AirMiles2001

I had an occasion once where my wife and I were discussing who would get the upgrade. I often give them to her but I had a bad back at the time and had a busy work schedule. Another fella overheard the discussion and gave us his seat! Good job the OP wasn't on that flight and got into our business. Such a nice gesture that I won't ever forget and have been known to pay it forward now and again.

bocastephen

To the contrary...we usually sit together and use instruments to upgrade or when flying other carriers, just sit in Y. If we are waitlisted for an upgrade , hopefully we both clear, but if one does and the other does not, we will discuss what to do and if one wants to sit up front, we will sit separately. If we want to sit together, I will call UA and have the upgrade removed so we can be re-seated together in Y.

There is no way I am going to walk back to my other half's seatmate and offer them my F seat.

teeceedee

This is a great thread - mostly because I realize just how passionate other people are about flying. Never knew this kind of conversation could even happen... to me it just seems like common sense to let them do what they want.

I understand bocastephen's point and even his point about calling ahead. To me, I just wouldn't bother putting that much thought into it though. Maybe that makes me inconsiderate

wpr8e

I was traveling with my two children on 1 PNR and my wife was on a second. Due to a cancellation, we were all re-accommodated on another flight. Kids and I were scattered all over the cabin, and wife was put in F given her GS status.

Eventually GS got the kids seats together and myself across the aisle from them. My wife wanted to downgrade so we could all sit together. The issue being coach was booked full, no way for them to downgrade her with a full Y cabin The agents tried, but I was told it wasn't that simple. The GS agent at the gate suggested to just ask the gentleman next to us to move, which we did, discreetly. Plane left on time and everyone's happy.

zombietooth

Honestly, the FAs that I have talked to have told me that they are far happier when the parties involved work it out amongst themselves.

The top pax on the waitlist is never going to know that a swap was made anyway, so everyone is better off just making it happen in the most expeditious fashion possible.

scottsam66

You were lucky, BocaSteve wasn't on the prowl on your flight! Shame on YOU!

GoAmtrak

Actually, the piling on here is really shameful. You're entitled to the opinion that he should MYOB and you can feel morally superior about yourself, but by the same token everyone needs to MYOB when he or someone else is focused on having the rules applied as written. FTers scream from the mountaintops when they're affected by UA engaging in upgrade shenanigans and screwing the #1 person on the upgrade list. Yet, when pax self-sorting leads to #1 being denied it's suddenly okay? Context matters, and clearly these situations aren't one-size-fits-all. There are many scenarios where the self-sorting makes sense, has the widest benefit, and possibly brightens the day of someone who really deserves it (especially a soldier, elderly person, etc.). But there's no need to be sanctimonious or attack others as misanthropes just because they don't want to be shafted when the underlying policy clearly calls for upgraded pax to decline their upgrade through the GA and not through unilateral re-gifting. It's not all black-and-white, and certainly doesn't call for such personal vitriol.

teeceedee

I think the vitriol was just that nobody really wins in a situation where you complain during seat swapping shenanigans. Sure, there are better ways to approach the situation as mentioned (calling in earlier, etc.)

Given the situation as it stands, though, nobody really wins by getting involved - perhaps long-term it encourages other PAX to call ahead instead of figuring it out at the gate, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that makes any difference at all

GoAmtrak

Well, clearly if you're #1 on the list, notice the seat-trading and can get the FA or GA to intervene, you very well might win (as long as you don't care that others may view you as a sociopath).

As noted upthread and in many other threads, this is yet another reason why catch-all CPU is a crappy system. Even just requiring a positive opt-in for each pax on each PNR to be considered for upgrades (like the check box on AS) would go a very long way to making everyone happy long before a stressful situation emerges during boarding. Once again, UA fails at industrial psychology, just as they fail with their boarding process. Pax should not feel like they're being pitted against each other.

teeceedee

I don't think so, wouldn't the guy just not give up his FC seat?

ksingh0311

That's the point I was making too. If I were offering someone else my F seat so I could sit with my companion in Y and another person #1 on UG list were to complain to me or to FA or to GA (in the hopes of getting that F seat?) I would rather sit separately from my companion in F than have the said complainer get the seat in F..

GoAmtrak

That's certainly one option and your prerogative as an on-board upgrade recipient. But how would that work in practice if the interaction flowed like this in the first place?

GA: Here's your new boarding pass for a better seat.
Upgrader: Oh, thanks, but I'd rather stay put with my companion.
GA: No problem, just keep your original boarding pass.
*GA exits plane, processes next upgrade*

Again, if UA didn't suck at industrial psychology, you wouldn't have felt compelled to spite the next pax in line for an upgrade because they wouldn't have had to fight for it and you wouldn't have had the opportunity. The secondary upgrade would have just happened.

I guess the issue arises if you intentionally don't telegraph your intentions to the GA:

GA: Here's your new boarding pass for a better seat.
Upgrader: Cool, thank you.
*Upgrader hands BP to another pax*
*#1 pax on UG list throws fit to GA*
Upgrader to GA: Never mind, I'm keeping my F seat.

Again, none of this would ever happen under an opt-in upgrade system. Ultimate blame remains with UA for creating these scenarios.

ryman554

Incorrect.

Pax1 -- boy I'm glad my UG cleared ahead of time because I'm a very important DYKWIA. I sure hope my wife/child/good friend Pax2 -- who is only a lowly 2P on a different reservation -- clears too.

<time passes>

Pax 2 -- Hey honorable Pax1, I'm sitting here in 33E while you're enjoying life in 2A. Guess we can talk about our Very Important Matters after we get off of the plane.

Pax 1 -- Nah, I'll just swap with 33F.

Pax 3 -- in 33D: HEY!!!! I wanted seat 2A. This web browser is telling me that I'm #1 on the UG list. UA has 25000 of my hard earned miles in escrow for this so I wasn't able to take that nice trip to Aruba.... I deserve that seat over you!
Pax 4 -- in 33F: No way, man. That cheeseburger sure smells good. Nyah.
Pax 3 -- No fair. Not following the rules. Let me ding the FA/GA/SMI/J....

GoAmtrak

Pax 1 and 2 are in the wrong for not establishing in advance that they'd like to sit together. Either pax 2 finds miles/instrument to use in advance, or pax 1 calls to decline the upgrade as soon as it clears. No excuse to make pax 3 look like a jerk for being factually, objectively entitled to 2A in that situation.

Everyone has individual responsibility to consider their priorities beforehand. And UA still bears the blame for causing these situations to exist.

scottsam66

Dude, you need to relax. I was kidding, being sarcastic.