United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - Dear UA (letter): UA should create an E class Fare

Dear UA,

As you know, Delta is contemplating in implementing a new E class fare, which are more restrictive than its lowest fares (e.g. no refunds and seat assignments); this type of fare seems to be targeted at the leisure traveller.

I ask you to create a comparable fare class, targeted at the leisure traveller that also creates value for your seasoned traveller. I think creating the E class fare with no MP miles will create more value and reward your most loyal customers. Instead of constantly diluting the MP program, enhance it by reducing the amount of MP miles given to leisure travellers.

As a seasoned traveller of UA, I would be more than willing to "pay" extra for a seat that gives me MP miles, seat assignment and some flexibility. To that extent, UA should then use the extra "revenue" created to enhance further the MP program (e.g. more awards seat availability, more opportunity for upgrades, better customer service).

I am sure that my FT colleagues will have differing opinions, but this could be something that UA should look into and create more value for its frequent traveller.

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

This is a terrible idea for those of us traveling for business under fairly strict "low-fare" purchasing rules.

edit... (Looks like mre5765 beat me to it...)

Not sure I really buy into what DL is trying to do. The "discount" is nominal and since DL seems to be an airline that leads the way in fare increases it can easily be used as a method to increase fares. Airlines have already tried to decrease the earning rate on deep discount Y tickets without much success. Many leisure travelers still want miles despite how little they have and how hard it is for them to redeem.

Also I doubt any family leisure travelers will go for this as not having an assigned seat creates an issue with children.

In my opinion the main problem I see with such fares is that there is no way to properly fence them from busines travelers. When the fares are distributued many corporate travel booking tools will display them as mandatory. I think this could discourage some and perhaps many business travelers from continuing to book UA. It's a slippery slope.

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

Absolutely! Penny counter will immediately book us into this fare! NO NO NO!

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should the argument be, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

I'd be fine with it, but I doubt we'd ever see any real benefits so I wouldn't push for it.

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should the argument be, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

I think this question at least in the US is pretty much settled. Even the Federal Government finally relented and admited that employees should be the ones to keep miles.

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should the argument be, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

The person who pays for the trip has the "right" to the miles. Most US companies, though, I think take the view that miles are a form of compensation for the fact that they are forcing you to be on the road. I know if I had a job offer that forced me to travel a lot but the company kept the miles, I would be substantially less interested in taking the job vs. a company that lets you keep the miles.

Now, in lieu of miles, the company gave me an extra $5k a year, then I might reevaluate. But keeping/not keeping miles is a part of compensation just like any other part of your package.

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should be argue, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

Forget the miles and status for a minute.

You have a employee who travels regularly - maybe every week or at least multiple times per month. Do you really want this person confined to a middle seat at the back of the plane for most of their trips? I don't. It makes it that much more difficult to stay productive on the road, and provides additional incentive to discourage travel - for most companies a not so great idea.

Furthermore, let's assume this employee has special skills or is just an all around rock star. Do you really want this person chaffing under a restrictive travel policy when recruiters are knocking on the door?

Again, for many of us it's not so simple as "you want the benefits, then pay for them". My boss is quite progressive and in fact so is our CEO - for the most part I find our travel policy reasonably flexible. However, expenses and expense policy is governed by corporate finance, and they have their own objectives which are solidly focused on cost containment; no different from any other big company finance team. If a no frills fare class is announced, it only further perpetuates the race to the bottom for the airlines while doing no favors for their customers.

I would hope UA realizes they have a good thing going with business travelers and avoid this nonsense. Back to the miles and status thing, if this change obviates the ability to qualify for the M+ program, it's just another very good reason to go out of the way to fly the competition. Even with an "E" class fare UA isn't often going to be the cheapest option for many.

The concept of bare bones fares such as DL E which have key features such as: 1) no changes of any kind; 2) no refund of any kind; 3) no seat assignment; 4) low or no miles/points are appealing to some leisure travelers.

The notion that a carrier shouldn't offer a fare because somebody else's employer might insist that he uses it is a non-starter.

And, looking at it from a business business perspective, these fares (which have existed in Europe) for some time, are not particularly appealing. The savings are generally not that great, but the value of the ticket is $0 if not used exactly as issued. Business needs change daily, people get sick, it may be worth it to get an employee home early. Paying $150 and using the credit later, paying an SDC fee (maybe) and the like are well worth it for most employers.

Clearly, if "E"-type fares are offered, busineeses will have to ealuate their travel policies. Today's focus on changes which can be accomplished for a fee and cancellations which result in a credit.

In my opinion the main problem I see with such fares is that there is no way to properly fence them from busines travelers. When the fares are distributued many corporate travel booking tools will display them as mandatory.
Believe it or not, the process of excluding these from specific booking portals is not actually all that difficult. Just like the airlines can not publish the award inventory buckets into various GDS views they can filter these fares out if the company wants it that way.

Definitely not.......this will just give buyers MORE to complain about.....

MORE to ask for "one time exceptions"......"I'm 1k"...."Is this the way you treat your frequent flyers?".....etc, etc, etc.

Passengers don't read the fine print now on restricted tickets and they're not going to read or want to know about anything even more restrictive (especially if someone else (corporate or whatever) is issuing their tickets).

Please, give us a break......I'm already loaded down with explaining restrictions (some of which even I think are ridiculous) that no one wants to comply with. It's too much already......and TOO MUCH IS ENOUGH !

one of the big reasons airlines like points and status tiers is that it's an addictive game for their customers. how are they going to get new (i.e., young) people hooked on it if they remove miles from their lowest fares?

in reality they should probably do exactly the opposite – you should get some kind of a special reward for your first flight on an airline along with a big carrot to take your second flight... the first "tier" of status should be much lower, not higher. (if you're viewing this question from the airline's perspective)

Definitely not.......this will just give buyers MORE to complain about.....

MORE to ask for "one time exceptions"......"I'm 1k"...."Is this the way you treat your frequent flyers?".....etc, etc, etc.

Passengers don't read the fine print now on restricted tickets and they're not going to read or want to know about anything even more restrictive (especially if someone else (corporate or whatever) is issuing their tickets).

Please, give us a break......I'm already loaded down with explaining restrictions (some of which even I think are ridiculous) that no one wants to comply with. It's too much already......and TOO MUCH IS ENOUGH !

How many "true" 1K would buy these type fares, where the fare does not have give any FF miles.

Besides, if UA clearly state the fare's restrictions, then what recourse does the individual have.

There are always going to be people who ask for exceptions, but at least these will be "true" 1Ks that paid more the cheapest fare to earn their respective status.

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

The person who pays for the trip has the "right" to the miles. Most US companies, though, I think take the view that miles are a form of compensation for the fact that they are forcing you to be on the road. I know if I had a job offer that forced me to travel a lot but the company kept the miles, I would be substantially less interested in taking the job vs. a company that lets you keep the miles.

Now, in lieu of miles, the company gave me an extra $5k a year, then I might reevaluate. But keeping/not keeping miles is a part of compensation just like any other part of your package.

Barring special arrangements, I don't believe anybody has the "right" to any miles. Even per the T&C, UA reserves the right to change the program at any time, so I suppose it's more of a contingent "privilege", bestowed upon the party of UA's choosing.

A typical SMB can't really have a policy/view that the company earns the miles (or at least they can't enforce it). There's simply no mechanism for it.

This is a terrible idea for those of us traveling for business under fairly strict "low-fare" purchasing rules.

edit... (Looks like mre5765 beat me to it...)

Totally agree. That would be a disaster for me, and most likely I'll end up flying wn instead. UA please ignore OP!

How many "true" 1K would buy these type fares....
What, pray tell, is a "true" 1K?? :confused:

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

Wow, buy last 2 companies both were "unthinking" by your definition. More likely they cared about $$$, and figured most of the time that plans didn't change, and if they did then the cost of the occasional new ticket was less than the flexibility for all approach.

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

We have a cheapest fare policy. The theory is the times my employer has to cancel and rebook are small compared to the cost of more flexible tix. I am federally funded (University contractor) so we (unlike some govt agencies! ) must make the most of the public $$.. And yes, not only is it a struggle to attract talent from private industry (sorry, no Business class even for a 15 hour long haul!) it is hard to attract talent from overseas where travel policies are more permissive...

And of course my argument against E class fares is entirely self centered! But like United would listen to me anyway :D

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

Mine regularly does, figuring that in the few cases where they get burned, they're making up for it in savings across the majority. We have to book the cheapest fare with only latitude given as to airport choice and flight times.

Dear UA,

As you know, Delta is contemplating in implementing a new E class fare, which are more restrictive than its lowest fares (e.g. no refunds and seat assignments); this type of fare seems to be targeted at the leisure traveller.

I ask you to create a comparable fare class, targeted at the leisure traveller that also creates value for your seasoned traveller. I think creating the E class fare with no MP miles will create more value and reward your most loyal customers. Instead of constantly diluting the MP program, enhance it by reducing the amount of MP miles given to leisure travellers.

As a seasoned traveller of UA, I would be more than willing to "pay" extra for a seat that gives me MP miles, seat assignment and some flexibility. To that extent, UA should then use the extra "revenue" created to enhance further the MP program (e.g. more awards seat availability, more opportunity for upgrades, better customer service).

I am sure that my FT colleagues will have differing opinions, but this could be something that UA should look into and create more value for its frequent traveller.

Leisure travelers are not program loyal. Just let them book the the carrier with the lowest ticket. Why maked United a LLC? (I know, we can argue many ways that United already is LLC)

"To that extent, UA should then use the extra "revenue" created to enhance further the MP program (e.g. more awards seat availability, more opportunity for upgrades, better customer service).

To the OP. Do you REALLY think UA is going to use extra revenue for the pleasure of the traveler? Do you have much esperience in the corporate world, esp the airline and UA world? They are taking everything away from the traveler. They will take the money for themselves.

The 'G' fare is quite low, and if you plan your travel far enough in advance and look hard you can find them.

Adding a lower, zero perk, sit in the lav fare is not a good idea. Also how may of these 'E' fares does delta release? If it is just a few than they will be imposible to find on popular routes and snached up quick. What is next unicorn fares? You can fly standby on any flight for free.....if you can find that fare ;)

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

Boom. I'd have to insist our travel agent book me on AA so I know I'm earning miles.

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

Few employers "think". They institute policies and execute them. Our policy is cheapest ticket, change when you need it-- even if it would be cheaper to get a flexible fare in the first place. I've had tickets change enough times that it would have been cheaper to get paid F in the first place!

No no no no no no no no no no. :td::td::td::td::td:

Thanks, but no thanks :td:

Barring special arrangements, I don't believe anybody has the "right" to any miles. Even per the T&C, UA reserves the right to change the program at any time, so I suppose it's more of a contingent "privilege", bestowed upon the party of UA's choosing.

A typical SMB can't really have a policy/view that the company earns the miles (or at least they can't enforce it). There's simply no mechanism for it.

Well that's why I put "right" in quotation marks. Corporations can (and some do) require that any travel booked using their $$ include their FF account number. Violations of that would (eventually) result in termination.

So no, I don't think employees have any kind of right to the miles (the miles are extended as a courtesy of United, with the permission/acknowledgement of the corporation). The corporation, being the one that both pays for the ticket and your salary, has a much stronger claim (but, as you note, most voluntarily relinquish that claim).

Look at the MP rules. Credits (miles or segments) belong to UA, not to the pax or his employer.

But, none of that changes the simple fact that an employer could, and many do, require that miles earned on business travel be used for the company's benefit. In other words, awards are to be used for business travel.

That is a labor issue between employer and employee and has nothing to do with MP.

Bottom line: There are short and long-term issues in all employment relationships. Only the individual can determine whether s/he can live with the employer's policies. Over time, employers with overly restrictive rules lose their top people to competitors and are stuck with the dregs.

Barring special arrangements, I don't believe anybody has the "right" to any miles. Even per the T&C, UA reserves the right to change the program at any time, so I suppose it's more of a contingent "privilege", bestowed upon the party of UA's choosing.

A typical SMB can't really have a policy/view that the company earns the miles (or at least they can't enforce it). There's simply no mechanism for it.

Well that's why I put "right" in quotation marks. Corporations can (and some do) require that any travel booked using their $$ include their FF account number. Violations of that would (eventually) result in termination.

So no, I don't think employees have any kind of right to the miles (the miles are extended as a courtesy of United, with the permission/acknowledgement of the corporation). The corporation, being the one that both pays for the ticket and your salary, has a much stronger claim (but, as you note, most voluntarily relinquish that claim).

The point I was trying to make is that the company (or any purchaser) really isn't involved in the mileage crediting process. Contract arrangements may be different, but most companies don't have the option to even make a decision one way or the other. As far as I know, the miles go to the passenger or nobody at all.

I don't really see the advantage to UA of this (or to DL for that matter). The things you drop don't really cost that much to the airline, particularly for the leisure traveler. Most of the folks that would buy this are the ones that simply look for the cheapest flight on Kayac or equivalent - even if you give them miles it is questionable how many of them they ever cash in.

On the other hand, remember that the original motivation for FF programs were attracting the biz traveler in an age when regulation dictated essentially equal fares. I.e., why did a biz guy choose to fly UA versus AA when the fares were the same under regulation. FF programs were a brilliant solution to this issue of marketing to a person other than the one who paid the bill. In reality it isn't that different today. Fares for the near-in buyer (i.e. biz guy) are often very similar. So again what tool does the airline have to lure the customer - the FF program and its perqs are a big tool here. The last think the airline wants is to have the biz traveler become, in terms of their purchase behavior, another Orbitz/Kayac guy. Yes, I know that there are cheapest ticket policies at a lot of companies. But please tell me that folks on this board understand every detail of the wiggle room in the particular policies they book under and how to work the policies to their benefit in most cases. I doubt that the is a UA1K or a AAEXP out there that isn't generally able to direct the overwhelming majority of their business to their chosen carrier. Why would the airline want to destroy this behavior?

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should the argument be, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

Failure to earn status means that I will have to pay for, and then expense to my employer, the cost of checking bags.

I am the one who travels, I did agree to the T&Cs of the job that require travel, and I joined with an assumption that I would be able to earn status so that I would enjoy aisle seats, exit rows, and the odd upgrade to first class. When I made 1K, I found that the status let me get to first class more often, and on long hauls, I could upgrade to business class. So now I travel more, to the mutual benefit of my employer, UA, and me.

Bring in E fare class, and I will travel much much less. UA will get much less revenue, perhaps 1/10 as much.

DL's E fare class is a big opportunity for SMI/J to capitalize, and after this pss cock up, he needs the opportunity. Let AC and DL go down the tubes while UA reaps profits.

UA already has an E fare bucket, and it's not a heavily discounted fare. They have S T L K buckets that are discounted. What's the point of all this?

UA already has an E fare bucket, and it's not a heavily discounted fare. They have S T L K buckets that are discounted. What's the point of all this?

Pick an unused letter. OP is arguing that there should be a discount fare class that does not accrue miles or status.



On the other hand, remember that the original motivation for FF programs were attracting the biz traveler in an age when regulation dictated essentially equal fares. I.e., why did a biz guy choose to fly UA versus AA when the fares were the same under regulation.

FF programs came out in the 1980s well after deregulation.

Prior to deregulation, the government set fares that guaranteed profits to airlines, so there was no need for FF programs. Indeed, it is not clear that under regulation, FF programs that allowed customers to redeem seats for miles, i.e. less than the government mandated fares, would even be legal.

Under deregulation, commercial aviation became a profitless business because fares were lowered across the industry to the same level due to increased competition and the government getting out of the fare setting business. Loyalty programs were invented in a futile attempt to make the business profitable. Any airline without a loyalty program loses more than the ones with a loyalty program.

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

Agree. NO!

A big "No" for this idea. The new crop of management at UA would just use it as a baseline for further reductions to MP+.

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

:confused:

Lots of employers do just that. It especially makes sense if the difference between the changable and non-changable fare is higher than the change fee.

Man that cheapest fare thing sounds awful, should be cheapest non-stop. Living in a hub city helps out with that. Still not against this idea if it provided some benefits.

This is no good.

Simple solution, continue to increase airfares gradually and we will see less and less leisure travelers onboard.

My speculation for why DL introduced the E fare: It will allow them to lowball their competitors by $10-15 thus propelling them to the top of many search results.

For what it's worth -- AA already has a number of fare classes that earn reduced points towards FF status.

:confused:

Lots of employers do just that. It especially makes sense if the difference between the changable and non-changable fare is higher than the change fee.
The whole point of what DL calls an "E" fare is that it's not changeable. There is no change fee. If you don't fly as booked, you lose the entire value of the ticket. No credit for future travel or anything.

For what it's worth -- AA already has a number of fare classes that earn reduced points towards FF status.

I think this is a good comprise. FF will receive the benefits according to what they pay. Obviously, if a person buys the more expensive ticket, they will get their status faster.

If I was a leisure traveller, I would be very price sensitive and not worry about the miles. While, being a seasoned traveller, I want the opportunity for awards tickets, upgrades and etc.

I think we have to remember that the E fare basis will be limited in number and probably be offered weeks to months in advance (maybe a 4 weeks in advance). So for anyone usually booking corporate, travel these tickets may not be available to them. I think if structured correctly, you will less leisure fliers in MP, which will mean better and more benefits for the FF.

... I think creating the E class fare with no MP miles will create more value and reward your most loyal customers. ....I guess I'm having a problem with this statement.
No miles means no status, no benefits --- for a traveler only looking for lowest fare and with no benefits no reason to pick one carrier over another other than price. How does this build or demonstrate loyalty?

I guess I'm having a problem with this statement.
No miles means no status, no benefits --- for a traveler only looking for lowest fare and with no benefits no reason to pick one carrier over another other than price. How does this build or demonstrate loyalty?

Think of it as...E class buyers will not get credit for FF miles and will not dilute the MP program, hence it will create more value for FF with status. No dilution of the program = more value.

Pick an unused letter. OP is arguing that there should be a discount fare class that does not accrue miles or status.



FF programs came out in the 1980s well after deregulation.

Prior to deregulation, the government set fares that guaranteed profits to airlines, so there was no need for FF programs. Indeed, it is not clear that under regulation, FF programs that allowed customers to redeem seats for miles, i.e. less than the government mandated fares, would even be legal.



I know the timeline. Dereg dates to the 1978 act and most of it became effective by around 1980. Nevertheless, that early post dereg period saw relatively little fare differentiation compared with today and most tickets from different carriers between the same destinations cost the same. It was common to be able to take a ticket from one carrier and simply hand it to another carrier and have it all work. In that environment, airlines, who were no longer guaranteed profit by the goverment had to figure out how to compete for business in ways mostly other than prices - at least for biz travelers. My point was that in this environment FF programs were a creative answer to this problem of selling a largely equally priced product to people who weren't paying (and in any case would pay the same no matter who they flew).

Unfortunately this is only a matter of time. If an airline can make more profit un-bundling and then up-selling at the airport or at OLCI then they need to do it. We are a small minority, the average kettle will just pick the cheapest flight on any given day. Once the airlines have them locked in they have to milk them for all they can. :rolleyes:

I'm sure that may have sounded like a good idea at first glance, but as all of us who work for someone else and fly a lot know ... this would be opening up Pandora's Box.

My employer requires I take the lowest proposed fare, with some leeway ($100-200). UA is typically not the absolutely lowest but I can usually make it work and they are our preferred carrier.

I am assuming that the E class fare would wind up around the same net cost as my "normal" Q fare today - less the volume discount said VERY LARGE employer has negotiated (but I don't see). So if they are excluded from the volume contracts and don't mess with the system as it works today, then maybe I'd be OK with it.

Considering MANY of us fly nights, weekends... the FF bennies are something of a compensation for the overtime. My employer pays hourly workers for time traveled - including IRROPS - so I'm sure letting us salaried folks keep miles is a much better value proposition. Most of my EU based collegues are not normally taking red eyes or flying on Sundays.

As for leisure travelers, what's wrong with PriceLine. When you bid on a blind site (you don't know the airline) you don't get the FF points (at least that's how it used to be). Why not just let leisure travelers keep using those sites ... unless DL is so bent on wringing those pennies for themselves that they want to risk breaking a lot of passenger loyalties.

AC allows one to opt out of earning miles for a small reduction in fare.

All due respect - simply, this is the worst idea I have ever heard on FT.

Think of it as...E class buyers will not get credit for FF miles and will not dilute the MP program, hence it will create more value for FF with status. No dilution of the program = more value.If the E class flyer is principally the lowest fare seeker, they rarely accumulate enough miles or status to effect present FF, so likely little benefit for the present FF. Additionally providing no hope for status or miles, the E-fare purchaser will further have no reason for loyalty to the provider - re-enforcing the lowest fare seeking behavior.

Still see no value or loyalty improvements, just further defines travel as a commodity.

Can I then become an European then, fly on weekdays and during business hours only?

This is where EU and US businesses differ. The E class will not simply fly!

If the E class flyer is principally the lowest fare seeker, they rarely accumulate enough miles or status to effect present FF, so likely little benefit for the present FF. Additionally providing no hope for status or miles, the E-fare purchaser will further have no reason for loyalty to the provider - re-enforcing the lowest fare seeking behavior.

Still see no value or loyalty improvements, just further defines travel as a commodity.

I would agree to a certain extent if the leisure traveller only does one trip in his lifetime. But what if the leisure traveller did two to three trips a year for many years. He has accumulated enough points to get himself a ticket every several years. This would decrease the awards availability, year to year.

I would agree to a certain extent if the leisure traveller only does one trip in his lifetime. But what if the leisure traveller did two to three trips a year for many years. He has accumulated enough points to get himself a ticket every several years. This would decrease the awards availability, year to year.you are assuming they would use the same airline each time but in seeking lowest fare that might lead to multiple airlines. Even if did enough to get a ticket every x years, suspect credit card miles are a bigger issue than flight miles of an infrequent traveler.

some of us when booking are stuck with the lowest fare available with no visibility on fare code until after logging into an MP account. I'd be ticked if there was no FF benefits included because the booking engine I use doesn't give me an option to buy a ticket other than cheapest.

Bring back the TWARES, at least you knew what you were getting into from the start.

Dear UA.

NO!

As a corporate traveller I will end up on these E fares and earn nothing toward status.

DITTO.

The OP underestimates the stupidity of the corporate travel department.

As most have already pointed out, these "E" fares, will only force corporate travelers that have a mandated "lowest fare" requirement, to buy them. Then the concept of having these for leisure travelers, will go out the window. The inventory of E fares cannot be restricted to "leisure" travelers only, so ultimately, it will be people flying on business trips (which at one point were loyal UA flyers), to bear the burden of stripped out benefits.

Then, those people will start wondering why fly UA at all...

This serves no purpose other than to protect business flyers who are sheltered from the "lowest fare" rule, and those who have to buy "lowest fare" be damned.

Leisure flyers will fly whoever is cheaper... while loyal business flyers will make an all out effort to stay on UA, even if it means tweaking their travel requirements to force a UA itinerary.

Corporate travel departments don't think about complexities of change fees usually; they just look at what is cheap, and gamble with the possibility one will need to change.

There are a few fences which may work, say a 6 or 8 week advance purchase restriction which is much further out than most business traveler book - at least domestically. Also not having allowing any elite benefits on these fares will mean increased revenue from checked bag fees, same day standby etc. Corporate travel depts will learn soon enough when they see several hundred dollars expenses in bag fees and standby fees for a simple trip.

you are assuming they would use the same airline each time but in seeking lowest fare that might lead to multiple airlines. Even if did enough to get a ticket every x years, suspect credit card miles are a bigger issue than flight miles of an infrequent traveler.

Bingo.

Traveler A: gets 40,000 miles on a credit card.
Traveler B: flies 750 miles each way to see the grandkids twice a year (3,000 miles a year)

It's going to take almost a decade for B to redeem a round trip, assuming it is ALL on one carrier. Traveler A is a good chunk of the way to two redemptions on that carrier, almost a decade earlier.

Please, no, nein, nyet, no way!!

This is a terrible idea. Seriously man? :rolleyes:

You may be able to fly on last-minute business fares, but the rest of us plebs are paying our own way and feeding on L/K/G fares.

I doubt a thinking employer would book a person on a flight that can't be changed.

Want to bet?

This is an awful, awful, awful idea. There are plenty of ultra-discount carriers already out there. If you want a no-thrills, non-mileage earning flight at a cheap flight, go fly one of them.

Seems like majority of responses are from people flying on business.

Obviously UA wants to maximize it's profit with the business flyer, while attracting the leisure traveller. So I think, if UA puts enough requirements (such as 4 to 6 weeks in advance and etc), these fares won't even pop up on the fare listing when a business traveller goes to purchase.

What I am proposing is not rocket science...eliminate the leisure traveller from the MP program.

Maybe we should even charge membership fee to get the miles...similar to the credit companies....

What I am proposing is not rocket science...eliminate the leisure traveller from the MP program.

Why is this a good thing?

Seems like majority of responses are from people flying on business.

Obviously UA wants to maximize it's profit with the business flyer, while attracting the leisure traveller. So I think, if UA puts enough requirements (such as 4 to 6 weeks in advance and etc), these fares won't even pop up on the fare listing when a business traveller goes to purchase.

What I am proposing is not rocket science...eliminate the leisure traveller from the MP program.

Maybe we should even charge membership fee to get the miles...similar to the credit companies....

I'm confused what problem this solution is trying to solve.

I'm confused what problem this solution is trying to solve.

It unbundles the seat from everything else (miles, elite benefits, seat assignment, boarding group etc) and allows UA to compete with airlines that do the same. Delta is doing this.

It unbundles the seat from everything else (miles, elite benefits, seat assignment, boarding group etc) and allows UA to compete with airlines that do the same. Delta is doing this.

So the problem that's trying to be solved is to compete on low fares with Delta? Seems like an LCC move to me.

Given that the cost of miles is relatively cheap to UA (a few cents), and there is very very very little marginal cost to the other items (since the boarding group/elite/seat assignment infrastructure has to be there for everyone else, so you're not cutting the cost), this could effectively lower the cost of a ticket by ~$5 for a trans-con?

So in order to make that a net win situation, they'd have to be able to capture enough market share from people that want to save $5 such that it could pay for instituting such a program? Seems like a non-winner to me.

I'm confused what problem this solution is trying to solve.Believe the OP is thinking eliminating mileage earning for the leisure traveller would allow for lower leisure traveller fares (the E fare) and lower competition for use of miles for elites / business travellers. So a win-win (in OP's mind).

Some issues
-- here on FT there are elite leisure travellers, not a win for them
-- some business travellers have schedules / known fixed events and purchase 2 - 3 months or more in advance, so advance purchase time is not a clear separator of traveller type
-- corporate requirements of lowest economy fare would not allow many to buy up to mileage earning fares
-- credit cards are a source of many leisure traveller airline miles

So the problem that's trying to be solved is to compete on low fares with Delta? Seems like an LCC move to me.

Given that the cost of miles is relatively cheap to UA (a few cents), and there is very very very little marginal cost to the other items (since the boarding group/elite/seat assignment infrastructure has to be there for everyone else, so you're not cutting the cost), this could effectively lower the cost of a ticket by ~$5 for a trans-con?

So in order to make that a net win situation, they'd have to be able to capture enough market share from people that want to save $5 such that it could pay for instituting such a program? Seems like a non-winner to me.

It's not $5, consider that the Delta version is non-changeable. Any flight you can't make is a throwaway, so there is increased breakage. There are increased revenue opportunities because pax don't have elite benefits on these fares. And there are plenty of people who pick whatever comes up first on Kayak, including apparently those in corporate travel departments.

We have a low, non miles earning fare on my home airline (AC). It is called "Tango" and offers 25% non status (non Q miles I think UA calls them) miles. It is targeted at leisure travellers, however anyone who travels in business hates them as many corporate travel policys force you into the lowest fare class available.
AC also offers seat sales weekly, unfortunately these sale fares are generally contained within this discounted fare bucket. It looks like a good deal, but for those of us trying to maintain status the fares are useless and we have to buy up to a "tango plus" fare which earns miles.
The difference between "Tango" and "Tango plus" can be in the hundreds of dollars depending on distance.
Current policies at UA allow me to buy reasonably priced UA tickets and collect full miles, if UA opens a lower fare bucket, UA would potentialy lose customers who are seeking full miles, but who are unable to get on the upgrade list, a win win for UA customers.

One sinister thing that AC did whith the lower priced "Tango" fares was simply rename the lower fare buckets into non-earning tango fares, and raise the price of the new Tango plus earning fare buckets.

I hope UA does not go this route.

Then, those people will start wondering why fly UA at all...


True. With RJs for domestic, 757s for TATL and 737s for TPAC; I am an idiot to pay $100-$200 more for each UA flight. I really hope they do this, so that I just go with the most convenient aircraft (LH or BA from DEN) and F9 or WN or even DL for domestic.

I might even consider buying discount business class fare for leisure travel (no one is going to reimburse my business travel) and be done with this miles chasing.

It's the age old argument that the companies are paying for your airfare and you are getting the perk of the miles.

When I used to work in Europe, some companies kept the miles and pooled it for company use.

I am sure you will argue that you are the one to travel, but isn't the company paying you to work? Didn't you agree to the job, understanding that there might be some travel involved; was it not in the job description.

So should the argument be, who has the legit right to the miles (the entity that pays or the person that flies?)

Since I travel on my time, outside of my customary M-F 40 hour work week, I would argue that they would be taking extraordinary advantage of me by keeping the miles.

If I was allowed to get on a plane at 9 AM to fly out on a Monday and arrive back at my home airport by 5PM on the following Friday then I could see just chalking it up as another day at the office. As it is I have to fly out on Sunday nights or at 6 AM on Monday mornings and typically don't get back until after 8PM. That is a significant bite of my personal time that I am not compensated for.

NOOOO! Then MRs would be mostly (if not all) E fares. If the OP wants E fares he should move to Delta. Not trying to be harsh, but we dont need any further devaluation or "Changes We'll Like"

one of the big reasons airlines like points and status tiers is that it's an addictive game for their customers. how are they going to get new (i.e., young) people hooked on it if they remove miles from their lowest fares?

in reality they should probably do exactly the opposite – you should get some kind of a special reward for your first flight on an airline along with a big carrot to take your second flight... the first "tier" of status should be much lower, not higher. (if you're viewing this question from the airline's perspective)

The only problem is that the low tiers have too many elites on united as it is, giving a bonus or "lowering" the tier will further devaluate United, as there are millions of Premier Silvers (25,000-49,999) flyers. Also it seems United is attracting the customers who pays 10x more for a flight than most of us do. Im young and already "hooked" because of the benefits of attaining Premier (Silver) status. Even though I may not always get upgraded, I still have Priority Check-In, Security, Boarding and the checked bag which I do use.

These STUPID E fares from Delta were just one more nail in the coffin, that helped to convince me to not only do a 1K challenge status match to United (which I just completed yeah!), but to totally dump Delta for all future flights...(and this coming from a very loyal NWA-Delta Platinum/Diamond member since around 2000 or so...)

Being 6ft tall w/ a ~38" inseam, getting stuck in the back of the plane in a middle seat is not going to happen, which is why I will no longer fly Delta if I can avoid it (since our corporate travel policy will force us to book the cheapest available seats, even for international travel, like many other Fortune 500 companies do now days)...

TERRIBLE IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!

I trust that United is too smart to implement such a bad proposal...

NOOOO! Then MRs would be mostly (if not all) E fares. If the OP wants E fares he should move to Delta. Not trying to be harsh, but we dont need any further devaluation or "Changes We'll Like"

MRers would just do MRs in the cheapest eligible tickets--probably not a big issue for them.

Where this really hurts is the business traveler who is required by corporate travel to buy the cheapest available fares; not all business pax get to buy full Y or book at the last minute. Yet these pax can still be profitable for UA--corporate contracts basically guaranteeing UA business, for example.

Since I travel on my time, outside of my customary M-F 40 hour work week, I would argue that they would be taking extraordinary advantage of me by keeping the miles.

If I was allowed to get on a plane at 9 AM to fly out on a Monday and arrive back at my home airport by 5PM on the following Friday then I could see just chalking it up as another day at the office. As it is I have to fly out on Sunday nights or at 6 AM on Monday mornings and typically don't get back until after 8PM. That is a significant bite of my personal time that I am not compensated for.

Can I then become an European then, fly on weekdays and during business hours only?

This is where EU and US businesses differ. The E class will not simply fly!

Agreed. Hell, my office has a policy requiring supervisor approval for travel during business hours. Travel outside business hours can be booked without approval because we can bill the client extra for that travel time. Go figure.