Dirigible

I checked into a flight today with one companion on the PNR and instruments (P+) attached. The reservation did not appear to split - we are both listed under one confirmation code in the app. However we are also both listed on the upgrade list. Does anyone know if this behavior has changed?

fumje

I strongly suspect it has changed from watching lists, but I don't know from personal experience.

raehl311

Recently noticed when checking in and getting added to the upgrade list that the reservation doesn't seem to split until the upgrade actually clears... anyone else have this experience?

Still stinks that it splits on upgrade, but an improvement at least.

On the downside it seems to lose the KTN for the PAX on the split reservation.

SFO_LHR_NRT

Hmm, did that PAX have a KTN tied to their MP account?

cfischer

why would it split when the UG clears? I have not seen that before. That seems strange. And no, no issues w/ KTN so far

fumje

It would split if only one upgrade can clear at the gate.

Kacee

To my knowledge, SHARES is not capable of doing that. That's why the choice has always been either split, or no upgrade.

CIT85

I was asked when online check-in if I wanted to split PNR and be added to upgrade list for our recent trip last week of April. I checked not to be split, and our names disappeared from original upgrade list. I called 1K desk to get us back on upgrade list, which involved splitting PNR.

My wife's boarding pass did not have Pre Check when I kept our original PNR, main reason not to split since she used to have Pre Check when traveling with me on same PNR in 2019.

fumje

I believe they've made some change to the check-in process. Now it seems to keep paired PNRs together and in place on the list until some other intervention is taken to clear one or both.

So if the top of the list is a pair, and inventory is J3, the CPU sweep will just hold at T-24h, regardless of whether they have checked in or not and agreed to split or not. If it goes to the gate and there is still one seat left, the gate agent will trigger the split.

That is my best understanding of how it works currently.

Kacee

In other words, until the PNR is split, since SHARES can't process upgrades on a multi-passenger itinerary.

If that's an intentional change in the process, it doesn't make much sense. Freeze the whole upgrade process because there's one multi-pax PNR?

This is one of those inherent SHARES limitations (like inability to clear dynamically) that has plagued UA's systems ever since the merger.

fumje

Yes, the inherent limitation still exists, but they've layered something else on top as a workaround.

I won't argue that the change is reasonable, but I have observed multiple cases for which it seems to be the explanation. There are also scattered reports here of people not being immediately split on check-in despite agreeing to it.

EWR764

SHARES can’t handle pax in different classes on the same PNR. If upgrades for all pax on the record can clear at once, the PNR doesn’t have to split. Minor nuance but meaningful.

Kacee

Thanks for the clarification.

raehl311

She does.

So I had an outbound and return to MCO the past two weeks. On the outbound, checked in, opted for the split. When checking bags at ORD, we were still on the same PNR. This was new to me - usually the PNR split immediately after opting for the upgrade list.

On the return, did the same thing, only this time the upgrade cleared, and we had different PNRs when checking bags at MCO. (But the KTN from her MP account did not make it to the new PNR, which she didn't notice until at the TSA agent, but she was able to go back to the kiosk and add the KTN herself.)

So it seems like adding a multi-PAX PNR to the upgrade list no longer splits it until an upgrade actually happens.

I don't think they hold the whole queue; our upgrade was processed well before we got to the airport (and the PNR was split at that time.)

We did both get processed at the same time, so it seems even if there is J+2 the reservation still gets split.

cfischer

right, but this is not what the OP reported. It can clear both or the records needs to be split. So did anything change here?