The 3 hour confirmed change must be the exact same routing... you cant change from a connection to a nonstop under this rule unless an agent makes an exception.

If there was that great a risk of missing the connection at SFO and having to overnight there I would have asked at SEA if they could put you on AS, DL or Virgin who all have nonstops to LAX... AS has frequent ones.

Your status should only come into play when other passengers are on
the exact same itinerary you are. Any airline would have done the same
thing. When there are any irregular operations, the airline needs to look
at all the inconvenienced passengers and do its best to accommodate
everyone as best as possible.

If I was United and you requested compensation for this, I would tell you
to take your business elsewhere. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but
you should know what "standby" means by now.

While I agree UA did the right thing, I also believe they are at fault. In the list of published benefits, 1Ks are told they have top-priority and in this case, it wasn't the case. Perhaps the benefit statement needs to be revised to "most of the time".

Personally, if UA was going to trump someone on the list, they should have either put the 1K on another carrier or VDB'ed someone.

Do I think it's worth chasing for compensation, no. But I would shoot an email to 1kvoice.

It sucks, but it would suck more to be going to SYD and have to wait 24 hours. This just comes with traveling.

Well said. The audacity of the OP to complain over a multiple of non-status pax that would have misconnected and created a 24-hour delay versus their much shorter single-person delay that did not involve a misconnect is truly shocking. I guess the OP's status entitles them to believe that their one hour is more important than the other party's 24...well, 96 if you want to be picky.

One would think that a frequent flier on any airline would want to see their airline of choice succeed and do right by people as much as possible so the airline could continue to provide the travel experience that said frequent flier wants to keep on experiencing. The downside incurred of hours lost, hotel nights at UA's cost, general bad blood, and almost assuredly some other kind of compensation that would result from the inevitable nasty letter that would follow those SYD pax misconnecting is apparently still not enough for the OP to realize that those people getting the seats and you not getting a seat was a good call on UA's part.

I'm defending the majority's position on an issue in the UA forum...someone must have put angel dust in my coffee.

did the OP ever post if he got stranded overnight? whta was the final outcome?

Read post #13. The OP was on the top of the BP5B waitlist. But BP5A trumps that. Always has, and (hopefully) always will.

But the OP was not confirmed, why would they call for VDB's to let someone goo standby? Then they have to give out compensation to someone, in order to let a non-confirmed PAX fly. Makes no sense.

1Ks are never told they have top Priority. In fact, the 1K benefit states:

Priority airport standby (where allowed by law) if you do not have a confirmed reservation on a Star Alliance flight.

Priority does not equate to top-priority.

I agree, it should stay that way. I

But in all the marketing fluff, Elites are always told standbys are sorted by elite status. In this case, they weren't. If you simply look at it from that angle, it was wrong. Perhaps the message they send with standby-priority needs to be revised not to give elites a sense-of-entitlement in all cases.

Personally, if I was in the same shoes, i wouldn't care unless it caused me to overnight in transit.

Well, I wouldn't expect them to do a VDB, but it would have been a nice way to avert a situation. Plus, now they have a stuck passenger in SFO. I guess the question is if the delay was just a few hours or if there was an overnight involved. if it was just a few hours, suck it up and deal. If there was an overnight then I don't believe it was handled properly.

From what I remember, on the gate monitors the order listed is:
1) Irregular Operations
2) Status (GS, 1K, PremEx, Prem)

In this case, both the OP and the four passengers were affected by #1. One would assume within #1, #2 is considered as the secondary sort order.

Yes they were. The other passengers were not standby - they were considered disserviced passengers.

One would be wrong.

Actually, after re-reading the OP, the 4 PAX were not even on the standby list. They were transfered to this flight. So there was space available, that the OP was waiting for on standby. The other PAX were then re-ticket onto the flight, and the GA asked that the 4 pax not be IVDBd. Then no standby space was available for the OP. So basically, the OP was standby, and other PAX were confirmed for the flight, making the Sort Order moot.

The fact is - UA could have had four pax that would have required overnight stays in SFO/LAX and a full 24-hour delay vs. 1 who possibly had to stay in SFO and a few hour delay. Had the OP been proactive, after the flight closed, they should have requested to be put on another carrier. Everytime delays have caused me to miss my last connection, I have always called and asked to be routed on another carrier. As a 2P, i have never once been denied, and the cause has always been delays due to WX or ATC. While it is possible, as UA can be inconsistent, I would think chances are good that a 1K wouldn't have much trouble getting the same.

How would this have averted "a situation?" Sure, it would have averted the OP's situation, but the situation of the 4 stuck GM's would have been worse. UA made the right call here.

I think fozz meant having the GA ask for 1 other pax to VDB, not one of the 4 pax.

But why should they ask a confirmed PAX to VDB, so someone on the standby list can go. That makes no sense. They were not over booked.

Umm, I wouldn't be bringing the issue up had I not had an overnight delay. As it stands, EVERYONE involved was going to be stranded overnight, and yes, I spent the night at the lovely Red Roof Inn SFO...

As for the 24hour overnight delay vs. my 10hr overnight delay, is time the only criteria for 'inconvenience'? They were vacationing to SYD. I got 4 hours of sleep, missed my morning client meeting, and am now going to miss my afternoon meeting b/c UA also lost my bag in all of this. So yes... who's really more inconvenienced? Vacationers that could've slept for 10 hours & hung out in SF, or someone thats now going to miss 2 client meetings?

So this is the problem. I was trying to get confirmed into SEA-LAX direct, but told that Y was full, and that I had to go on standby list and wait to clear. All the meanwhile, another CSR goes ahead and confirms her 4 pax into SEA-LAX outside of the standby window, thereby effectively taking status and everything else out of the equation.