Bonehead

I've observed plenty of flights that were, say, R>5 and stayed that way until one of the intermediate windows (e.g., T-72 or T-48) and then processed a batch of apparent CPUs. There may be "stalls", but I also suspect that either the sweep wasn't set to run for that flightor, perhaps more likely, Rcpu (the hidden bucket that CPUs come out of) was set to 0 during previous sweeps.

cmculp

Hawaii CPUs have gone from reliable for 1K to dicey at best. Worse, it is often impossible to find any R>0 to even throw an instrument at. Big change here over last year.

Tracer_SEA

To summarize: if you are waitlisted for CPU and the CPU doesn't clear within the window while R>0, the only (productive) thing to call UA about is to make sure *your* reservation is not out of sync. If your reservation is fine, then you are stuck waiting for the computer to do its thing. UA agents will not clear your CPU.

When using an instrument however and R>0, you can do the "remove the instrument and reapply" maneuver, and that is worth a call and that should get the upgrade confirmed for you, potentially skipping the waitlist queue.

I think the strong reaction to the OP is that this scenario (waitlisted for CPU that doesn't clear within the window while R>0) has been so common over the past 3 years that it's old news. Few are happy about it, but we've adjusted to the ways of this new system. Perhaps the OP has been lucky and it hasn't happened on routes he flies, and he's now going through the freak-out that many of us did 2-3 years ago, in compared to the PMUA system we had become used to. And in this case the OP was lucky and got the upgrade at T-96. Many times in that scenario it won't clear till T-24, at the gate or not at all. Just one of the MANY things that changed from the days of the Tulip.

Also, as relates to the DL/AA comparison, I think it's worth pointing out that not only does DL not have transparency of its upgrade bucket, they don't even allow their revenue fare classes to be displayed on sites like EF.... Which in some ways is more arrogant and customer-unfriendly than these UA upgrade glitches, which have lingered now for 3 years and while certainly imperfect at least offers some benefits to those with the time and patience to closely monitor their flights.

Kacee

Well that was predictable.

A temper tantrum and false accusations of lying over a 24 hour delayed upgrade

I agree this is old news. It also seems people are not happy about it.

On the "not happy" part, many folks are missing the big picture. If you are a 1K, it is in many respects better for you if UA waits until T-24 to run the sweeps. You can snag the upgrade if you purchase late or SDC, as opposed to having all the F seats filled by Plats and Golds.

seanp7

The CPU holdback is getting worse in recent months (for my routes anyway - BUF/EWR/FLL). 1K and I clear at T-24 or the gate some of the time. Sell, sell, sell those upgrades!

channa

For all we know, the out-of-sync bug was the cause (quite likely, IMO, based on the R9 situation), and by the OP posting this thread alerted one of the UA Insiders to notify one of the few people in the organization who can actually do something about it. It's possible they fixed the problem record (if it didn't get fixed via some other mechanism) before the next sweep (72h/Platinum), and the OP got he upgrade he should have received at the 96h/1K sweep.

Kacee

I appreciate your views, but do not consider that a realistic scenario

My sweeps run at T-96 considerably less than half the time. I stopped freaking out about it a long time ago and my CPU percentage remains just fine.

channa

How is it not a realistic scenario when UA themselves acknowledged said bug?

Kacee

Well for one thing, OP never shared specific flight details. So not sure how UA Insider was supposed to have known which flight had a an out-of-synch reservation (assuming that was even the issue, which has NOT been established).

Nor do I think it realistic to suggest that UA Insider would actually get involved on this type of issue. I would hope that intervention is reserved for more worthy causes

channa

You'd be surprised how much UA knows about every one of us. All they need to know is who the OP was from a previous interaction, and they they can look up upcoming flights within 96 hours. Quite simple, actually.

You'll also note, I suggested that the problem may have been "fixed via some other mechanism" outside of UA Insider.

Kacee

That's a stretch. The more accurate statement is that there is sufficient information provided in this forum for UA to identify many of us if it wishes to do so.

I respect your views on a wide range of subjects. But I completely disagree with you on the idea that any "injustice" was done here or that OP's FT rant had anything to do with the fact the CPU cleared at the next window.

channa

This goes back to the CO days, CO most definitely associated FT accounts with OP numbers and kept records of such. Seeing that present-day UA is for all intents and purposes, CO, I would not be surprised to see this practice continue.


Given the above, I think it is a serious possibility. Not saying it did happen, but it's not terribly far-fetched either.

scottsam66

What I've come to realize on FT is that when one has lost the "debate" on FT, one then searches for previous posts from those whom one has lost the debate to, to discredit the poster.

Think character assassination of a witness...

nikolastojsin

With all due respect, this presupposes the level of customer service responsiveness that is not very likely in UA's case. (Especially given that this thread originated because OP was yelled at by UA CS supervisor - a HUGE no-no for any customer service.)

Kacee

Not sure how you came to the conclusion about who "won" or "lost" the debate. But if you count the number of FT members who voice support for OP's position in this thread, I think you may reach a different conclusion.