notquiteaff

Sure you can. This is the year 2016.

If you had written "you can't really expect United's computer..." I would agree. But this is not rocket science we are talking about. But conditional logic seems to be something United's developers have great problems with. Which explains the offers for purchasing E+ sent to me when I was booking as a 1K.

joshwex90

My second post absolutely holds water no less than your initial one doesn't.

OP complained that they initially had 3 seats together, and then due to IRROPS, were left with 3 middle seats. So far, all in agreement. Then, UA said that only option to get 15 month old next to a parent is by paying for E+.

That's where the issue comes in. UA needs to solve this without requiring OP to pay. If really the only option is putting them in E+, then UA needs to waive the fee. Sure, if there's another solution, great. And I even posted about that before. If UA can move "premiers" or "elites" to E+ to free seats up, fine. If UA can make a guarantee that seats would be available by boarding once they upgrade or move other pax, fine. But UA cannot say that the only option is to BUY E+.

As I've written in each post, no arguments there. There's a knee-jerk need on FT to seemingly be all out against any post with kids or posts seemingly supportive.

We both agree that UA must seat 15 month old next to at least 1 parent. Great, do that. If they can get it done before departure, they've done their job. But if UA claims that the only way to get it done is by OP paying, then that's where the issue lies.

Again, agreed. But if UA claims that the only solution is for OP to buy E+, then UA has a responsibility of solving the safety issue without charging OP.

bse118

No where in any of the OP's posts does it say that UA said the only way to resolve the issue was to pay for E+.

OP thought/wanted E+ was the way to resolve this, and wanted it free.

If at the gate E+ was the only way to resolve this (e.g after all silvers had moved up and the only seats left were still E+), one parent and the kid would have probably gotten it for free.

JBord

You've proven everyone else's point with this statement. Before departure. Not a couple days before, or a couple hours before, or even before boarding. But they need to seat the parent and child together before the plane leaves the gate. The OP was using this as a reason to get E+ early and without paying.

In fact, you can see from a later post that his solution to avoid this in the future was to buy an E+ subscription, which doesn't impact IRROPS causing this same issue again. The problem he wanted solved was getting E+ seats. There was never a concern that the plane would leave the gate with the child sitting between strangers. If this were to happen and only F seats were available, should the OP get F before boarding even begins?

There's a knee-jerk reaction by some people here to support parents without understanding the circumstances.

MSPeconomist

Actually the OP was trying to get not two but three seats together in E+ for free.

MatthewLAX

I side with OP.

PVDtoDEL

For all of y'all suggesting that moving Silvers up to E+ without their consent is a brilliant idea, that sounds like a recipe for angering elites who are sitting with traveling companions on separate reservations.

Baze

The way it SHOULD be handled is try on the phone, if can't get 3 together in what they paid for get them any seats then work it out at the gate.

mduell

Absolutely, although in this case I suspect that money is the software development and ongoing maintenance rather than the E+ revenue.

I think everyone agrees that at departure time your infant would be seated adjacent to one of your adults, for safety reasons. Prior to that, it's all about the $$.

That happens all the time. Sometimes it's when the plane swapped to another type and then swapped back to the original type, sometimes there's no apparent reason for it. It's an issue with the system UA has chosen that frequent fliers on this board are well aware of.

See this 1200+ post thread immediately following the reservation system merger followed by this 200+ post thread more recently.

Let's not pretend this is some impossible feat of computing. Split reservations could easily be associated with their former common reservation. UA chooses not to develop and operate such a system.

It's been asked repeatedly and never answered, was the kid on an infant ticket?

Are you referring to the Secure Flight data? Can the Secure Flight data be used for purposes other than the Secure Flight program? What's the allowable scope? Customer service enhancements? Marketing publications?

JBord

Of course not without their consent. They will move themselves at 24 hours or it can be fixed at the gate. The OP spent 3-4 hours trying to get his family free E+ after their seats were moved. I can just imagine the conversations with agents.

"Move my family to those empty E+ seats."
"Sir, seats will open up 24 hours before the flight, or we will fix it at the airport for you."
"Move my family to those empty E+ seats."

Repeat for 3-4 hours.

bse118

This is why I prefaced the post you are referring to with "this is an honest question" I know UA has my DOB, and those of others on the reservation, when I make a booking. I don't know what they can / cannot do with that information.

It sure would be nice if OP would clarify what type of ticket the child was on. He/she is sure acting like UA knew one of the passengers was a 15-month old. That assumption may be based on entering the D.O.B when the ticket was purchased.

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that OP had no entitlement to E+.

fastair

I was going to say the exact same thing. There is plenty of data collected for government use that I do not know that the airline can use for their own purposes. I don't know that they can't, but to assume that data collected on behalf of the g-man for purposes of the g-man can be used for commercial purposes is a bad assumption.

raehl311

Unless the OP flew with the 15-year-old sitting next to neither of the parents, the OP has no complaint at all.

UA may or may not have declined to give OP the seats he wanted in advance. UA isn't obligated to give OP the seats he wants in advance.

If, at the gate, UA wouldn't seat the 15-month-old next to at least one parent, THEN OP would have a gripe.

Until then, the only problem is that OP's desires are important enough for him to complain about but not important enough for him to spend his own money on.

And that is why people are negatively reacting to OP's sense of "I have a kid" entitlement.

Mbcijim10

I'm not sure what you all mean by under 2 ticket? He's 16 months old now, has his own FF number, and they certainly know his birthday. Every time we fly (both my wife and I ). The system asks if we will be flying with a lap child. Maybe that helps?

If I wanted something for free so bad why would I since buy the $900 e+ subscription that allows for 8 people on the same reservation to fly E+? That's really an entitlement mentality I'd say. This was after the fact ( I learned my lesson).

By the time we figured out on the return flights we were seated separately, the only 2 seats together we're in E+. I see no reason that united can't program free E+ seating into their system for this situation when no e seats are together. Instead they put the burden on me, their customer. I either have to call, or more likely, they hope I shell out a couple hundred bucks to sit together. I shouldn't have to do either!

Mbcijim10

Their was no Y available together! How could they give it to me? What's your logic? i never cared what they gave just give me seats together! It's not my job as the customer to get on the plane and ask people to move because United's systems suck.

Bumping familes to E+ or *silvers both accomplishes the same goal, United systems do neither!