whytravelsomuch

Unlike domestic carriers, AC actually gets paid premium cabin reservations. So between upgrades and paid tickets, I've seen plenty of J cabins on AC flights I've been on filled. In any case, I never stated in my posts that J was definitely filled or there definitely werent other premium cabin options available. I posed a possibility as to why the passengers werent reaccomodated into a premium cabin instead of just right away resorting to bashing to the airline. Also, travelers cant have the "woe is me" attitude when traveling, know your options and have those options in mind when dealing with IRROPS and the airlines. Any frequent flyer should know that.

fly747first

Ok, so let me ask you, if there were premium seats, why wasn't the OP put in one when the schedule changes weren't his fault in the first place? Clearly, we don't know if indeed there were premium seats available, but my point is that if there were J seats available, there was absolutely no reason for the airline that caused the problem to not reaccomodate the passenger in the same class of service. I highly doubt the agent didn't know that "J" on AC means full fare business class which is the booking class that typically INVOLs go into regardless of whether the passenger is on a paid or award ticket since US can't force AC to release "I" booking class for an award business seat.

ariyo15

The (AC direct) flight left with THREE open F seats

tommyleo

Dang. Guilty as charged.

fly747first

Well it is AC, so to be technical, J is its highest bucket since AC premium classes are Executive and ExecutiveFirst, but J is the highest bucket used for both.

whytravelsomuch

Where did I say that the airline shouldnt reaccomodate the passengers in a premium cabin? I didnt. Again, if you read what I've said, I'm simply trying to show that there are multiple possibilities as to what could have happened in this situation so to jump on the "lets bash the airline" bandwagon without knowing every fact, isnt justified.

whytravelsomuch

Were those seats available at the time you were reaccomodated to the AC flight? Had they been boooked by other passengers who maybe misconnected?

Superguy

What one person's definition of "right" may not be another's, especially when their are multiple factors involved. The airline would be more "right" in accommodating the pax in a lower class of service on an arguably lower class airline IF it gave downgrade compensation along with it - such as refunding the mileage difference between F and C for one way.

If an airline is going to reaccommodate me, I expect to be reaccommodated in the same class of service on the same airline, and have any deviations discussed from there. Depending on the situation, other alternatives such as a different airline and a different class of service MAY be acceptable and only if I consent to it. Unilaterally deciding to move me to a different airline in a lower class of service is not what I would have agreed to or paid for, and I would expect to be compensated appropriately.

Bottom line: reaccommodating on the same airline in the same class of service on the next available flight is fine even the timing or routing is different - that's what an airline is expected to do. Any other deviations should be discussed with the customer BEFORE the change is made.

It's not a matter of just bashing the airline. The airline didn't do the right thing here. I don't know anyone here that wouldn't be pissed having confirmed OZ in F and being forced into UA C. That's as bad as going from C to Y.

Captain Flush

In principle, I agree with you 100%. But regardless of whether any of us would want to agree to change from OZ to UA, technically we've already agreed to it by booking an award in the first place, since "US Airways is the final authority in choosing routing and the Dividend Miles partner to provide award travel, including the right to choose the most efficient routings and partners based on the desired origin and destination." Not to mention most travelers, flyertalk aside, wouldn't care or might even have their own reasons for preferring UA over OZ. I agree that downgrade compensation for changing from F to J is necessary here, but I think arguing that OZ to UA is a downgrade in and of itself is realistically correct, but a losing argument in terms of compensation owed. It's lousy customer service, but completely within US's rights.

Not to mention, I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least one of two other factors came into play (to be clear, this is just speculation): (1) blissful ignorance--really, how many US agents do you think have flown OZ and can compare it firsthand to UA TPAC, or monitor this forum and have an idea of the generally accepted hierarchy of *A partners?--or (2) perhaps the negotiated rates US pays OZ for award seats are higher than the rates US pays UA, so reaccommodating pax on UA instead of OZ saves US money?

tommyleo

I listed a few examples in this thread of my being compensated by US for poor service that was still within US's policy and CoC. Airlines will sometimes compensate based on common sense and good customer service rather than simply saying to a customer, "Sorry, we're in our rights to screw you."

Captain Flush

Yes, and they often should. My point was that they don't have to, because we've already agreed to let US be the final decisionmaker any time we book a ticket, and arguing "I wouldn't have agreed to that" is technically meaningless.

Also, experiences may vary, but I'd generally expect that common sense and good customer service would make more of a difference in terms of an airline deciding whether to give compensation at all than in terms of deciding how much more to sweeten the pot after deciding to give compensation in the first place. Particularly where the list of supposed wrongs may arguably be reaching a teeny bit, as some of the discussion in this thread suggests.

whytravelsomuch

I was actually referring in my posts to the OP complaining about US moving him to an AC non stop since the SFO/PHX was delayed not about the other flights changing. The airline is above all obligated to get a passenger to their destination in the most timely manner possible regardless of class of service which they did in this part of the OPs trip. Also, passengers cant just sit back and play "woe is me" when something goes wrong. You have to be prepared with a back up plan such as knowing what flights have seats available, etc. If you arent prepared, you get stuck with whatever the airline decides to give you.

Superguy

I agree that pax need to be proactive and have alternatives to present to the airline in IRROPS situations. A good agent will work with you to give you what you want if it's within their power to do so (or maybe even if it's not if you have an exceptional one willing to bend some rules). However, there's always those times when you run into an employee who either won't help you or can't help you due to policy or incompetence. All the alternatives in the world won't help you in those situations.

There have been numerous threads here about US screwing up an award (or hell, even a rev ticket involving *A carriers), and then leaving the pax in a sticky situation. In a lot of those cases, pax figured out what was wrong and proposed alternatives but couldn't get the airline to work with them, or were stuck in the ping pong between carriers blaming each other.

While a proactive pax can mitigate a lot of airline crap most of the time, there are times when the airline isn't cooperative and you have to deal with them after the fact.

Superguy

I don't think it's a terribly hard concept for agents to grasp, regardless if they have flown another carrier's premium product or not. I don't think anyone can compare F on a carrier with C on another carrier. Bottom line is a person pays for F, it doesn't matter what the agent thinks - C is not the same as F and there's a difference. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a big premium for F over C.

If there was a reason US's system dropped the OZ F segment and couldn't get it back, and they had to move him to UA, they should have put him in UA F. While the F experience of OZ vs UA may be way different, they're still "equivalent" classes of service - at least on paper. While UA's F isn't anything special, it's still a noticeable step up from C at least in hard product.

There may indeed be a difference in what US pays OZ for that F seat vs what it pays UA. That's the whole point of what limiting awards does - push pax to certain preferred carriers with greater availability. However, in this case, US screws up, drops the segments and can't get them back. Even if US would have had to cough up more money to get him back on OZ than UA, that isn't the pax's problem. US was the one that screwed up, and US is the one that should fix it. If it costs them more money - oh well. That's the price of customer service and for having crappy IT systems. If it doesn't want to pay out for OZ F, then it should upgrades its systems.

ariyo15

I was actually standing in front of the US agent with ExpertFlyer open on my iPad. It showed two (or maybe three) seats in "J" available. Again, as I mentioned. It did end up with three empty seats.