Class conscious: UA denies J passenger salmon

[airbound]

I noticed the following letter ("Class conscious") in the SMH about a UA J passenger who claims to have been denied her request for salmon because her status did not entitle her to select that from the menu: Letters: seat charge rankles

What do we make of this?

PS, I am not the author of the letter; nor do I have any involvement in this matter!

 

[anat0l]

I have a reply very similar to my sentiments expressed in this thread:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/ua-perks-status-pax-j-28942.html

Although for this letter it is rather odd and a little bit off of a FA to state the words quoted by the letter writer, if those are the exact words the FA said. Sure, the highest status pax may have the privilege of getting first dibs on items which may run an item out, but there's a slightly more genteel (if still blunt) way of saying that.

In the end, it's still a case of naivety on the part of the passenger. "Words fail to describe?" I suppose none of those words could possibly be good, but them's the rules. As for whether they are a frequent flyer, it's too difficult (and will never happen in a context like this) to establish just how frequent a flyer they really are/were (after all, had they been of the highest tier of frequent flyer, they probably would've been asked their preference and got it, unless the majority of the cabin (>60%) were top tier frequent flyers who all wanted the same dish).

 

[drron]

Does look like a problem with United staff training-as Anat01 has said this issue has been discussed before.Certainly better ways to handle it.
On AA when my preference was unavailable in J the FA sourced a similiar F meal-much better way of recognising status.
Then there was my one time on BA F.The purser approached me saying there are only 2 servings of lobster for tonight.As you and the gentleman behind you are the only fare paying guests do you want the lobster.We did.I understand this(ie fare paid)as a better business way of deciding meals.

 

[anat0l]

Does look like a problem with United staff training-as Anat01 has said this issue has been discussed before.Certainly better ways to handle it.

Whether they need further training and whether there are certainly better ways to handle it is actually difficult to determine.

On AA when my preference was unavailable in J the FA sourced a similiar F meal-much better way of recognising status.

Assuming you were a AA EXP, alright then. That's a nice resolution, although if you were only a AA GLD, probably may or may not be fair for you to get a F meal and the other AA EXPs getting J meals, even if they got their preference (of course, for you personally it wouldn't be "unfair", since you have benefited or come out of the situation nicely). All it does is set an uncomfortable precedent, and for the other AA EXPs they may be insisting why didn't they get F meals rather than a lowly GLD. Of course, what they don't know can't hurt them............

Then there was my one time on BA F.The purser approached me saying there are only 2 servings of lobster for tonight.As you and the gentleman behind you are the only fare paying guests do you want the lobster.We did.I understand this(ie fare paid)as a better business way of deciding meals.

Once again, you could have an argument until the cows come home as to the merits of how to separate / rank pax based on status and/or fair paid. FT is full of such arguments (irrespective of the actual quality of such arguments on FT).

 

[NYCguy]

I thought that it was well-known that UA divvy-out the meals in F and J according to MP status? I had heard a rumour that they were changing to a fare-value system, so that a business-class passenger on a full C fare, for example, would be offered a choice before the passengers on D or Z tickets, with the upgrades bringing up the rear and taking the leftovers.

Anyhoo, it seems that the FA was a little caustic on this occasion, but we only have the complainants side of the story and it is, thus, difficult to judge. Methinks the complainant is hoping for her story to coast through, given the reputation that UA FAs have for being... Challenging... At times.

I'd never eat salmon from an aircraft galley in any case - surely it must be terribly overdone, unless you're physically cooking it in-flight, and in PS C, that ain't gonna happen.

 

[markis10]

The general public would not be too aware of what an airlines procedures are when it only has two flights a day to Australia, mind you I got off a DJ flight this morning to hear the rants of a pax charged excess baggage, so regardless of the number of flights ther are plenty of people that believe in ignorance is bliss .

 

[tuapekastar]

I think it's a loopy system, and I certainly was unaware of it, not having flown UA for 15 years, and never having had status with them.

What happens if the 'status' pax don't want the salmon, but rather whatever the non-status pax have ordered (because they couldn't order the salmon). Does the FA return to pax and say, "well, actually, you can have the salmon, and you can't have the dish I 'forced' you to order because I now want it for the status pax in 5A (whose salmon you now can - indeed will - have)"?

Frankly, when you're in the same cabin, you should have the same menu, no matter whether you're UA's highest status pax on a full fare, or non-status on a miles redemption flight.

If you're going to employ such a silly system, then at least have different menus for status and non-status pax, or take orders from status pax first and then advise other pax what is still available. And even that sounds silly.

Dumb as cough!

 

[Austman]

Having experienced how UA actually do this, I suspect the letter writer got it a bit wrong. The FAs sometimes criss-cross the F/J cabin taking orders first from status passengers. Passengers without status can miss out on their choice.

I've been on a paid F ticket and have have been one of the last to have my order taken. Upgraded seat mates, who had status, have also thought it strange that someone who actually paid for an F fare would be considered below the upgradred pasengers. And on a domestic UA flight a LOT of the passengers in the F/J cabin can be upgrades.

Oh, I found a link to when I whined about this over ten years ago! It had some good replies from UA staff - including that they don't know who is on a paid fare and who is upgraded.

"Odd" things that I think happen on United's paid first class domestic flights - FlyerTalk Forums

 

[Moopere]

If you're going to employ such a silly system, then at least have different menus for status and non-status pax, or take orders from status pax first and then advise other pax what is still available. And even that sounds silly.

I'd probably vote for this. Paying, status then everyone else. See them in that order too so that you don't have to do too much juggling.

 

[JohnK]

What is the point of having a printed menu with main meal choices if your choice is not going to be available? Some passengers will look at the menu and decide if they will have dinner or not. Others will look at the meal choice and set their heart on a meal either because they like it or cannot eat the other choice.

You can't please everybody but the best solution would be to do away with printed menus on all flights (think of how much money the airline could save on printing costs and also less weight for the aircraft to carry) and in premium cabins offer a verbal choice of meals to all status passengers first and then work down the ranking list of passengers.

For economy simply offer the choice of meals during the meal service.