CApreppie

Happened to my mother and father close to their flight to Houston this week. She checked seats and moved it back. As other posters said, some crap algorithm UA is running.

MMProfessor

The best solution is to split the itineraries and choose separately window/aisle seats in the same row. That helps with upgrading (with or without instrument) as well. The only down side is if one person is not an elite so cannot be seated in the E+ area without being on the same PNR.

WineCountryUA

A quick call call will get the non-elite companion into E+

Guate87

I am hoping to hear from a UA employee or a fellow pax who has interacted with someone at UA who has firsthand experience with involuntary seat change procedures.

My personal example:...at ORD GA have told me they don't clear upgrades but instead allow the system to clear upgrades between T-1 and T-0. Three weeks ago I flew ORD-IAH and the system did not upgrade any of the 11 pax on the CPU list. Three seats in F were left vacant, something I never see at any other UA hub. On Monday, I was #1 on the upgrade list for ORD-IAH. I called the 1K line and they cleared my upgrade. I did this because of what ORD GA have stated and my prior experience at ORD. That is the type of information I am seeking.

Even if there is an automated background process, as with IRROPS, human UA employees can and sometimes routinely do make changes.

LarryJ

I have no inside knowledge on how this happens but my best guess is that it is an unintended consequence of automated systems including the one(s) that attempts to keep people together when aircraft changes occur. My personal observation is that this automated system can run when a tail number is assigned, or changed, even though the seat map may be the same. Yet, it doesn't always run. I don't know why.

There are automated systems for clearing upgrades and standbys into assigned seats. Agents can also handle that process manually though I wouldn't expect them to un-seat passengers unless their seat is unavailable (maintenance) or is needed for a disabled passenger or an extra oxygen mask for a lap child (aircraft specific).

Again, these are just my observations and personal deductions. I don't have any inside information on these processes.

dilanesp

I am almost certain this is airline policy. No inside information, but this is classically exactly how you handle an abusive practice while avoiding any bad publicity- just reprogram your IT, and don't say a word about it. Let the customers think it's some sort of software issue when in fact you are freeing up lots of decent seats on your seat maps that some customers were hogging.

And if any customers do conclude that it is intentional and refuse to fly the airline, the customers lost would be among the lowest revenue customers- people who pay fairly low dollar fares in advance AND who are willing to manipulate the seat map to get an EXTRASEAT they don't want to pay for.

This is intentional. Little doubt in my mind.

Guate87

.
Ouch! That sounds like an angry, biased accusation against elite pax, like me, who pay Y fares and are only doing what the UA website allows: choosing a seat at booking.
.
Why not vent against BE non-members who buy N fares in nearly full planes, knowing UA will have to give them an E+ seat because there is no more room in E?

Every week I hear BE ticket buyers, waiting at the gate, who have "gamed the system", knowing they might get an E+ seat they did not pay for because the flight is full.

Booking aisle/window does not get an "EXTRASEAT they don't want to pay for", as you accused. UA does not block middle seats. UA GA and FA can put anyone, even BE, in that middle seat in E+.

DL had a solution until recently: block middle seats. That made it easy to book aisle/window, knowing DL would not move either person.

Airlines have the power to manipulate seating charts. Pax do not have any power to manipulate seating, but only do what is allowed by the airlines.

rittenhousesq

Thank you! My partner and I when in economy will pretty much always book window - aisle. Why? I prefer the window seat and he prefers the aisle. We are not trying to "game the system" or book an "EXTRASEAT" without paying for it. Of course we hope that the middle seat will remain unoccupied, but if it does get taken, we sometimes leave things as they are and sometimes offer to switch one of our seats with the person in the middle. Depends. There is nothing wrong in any possible sense with this strategy and I don't understand the strong feelings about this. It is common sense and the practical way of doing things. Should I have to book a middle seat rather than the window seat out of some ridiculous sense of moral propriety? Of course not!!

bocastephen

No, it's really not. We've all reached the same conclusion, it's either a malfunctioning system or a system designed to do what it was programmed for, which is not what the customer wanted based on their initial seat selection.

We all get it that you think anyone who prefers a window or aisle is somehow screwing over everyone else, but you're just going to need to accept that some of us simply prefer a window or an aisle and that is just where we want to sit....and again, the airline is perfectly free to place a customer in any empty middle seat, thus invalidating your conspiracy theory.

Other airlines actually have or had such a policy during the virus - for example Alaska Airlines required two passengers traveling to together to occupy adjacent seats so they could space everyone out. You could move to separate seats by booking two PNRs or asking at the airport. United has no such published policy other than the one most of us know as "cram as many people into the plane as possible, social distancing be damned"

HNLbasedFlyer

Definitely not. With all the turnover in the airline industry and leaked information it would be out there if this was an actual policy.

Essentially every UA policy is in the public domain.

WineCountryUA

There is little or no evidence for this supposition

UA has long done seating sweeps under the conditions LarryJ mentioned. We have seen this in Random seat changes to UA itineraries after having an assigned seat [Consolidated] 2015 with aisle/window combos also mentioned

But the key undermining evidence is -- it is not enforced at seat selection, the best time to do this. And folks have, assuming seats still are available, been able to undue the change. Hardly evidence of a policy.
plus no agent has every mentioned the policy to a poster and no posting employee seems to be aware of such a policy.
AS does have a posted policy but nothing is posted on the UA web site.
Plus some have never had their aisle/window combination disturbed (not a very effective policy)

Now no one thing from the above would be sufficient to state no policy, but multiple items, in the face of no new contrary evidence is convincing in my mind.

I'm in LarryJ's camp on this one.

As to if this is abuse or not, that can be debated.
As to if there is a formal policy, no evidence, nothing to debate.
As to if there should be a formal policy, guess that can be debated but there seems to be little support in this forum.

dilanesp

You don't want to announce this, if you are the airline. That's the part you are missing- they are accomplishing something (taking seats away from the hoggers) WITHOUT starting a debate where a bunch of customers get very defensive about what they are doing.

This is the PERFECT way to do this.

And the "IT failure" theory ignores that there's no reason why THIS PARTICULAR THING would present any IT problem.

Naah, the airline clearly is trying to protect it's henhouses from the foxes without tipping off the foxes.

fumje

The airline can do whatever it wants with regard to seating policy.

Why in the world would they furtively, occasionally consolidate couples to aisle or window and middle when they could just say no gaps allowed between multi-passenger PNRs systemwide?

WineCountryUA

THIS PARTICULAR THING is one among many other situations (that make no sense either) that is the subject of the years long, Random seat changes to UA itineraries after having an assigned seat [Consolidated]
or has this stealthy adventure been going on for years?

Since the so-called "foxes" are affected, UA has not done an effective job of hiding this.

And what about
- folks have, assuming seats still are available, been able to undue the change. Hardly evidence of a policy.
- no agent has every mentioned the policy to a poster and no posting employee seems to be aware of such a policy.
- some have never had their aisle/window combination disturbed (not a very effective policy)

These are rather large holes in this supposition

A key part of developing an explanation is to check it versus the available data, and this explanation fails the data check (multiple ways).

Xyzzy

Yea - no. Not at all. I'm sure someone in Willis Tower is laughing after reading the above. Back in the world of reality, United is well known for being unable to handle some basic IT tasks. The chance that there is a secret program to re-seat passengers on the same PNR next to each other to sell more seats or seat assignments is nil. Hanlon's razor applies here. There are perfectly good explanations fr when and how this is happening as a result of aircraft changes and such.