hockeyguy

Where does United.com tell you that switching is allowed? It's not listed as a feature or benefit of CR-1's, so why would anyone think they should be able to do it? Note: I'm not talking about the cancel-and-re-request idea in the OP, but rather the idea of getting the instrument switched "behind the scenes", without going through the normal channels for the new upgrade with e500's.

Yeah, I know, people have been able to get GA's, etc. to switch the upgrade instruments for them, but as we all know, that doesn't necessarily mean that switching is actually allowed.

Also, I just received a letter from MP support which explicitly stated that you're not allowed to switch upgrade instruments. (The actual issue wasn't about switching upgrade instruments, but shockingly they misinterpreted it that way.)

BenjaminNYC

But that doesn't tell me that it's NOT allowed. If GA's allow it, I don't see why one should think it's "wrong". A simple request to change upgrade instruments met with a simple compliance should not make one feel they've done something wrong.

Well that's different. Never seen anything like that in print. What was the context? If it is so against the rules, why not post it in the CR-1 rules?

Again, I'm not arguing for this behavior. I'm just wondering if this sense on FT that switching is "immoral" comes from something in UA's rules or... thin air...

ajthegreat

It comes from common sense @:-)@:-)@:-)

BenjaminNYC

I don't see why. Certainly it's how this group has come to understand upgrades on UA, but it's certainly not "common sense", in the broader sense.

hockeyguy

I agree, but my point was that if you think something might not be quite kosher (e.g. double upgrade), the fact that a GA might allow it sometimes shouldn't make you feel like it's ok. And when a GA allows something that I know is against the rules, the certainly doesn't make it right.
I don't have the actual letter in front of me, but the situation was that I had canceled a confirmed upgrade after checkin when my long leg didn't clear. Without going into all the details, I ended up F on my short leg anyways (without a new upgrade request), even after they had offloaded me and put me back in Y. I probably should have just demanded my miles back since I didn't re-request the upgrade, but I told them I would be satisfied if they refunded the miles and took the e500's for the short leg. That's where the confusion apparently set in and they gave the the line about not being able to change upgrade methods once confirmed.

Back to my original point, if there's nothing that actually says you can switch upgrade instruments, why would you think it was allowed? I don't think there's anything in the rules that prohibits me from using a confirmed upgrade for me on one leg and for my traveling companion on another leg, but I'm still pretty sure it's not allowed.

I have to admit, though, maybe they need to put something explicit in the rules at this point because the inconsistent treatment of this issue has created enough confusion already.

BenjaminNYC

I don't see how the AVERAGE elite (not like us) would see anything awry about either double upgrading or changing upgrade instruments. Up until a few years ago, AA explicitly ALLOWED double upgrades. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with either of these. It is only our experience on FT which is making us feel this way. That is what I'm challenging.

Interesting. If that's an official restriction, they should state it.

Back to my point above, I just don't see why the average traveller would think it wasn't allowed. If I try to ignore my FT "training", it doesn't strike me as so crazy that I should be able to change instruments.

Don't follow. I don't see how the system would allow that.

Right. And since they haven't...

snic

Someone, I think on this board, said that air travel is great assertiveness training. I'm not sure what other passengers have to do with an interaction between a passenger and UA. If you are assertive and ask a gate agent to switch instruments, and the agent does it, that might not be the best thing for other passengers. But other passengers should then complain to UA about its lack of a coherent policy (or lack of consistent enforcement of a policy), which is likely to have more effect than complaining on FT about poor ethics. Whenever there is a loophole you don't take advantage of, someone with a less finely developed sense of ethics will.

(For the record, even when I was 1K I never asked an agent to switch upgrade instruments.)

rudling

Is every action that's not specifically prohibited morally acceptable?

Aren't you one of the folks who are so strongly opposed to riding next to people in the F/C cabin that paid less than full freight (well, not C in your case, since we all know you're a die-hard F man)? Those folks who gamed the system (perhaps in ways that are not specifically prohibited, but nonetheless seem wrong to you) rather than purchasing F or even "legitimately" upgrading?

How is this any different? In the first class situation, you've paid a high price for some Thing that the guy next to you has gotten for less. This is distressing because this devaules your Thing, comparatively speaking, and perhaps because it worsens the experience for you (in your view).

In this case, I think we'd all agree that a confirmable upgrade is inherently more valuable than a 500-miler. Someone who confirms at the time of booking has spent this more-valuable upgrade instrument in order to receive something more valuable in return (certainty) than someone who spends less (e.g. a 500-miler). So a passenger who games the system in order to switch instruments (barring Lucky's scenario, where the upgrade inventory is available at the time of the switch) is essentially receiving this more valuable certainty, but has paid less for it than everyone else who got it.

Just like someone who is "reseated" into F has spent less to get into the forward cabin than you have.

aerokitty

OK, I'll confess, I've done almost the same thing that the OP is proposing, substituting e-500s for miles. However, when I did it, NF was wide open, so as lucky says above, I don't think I was cheating anyone. In fact, it was well within the window, so I wasn't even racing the computer. Is it true that if there is a non-zero number for NF that there are no people on the waiting list that have equal or higher priority?

I don't plan on making this a modus operandi, but want to know if I've committed a grave sin so that I can ask for absolution on FT if needed.

hockeyguy

The availability of NF has nothing to do with who you are, so there's nothing about "equal or higher" priority. If there is availability in NF, then there is no waitlist at all. (Caveat: you could have NF1 with a party of 2 on the waitlist, but in general, NF > 0 means no waitlist.)
I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to do this when there is NF availability. That's pretty much the same as canceling your upgrade and then re-requesting it, both of which are definitely allowed. Technically, this would also require that there be availability in your original fare class, but IMO, it's just a technicality as long as NF is open.

hockeyguy

And I'm not disagreeing with your position. Personally, I don't think they should allow changing upgrade instruments, but until there is an officially-stated policy that you can't, there's nothing wrong with asking. I was under the impression that this was policy, but this thread has made me question that assumption.

My main point was that if you know something isn't allowed (e.g. me requesting a double-upgrade on UA) and you just keep asking until you find someone who's willing to break the rules for you (not hard with UA's "consistently inconsistent" staff), then you can't claim the ethical high ground just because you got someone to go along with it.

As you pointed out, this is irrelevant for an average traveler who has no reason to think that there's anything wrong with his request.
Completely agree. And if it's not an official restriction, it would be nice if they would lay out the rules for it (and support it on united.com -- ok, just dreaming now).

Ari

Simply, yes.

aerokitty

I should keep my mouth shut on this ... but... when I said "equal or higher" priority, I was referring to the different clearing times for GS,1K,1P,2P,3P,GM. For example, let's say I'm a 1P and it is T-60 hours. By now, all the GS/1K/1Ps that were on the e500 list should have cleared. NF is showing >1. There could still be many 2Ps on the list right? This is what I mean by "equal or higher" -- anyone with equal or higher priority than me will be off the waitlist. I assume as a hypothetical 1P, swapping instruments would still be ethical as the 2Ps are not eligible yet for another 12 hours.

hockeyguy

Yeah, I didn't get that the first time. Thanks for clarifying.

I'd still say you're ok, since you could cancel your confirmed upgrade, re-request with e500's, and have it clear immediately. IMO, switching should be allowed in this case.

My problem is that if switching is allowed when NF = 0, you're essentially saying that a CR1 turns all of your e500's into confirmed instruments. Any time you purchased a ticket (outside of the e500 window), you would immediately request an upgrade with the CR1 and then you would always swap it (cleared or not) with e500's once you hit the window. That just doesn't seem to be what is intended with CR1's.

And if you were allowed to do the same kind of swap for mileage upgrades for e500's, even 2P's would be able to use this same strategy.

BenjaminNYC

OK. Gotcha.

Agree 100%.

OK.

I think we're on the same page.