But my experience this week has shown me, at least as anecdotal evidence, that they now have a worse undocumented feature: If you put two itineraries on hold for the same origin/destination/dates, even if different flights, the 2nd res is canceled sometime after putting it on hold, but before the hold should have expired.

I put a DEN-IAD-RDU itinerary for November on hold Monday night, with a hold till 11:59 Tuesday. Tuesday I put a different DEN-IAD-RDU for those same dates but different flights on hold, with a hold till 11:59 Wednesday. I decided to let the Monday night hold expire on Tuesday night, and was considering buying the later one I held on Tuesday, on Wednesday morning. Except that Wednesday morning, that Tuesday reservation hold-till-1159p Wed, was also gone.

Perhaps UA now has a version of what I think our friends at CO call "Super-Duper-Snooper" that looks for multiple (not necessarily identical) reservations for the same person that can't be realistically both flown, and cancels them all?

Like I said, anecdotal, but I used to be able to do this reliably all the time. Now it seems to be gone.

And now I can confirm this absurd undocumented "feature" as well. I actually had 3 held reservations: 1 made on day 1 , and 2 made on day 2. One of these was identical to the day 1 reservation, and the other overlapped the other two. When I checked on day 3, of course the day 1 reservation had expired - but the day 2 reservation that overlapped (actually made first) was mysteriously absent as well.

Thanks, UA. If they want to make rules about overlap and number of held reservations, fine with me. But INFORM users of these rules, so we do not discover them the hard way. Fortunately I was able to re-create the deleted reservation at the same price on day 3, but what if the price had gone up?

As someone on FT said recently, the entire UA IT team needs to be fired and replaced.

Call the 1k line and have them do it for you. You will still need to logon to complete the ticketing process.

I noticed that too. Must be a recent change, because this didn't use to work in the past.