waived for 1K's
UA does not want to give out the GPU's and if you do get them, they don't want you to be able to use them.
Every "benefit" we earn by flying UA is looked at by UA as something that they could have charged us for.
It all goes back to the "over-entitled elites" comment.

tryathlete

I don't agree although I'm sympathetic. The reason EF lost out and so did we is because we all smugly bragged about how we "beat the system" and jumped the queue here on FT. UA reads our posts. Loose lips sink ships.

star_world

So why does the United website provide the ability to search for flights that have upgrade availability, as well as Expert mode that lets you see more detailed upgrade availability for any UA flight? Why does the website indicate GPU availability on already-booked reservations with one click? Why does the website allow you to apply a GPU to another person's reservation (e.g., family / friend)?

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory - it's just not supported by the facts.

tryathlete

EF puts control in YOUR HANDS and that means UA loses control. No conspiracy theory.

star_world

Totally disagree - the data is all still there on the UA website. Anyone can pay somebody to get searches performed for them using the available data if they wish.

WineCountryUA

But that is what EF did for you and they got their hands slapped.

There is a huge difference between the awkward manual capabilities of searching / checking for R on united.com and what EF offered in the way of alerts -- it is easy to see the huge convenience difference and the likelihood it generated much checking and therefore calling to clear than the rudimentary capability of united.com.

star_world

The reason EF got their hands slapped was largely due to the centralized nature of their product, and the (apparent) scale. But an individual could hire their own person to do the checks for them and send notifications when availability was found - it's very easy, just create a task on a site like Mechanical Turk (I mentioned this a few dozen pages ago I think) - https://www.mturk.com/mturk/ - this is easily achievable for much less than the $10 / month that EF charges, plus you get to decide how often the searches are performed. You don't have to hand over your UA MP credentials to do this. The individual performing the searches will technically be in breach of the UA ToS but no more so than people who use the KVS tool or many other similar tools.

That's all we're talking about at the end of the day - a way of automating data searches without doing it in a large, centralized way that draws attention.

WineCountryUA

Yeah maybe 1% of the present EF alert users will consider that approach -- it is a sufficient higher effort level plus I not sure I would agree the same level of checking EF did would be at the price levels you suggest.

I don't disagree with your reasoning why EF was stopped (or that it was UA's right to do such) but to claim the majority of EF users have not loss control, accessibility, ease of use, convenience, ...(whatever you wish to label it) ... is disingenuous argument.

It has happen, it was within UA's right to do, but it taken a highly useful tool, that made use of a long existing flaw in UA's systems, out of the hands of some. Was it burdening the UA's systems perhaps, it was it unfair to some traveler's - yes, but the key issue is the flawed UA system. Until UA fixes this flawed system, it will drive some users more underground, such as your suggest, or a system that is better at hiding it IP addresses or .... That is the way the internet is.

star_world

It's not an argument I've made though. Of course EF users (myself included) have lost a lot of benefits. But that's an issue between EF and their users - UA hasn't reduced the level of control, convenience, accessibility, etc. They are making the same data available that they always did under the terms they published on their website. I'm sure they block malicious users of all types on a regular basis - that's part of maintaining a website.

I don't understand why so many people in this discussion believe that EF had some sort of legitimacy and that UA is the one who screwed up here. If I build a business that depends on scraping data from third party websites and selling it as a service I know from day one that it's guaranteed to be shut down at some point, and the more successful I am the faster that's going to happen.

kb1992

Agreed.

Is it possible that EF would make a deal with UA so we can get alerts back?

I still haven't canceled EF yet.

WineCountryUA

So you are making the distinction the the loss of benefits is EF fault not UA's -- it is a a bit of a distinction without a distinction.

It is the users who have loss the benefits and a customer focused organization would see the "unmet need" and response to either provide it themselves or work with the third party to do it in a less distributive manner.

But the real issue is the system flaw and the unreliable system working in a timely manner, not the workaround tool itself. Honestly I think UA has got themselves in "overloaded" system function (overloaded in the computer function programming sense), they are trying to do too many things (time of purchase upgrades, waitlisted upgrades, dynamic upsells, ....) in a system never designed for such. Or that other computer programming term "spaghetti" code.

sbm12

Yes, but only if UA is willing to make a deal and the two parties can come to some agreement on acceptable terms. I do not expect such to happen in the next 8-12 weeks.

pizzabox

I got a promo offer from another e-mail account I used for a pro trial of EF:

No direct mention of losing award access. That would be bad press for them

I'm still sticking with EF for UA alerts to do SDC. EF is half as useful to me without Star Alliance award alerts.

ozflier

Is there a win win position for both United and EF in this matter? I am suggesting one.

I like I am sure everyone else is getting peeved by the loss of the EF system. The lack of access to upgrade/award inventory is aggravated by the apparent reduction or late appearance of these seats.

Are the big players suffering ?

United - There must be an increase in FF use of the UA booking site ( sure not using as much bandwidth as is alleged EF does ) as well as higher utilization of their reservation lines. Nor are they actually having a good time PR wise either.

EF Its losing me - no more renewals . My major reason for subscribing was to access Star Alliance award queries.

So everyone is hurting .

From my understanding, one of the major issues with UA was the ubhappiness created by the delay in allocating upgraded or award seats to waitlisted pax even when in the last 24 hours when they were visibly available on the website search engine and accessible to EF queries. UA may have been embarrassed by this glitch and its frequent fliers were hurt ( though not necessarily those in the know )

Is an option for the parties to consider, and I accept it may be impossible technically to achieve .

UA to block EF access to award and upgrade inventory once the T-24 hour to departure clock starts ticking.

Am I dreaming?

WineCountryUA

That's a purely FT speculation.


Another potential reason and closer to what UA stated, had to with the frequency of queries. Some speculated rates were potentially a significant percentage of the total activity. (Again all these estimates were speculations) If this was true, your solution would not resolve the issues related to this second reason.