MilesBuzz! - UA thinking of eliminating ff miles on cheap tickets

Along with other perks, like free checked baggage.

This would certainly be a very negative development for most flyertalkers.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4826081

Unbundled pricing is long overdue in the airline industry. Why should the passenger who does not accumulate miles subsidize those who do? Why should a middle seat sell for the same price as an aisle or a window?

Why should the passenger who does not accumulate miles subsidize those who do?

Um...I accumulate miles and generally fly on the cheapest tickets. It's funny I've just switched from AA to UA for most of my flying. If they institute this I'll be switching again. Why would it be fair to penalize those who buy cheap tickets because most of their travel is leisure and can be planned far in advance (or can be done on short notice when a sudden sale appears)?

Um...I accumulate miles and generally fly on the cheapest tickets. It's funny I've just switched from AA to UA for most of my flying. If they institute this I'll be switching again. Why would it be fair to penalize those who buy cheap tickets because most of their travel is leisure and can be planned far in advance (or can be done on short notice when a sudden sale appears)?



You can be sure that if one airline adopts this policy most others will too.

Um...I accumulate miles and generally fly on the cheapest tickets. Why would it be fair to penalize those who buy cheap tickets because most of their travel is leisure and can be planned far in advance (or can be done on short notice when a sudden sale appears)?

Did you read the article? You will still be able to earn miles on the lowest fares, but you will pay for them. Everyone pays for them now, they are bundled into the price of the ticket. The proposed system would break out the non-essential elements of the ticket and price them separately.

You'll be sure that if the airline applying this is losing customers and others are getting them, they won't follow. Anyway airlines have a lot of power on FFP, they can restrict award availability even more or they can ask for more miles per award. doesn't make sense not to give miles.

US airlines going to a British Airways type model wouldn't surprise me. Killing the frequent flyer programs, however, would be a Halloween nightmare scare. :D

AC is the innovator in the world of de-bundling. Robert Milton has been on this kick for several years now. The lowest fare (called Tango) has not earned status miles for several years now (but you still earn miles flown).
--
13F

Did you read the article? You will still be able to earn miles on the lowest fares, but you will pay for them. Everyone pays for them now, they are bundled into the price of the ticket. The proposed system would break out the non-essential elements of the ticket and price them separately.

Yes, but I bet the tickets won't get any cheaper. I'll just pay my usual fare + the ff charge and any luggage charge. I can't see UA going well since we're no longer allowing checked bags or ff points on that fare we'll lower it, and then once you add the new fees it'll be right back where it was.

.....

Southwest, AirTran, and JetBlue will thank them if they do this. :)

How far could this be taken? Would the FA's have to check your ticket before you used the lav to make sure your ticket covers that "extra"? And what would be the price difference between the coach lav and the first class lav?

I don't like this idea. :td:

Yes, but I bet the tickets won't get any cheaper. I'll just pay my usual fare + the ff charge and any luggage charge. I can't see UA going well since we're no longer allowing checked bags or ff points on that fare we'll lower it, and then once you add the new fees it'll be right back where it was.

I agree with this. I don't think I've ever seen a price get lowered in any industry wheninstituting something like this. It is just an excuse to charge more money to some people under the pretense of being "fair". I would be VERY surprised if they lowered the price of any ticket.

Flights on some other Star Alliance carriers' flights credited to UA's program already earn fractional mileage (if any) on some tickets operated by those Star Alliance carriers (such as LH, SK, etc.)

UA can do what they want. They treat domestic elites so poorly that I won't fly them. I have no idea why a FF would bother with them. I know many say it is for certain routes, but connecting, especially when you're not dealing with ORD, is really not that bad.

"AC is the innovator in the world of de-bundling. Robert Milton has been on this kick for several years now. The lowest fare (called Tango) has not earned status miles for several years now (but you still earn miles flown)."

AC may be the leader, but they really are in a monopoly position. UA doesn't have such a luxury. The airline is already getting by on its legacy international routes. I don't think they would want to push their frequent travellers onto NW or CO more than they have already done. Domestic companies are more often allowing only the cheapest tickets so it isn't as if companies will want to pay more for employees so they can accrue miles.

I agree with this. I don't think I've ever seen a price get lowered in any industry wheninstituting something like this. It is just an excuse to charge more money to some people under the pretense of being "fair". I would be VERY surprised if they lowered the price of any ticket.

Prices, in every business, reflect supply and demand. Airlines need no "excuse" to raise prices, they merely need to be able to sell the seats. Unbundling fares will cause some seats to sell for less, others for more, than they otherwise would. Whether the average price will be higher or lower will not be affected by the unbundling process because it does not alter the supply of seats.

Flights on some other Star Alliance carriers' flights credited to UA's program already earn fractional mileage (if any) on some tickets operated by those Star Alliance carriers (such as LH, SK, etc.)

NZ...

The elimination (or charging) of FF miles on cheap tickets really a surprise to anyone? Over the years the FF miles have continually become worth less. 14 years ago 50,000 miles got you a round trip first class ticket to Eurpope from the states and the capacity control was much more limited. Now it's 125,000 - 250,000 miles and heavily capacity controlled. Same with upgrades -- $500 to upgrade a cheap coach ticket r/t to Europe?

... Saa ....:(

There will always be one which will not follow UA's footsteps. My business will go to them. So that when I go overseas, I get to sit in a lounge and skip the check in queues. Other than that an elite status of no use.

UAs plan does not even have a chance of succeeding. Atleast in DEN where Southwest and Frontier are just waiting....

Along with other perks, like free checked baggage.

This would certainly be a very negative development for most flyertalkers.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4826081

The title to this thread is completely innacurate and missleading. Perhaps the OP ought to do some research before posting this baloney. Im surprised 15 other people jumped right on board with this garbage.:td: :td:

The title to this thread is completely innacurate and missleading. Perhaps the OP ought to do some research before posting this baloney. Im surprised 15 other people jumped right on board with this garbage.:td: :td:

perhaps you could enlighten us?

cheers.

perhaps you could enlighten us?

cheers.try the ua forum "bare fares" In yesterdays UA Investor Day conference it was discussed and explained ual.com/ir
the concept is to take what they already have and cut waste and make more money. Have you ever looked at your flights seatmap a day or two before you fly? You know those last 4 or 5 seats in the middle in the very back of the plane? you know, the ones that always squash your chances for an op-up. UA is looking at these seats as perishable, and when they go out empty, profits gone. Bare fares is a way to squeeze some profit out of that waste. Its not going to effect FFers one bit (might get you an op-up) UA has 3700 flights a day. If they sold only 1 of these bare fare seats on each flight for the ridiculous price of $100 they would make $370,000.00 a day on them. Get it?

Unbundling by a legacy carrier is absolutely stupid. People expect a legacy carrier to offer a collection of benefits in exchange for their ticket. People expect a LCC carrier to provide transportation for their ticket as well as a menu of other basic services which might be charged a la carte.

People expect that when they order a Cadillac, it comes with air conditioning. They don't need to buy it. People expect that when they order a Geo Metro, they will expect to pay separately for air conditioning.

How these airlines come up with these stupid initiatives that won't work in their markets is beyond me. Air Canada is a full service monopoly - although a highly vulnerable one. You can't compare the American commercial aviation marketspace to far smaller markets in foreign countries with limited competition and draw any conclusions.

In the US, any carrier that tried this (anyone remember the plethora of anti-customer moves US pulled off after 9/11?) would be severely punished by its customers. Many business customers are forced to buy the lowest available fare. If they cannot earn miles or status miles, they will book away from UA. If they cannot earn status on UA, they will fly Frontier or B6. I can't believe how some people (and airline managers) continually underestimate the dynamics of this market and slap these silly and stupid restrictions that they just end up removing later on.

Where is US now? Gone. Bought by America West. Customers couldn't stand their anti-customer initiatives. What happened to Leo Mullin and his executive staff at Delta? Gone, after a customer and employee revolt over their tinkering.

Again. Full service airlines offer full service benefits. Bundled. Period. LCC airlines can unbundle their services and charge - the market expects and is OK with that. People Express pioneered it years ago (they even charged a fee for each checked bag). Different products. Different markets. Different consumer expectations.

First of all, panicking at this point is likely not necessary. United isn't stupid: a huge percentage of their travelers are business fliers. Bundling FF miles into the ticket price is ideal for them, because they expense the ticket and keep the miles.

20 years ago you probably could have more easily unbundled: business travelers bought mostly different fare buckets from leisure travelers. But today, the line is more blurred. Biz travelers are generally allowed to pick their carrier, but are expected to buy discounted coach tickets. And for the most part, they wouldn't be allowed to expense a separate line item for FF miles. So, the current method is actually pretty good for the vast majority of United's fliers.

Remember a few years ago when US Airways tried to eliminate EQM's on cheap fares? Nobody else bit on it. My sense is that if UA attempted to line-item FF miles, AA would immediately respond with an ad blitz saying "Everybody's welcome here - in any fare class we publish."

On the flip side, I like the fact that UA is considering innovative products. "Elite for a day" sounds a bit strange, but why not try it? As a 1P I'm marginally concerned about the "watering down" effect, but statistically-speaking, it probably could never been significant. Try it out. See if it works. They already sell RCC passes, but who's buying at $50 a pop? Probably no one.

Selling individual seats seems like more trouble than it's worth. United already seems to have a good system with E+.

try the ua forum "bare fares" In yesterdays UA Investor Day conference it was discussed and explained ual.com/ir
the concept is to take what they already have and cut waste and make more money. Have you ever looked at your flights seatmap a day or two before you fly? You know those last 4 or 5 seats in the middle in the very back of the plane? you know, the ones that always squash your chances for an op-up. UA is looking at these seats as perishable, and when they go out empty, profits gone. Bare fares is a way to squeeze some profit out of that waste. Its not going to effect FFers one bit (might get you an op-up) UA has 3700 flights a day. If they sold only 1 of these bare fare seats on each flight for the ridiculous price of $100 they would make $370,000.00 a day on them. Get it?

Well that explains it much better. However, I thought the principle of airline pricing strategy (historically) was to charge the highest possible price for the last seats sold at the last minute. How will they decide which seats should go for $100 at the last minute and which should be held for $1000 at the last minute - will it be market/flight driven?

AC may be the leader, but they really are in a monopoly position.

Domestically (within Canada), AC has competition in the form of West Jet.

Well that explains it much better. However, I thought the principle of airline pricing strategy (historically) was to charge the highest possible price for the last seats sold at the last minute. How will they decide which seats should go for $100 at the last minute and which should be held for $1000 at the last minute - will it be market/flight driven?

Bingo. An airline would almost never sell their "last minute" seats at the cheapest price (exception being some of those weekend fares that require a Sat. night stay) because those are the seats you try to get the MOST money for. Rather, they would take their cheapest bucket (the one that sells out first) and strip it of the perks, like ff mileage and free bag checking. The net result would be that the cheapo "junk fares" -- the kind of stuff that pops up in the mileage run forum, for example -- would have no ff mileage accrual.

Personally, I believe the current US aviation market is too competitive for this. There will always be someone willing to offer mileage on the cheapo seats. Moreover, as we've seen, the airlines are very good at limiting ff awards to seats they wouldn't sell anyway, so the cost of giving out ff miles is minimal. Also, UA and others have built very profitable businesses around their ff programs (think of all the points they sell to credit card issuers), so I don't know why they'd want to diminish the loyalty value of such programs. Indeed, any dilution of customer loyalty would seem like a bad marketing idea for legacy carriers.

Well that explains it much better. However, I thought the principle of airline pricing strategy (historically) was to charge the highest possible price for the last seats sold at the last minute. How will they decide which seats should go for $100 at the last minute and which should be held for $1000 at the last minute - will it be market/flight driven? they only plan on selling a few of them. and not at the last minute. they want to sell those seats that when someone looks at the last minute seat chart and see's whats left, they say no thanks. The bare fare comes with no seat choice. For example: suppose you are a college student in SEA and you live in DEN you really dont feel like the 12 hr drive but your budget doesnt allow flying. Then you see a (barefare) in the seattle sunday paper for 149rt you buy it. This is where the upsell comes in. you realize that you booked a cheap fare with no baggage, then discover you would like to take a duffle bag with you so the next trip isnt such a hassle. EZ checkin sez would you like to check a bag for 25 bucks. its simple. I think the problem is that no-one understands it yet.

they only plan on selling a few of them. and not at the last minute. they want to sell those seats that when someone looks at the last minute seat chart and see's whats left, they say no thanks. The bare fare comes with no seat choice. For example: suppose you are a college student in SEA and you live in DEN you really dont feel like the 12 hr drive but your budget doesnt allow flying. Then you see a (barefare) in the seattle sunday paper for 149rt you buy it. This is where the upsell comes in. you realize that you booked a cheap fare with no baggage, then discover you would like to take a duffle bag with you so the next trip isnt such a hassle. EZ checkin sez would you like to check a bag for 25 bucks. its simple. I think the problem is that no-one understands it yet.

Why not just identify these and dump them to Priceline and Hotwire instead of spending money on the infrastructure to sell them directly?

Why not just identify these and dump them to Priceline and Hotwire instead of spending money on the infrastructure to sell them directly? well for one thing, they get to advertise them (price) in the paper. plus theres no middle man. only bookable on UA website. Plus if someone has to get somewhere not matter what. They wont buy the last minute high priced coach seat you were talking about. they will be sold out. they may have to buy last minute C or F;)

rwill11, youre talking about leisure travellers not business travellers.

id imagine there are a lot more business travellers as well as leisure travellers on specific schedules.

Moreover, as we've seen, the airlines are very good at limiting ff awards to seats they wouldn't sell anyway, so the cost of giving out ff miles is minimal.

This is what I always come back to.

- An airline can tweak the rules of the program behind the scenes with little to no fanfare whatsoever. The can tighten availability on certain flights, loosen it on others. They can effectively manage the internal cost of an FF miles down to whatever they need it to be. And they can still make plenty of seats available and advertise "We have 8% of our seats available for FREE!" or whatever. It's probably true: I actually fly a lot of Tuesday segments and see N9's and R9's all the way down the board - even when I'm looking at upgrade or standby seats 1 day before the flight. Same route, Friday afternoon, is N0 and R0.

- Or, an airline can do something draconian, like strip benefits on certain fares that a lot of their business travelers are forced to buy. That puts the airline on the front page of USA Today and a dozen other major newspapers, allows the other legacies to say either "No comment" or "We are evaluating the changes", and allows Southwest to say "We luv you all, always have, always will." It's bad PR, eventually the offending airline apologizes, and we go back to business as usual. The notion that the other five legacies and major competitive LCC's will jump onboard is wrong. If UA stripped benefits, somebody else would launch an ad blitz the next day talking about how they aren't following.

rwill11, youre talking about leisure travellers not business travellers.

id imagine there are a lot more business travellers as well as leisure travellers on specific schedules. Im talking about those last 4-5 seats that go out empty. Business travelers already have their perks, book in advance get their UGs as usual. It means nothing to them.

...Rather, they would take their cheapest bucket (the one that sells out first) and strip it of the perks, like ff mileage and free bag checking. The net result would be that the cheapo "junk fares" -- the kind of stuff that pops up in the mileage run forum, for example -- would have no ff mileage accrual.

US tried this nonsense after 9/11 and was blasted out of orbit for it by its customers. US decided that discount fares would earn no accrural to Elite status whatsoever. Customers went into two camps - some just gave US the finger and left. Others decided to go to war over it and eventually drove US' management team into submission.

These types of moves by full-service airlines are considered 'anti-customer' and are not tolerated by the marketplace. These types of moves by discount carriers (like People Express, Southwest, Ryanair) are considered 'par-for-the-course' by customers and are accepted.

The marketplace is not as 'fare-oriented' as people naively believe. People have varying perceptions based on price, convenience AND degree of expectation. The degree of expectation can be expressed as a function of the customer's familiarity with the vendor's product/service and competitive alternatives (customer can search and understand the differences in product). Ma and Pa Kettle who fly once per year would rely heavily on price and probably ignore schedule and product. A business executive who MUST get to a meeting on time in the most direct and expeditious manner possible will ignore price but place great emphasis on schedule, and only consider product when search discovers two equal opportunities with equavalent schedules. A frequent flyer will use their own preference to rank price, schedule and product.

What is hard to predict is how the frequent flyer will react when product changes significantly enough. He/she may decide to use search to select a product they perceive as being superior, or they may decide to abandon product as an important factor and decide to purchase based on price or schedule.

Bottom line: full service airlines are expected to deliver a comprehensive full-service product. If they fail to do so, or worse, remove pre-existing product features, they can suffer a loss of customers.

You may disagree because you look at today's bottom line - but to be successful in this business you must have a long term approach and vision. That is why Continental remained the strongest airline financially throughout the deep crisis of the past couple years while other airlines stuggled or entered bankrupcy. In addition, Continental chose to listen to its customers directly - and has implemented a number of changes that we requested.

this is just a stupid idea.

Mileage Plus is a way to differentiate your product from others. Get rid of it and price and schedule become the only differentiation.

So when you get rid of it, you save very little and suddenly lose most of the reason for someone to buy tickets from United rather than Southwest or a Jet Blue or whomever.

You end up HEIGHTENING not lessening the impact of having the lowest prices, potentially forcing you to offer lower and lower fares

Why not just identify these and dump them to Priceline and Hotwire instead of spending money on the infrastructure to sell them directly?

Again, bingo. The fact that Priceline and Hotwire have been extremely unsuccessful in creating an opaque market for "bare bones" airline tickets -- mainly because the airlines individually concluded IT WAS UNPROFITABLE to make inventory available to the opaque sellers -- suggests UA's "barebones" strategy would be similarly unprofitable.

And logic would also suggest that the biggest flaw to this idea -- revenue dilution -- would be even more pronouced if you sold the tickets directly, rather than through opaque channels.

I think all airlines will continue to tinker with things like restricted FF miles on cheap fares. People in this thread have referred to a fiasco at US. If I remember correctly, Delta tried something similar a few years ago, which caused me to leave them at the time. Now, they are back to full awarding of MQM. Also, IIRC, the old TWA tried a "carrot" approach years ago and offered additional miles based on the dollar value spent on the ticket.

But I wonder if some of the situations that we see now are really just moves in that direction. For example, CO now awards only 50% EQM on their lowest fares (unless those tickets are bought on the co.com website). The opinion on the CO board is that CO management is quite happy with the way that is working for them.

Even UA has some discrimination based on fare class - my SWUs will only work on W and higher fares.

I think the airlines will continue to try to adjust some things - some will stick, some won't. But I think it is reasonable to assume they will continue to try.

I think all airlines will continue to tinker with things like restricted FF miles on cheap fares. People in this thread have referred to a fiasco at US. If I remember correctly, Delta tried something similar a few years ago, which caused me to leave them at the time. Now, they are back to full awarding of MQM. Also, IIRC, the old TWA tried a "carrot" approach years ago and offered additional miles based on the dollar value spent on the ticket.

But I wonder if some of the situations that we see now are really just moves in that direction. For example, CO now awards only 50% EQM on their lowest fares (unless those tickets are bought on the co.com website). The opinion on the CO board is that CO management is quite happy with the way that is working for them.

Even UA has some discrimination based on fare class - my SWUs will only work on W and higher fares.

I think the airlines will continue to try to adjust some things - some will stick, some won't. But I think it is reasonable to assume they will continue to try.

What US did stood out as the worst of the bunch. They simply stopped awarding elite credit for any fare that was restricted. You needed to buy unrestricted tickets to have any hope of making elite. At the same time they invented the 'use it or lose it' concept and removed food and other frills. Customers were incensed and revolted.

Delta's MQM and Skymiles overhaul was a fiasco. They tried it. Customers revolted. The management staff that spearheaded it is gone. Just like US.

CO's move remains unpopular with many, but their internal data (at least the data they showed us) supports an increase in Elite rolls post-change. However, CO uses a stick with a carrot option - book travel on co.com and you earn 100% credit regardless of the fare. It was a change most of us could live with. The funny thing is many of us CO elites wish the elite rolls would have decreased substanially - but it appears alot of people were driven to book and buy their travel on co.com or the TA portal and were rewarded for it in exchange for helping cut CO's distribution costs.

So airlines may want to try tinkering in order to give their books a little revenue boost - but too much or the wrong kind of tinkering can backfire. Short sighted "how did we do this quarter" vision without a look to the long term and an overall grasp of market dynamics will yield problems. Just ask Mullin, Wolf, and their executive teams who got pink slips in exchange for their tinkering.

by the way, i do think the airlines could out priceline priceline if they wanted.

United could offer the possibility of a cheaper ticket from chicago to l.a. with the trip times to be determined by united for instance and the prospect that the flight could leave from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.

but eliminating the frequent flyer stuff, eliminates their advantage over rivals. it's just dumb...

US tried this nonsense after 9/11 and was blasted out of orbit for it by its customers. US decided that discount fares would earn no accrural to Elite status whatsoever. Customers went into two camps - some just gave US the finger and left. Others decided to go to war over it and eventually drove US' management team into submission.

These types of moves by full-service airlines are considered 'anti-customer' and are not tolerated by the marketplace. These types of moves by discount carriers (like People Express, Southwest, Ryanair) are considered 'par-for-the-course' by customers and are accepted.

The marketplace is not as 'fare-oriented' as people naively believe. People have varying perceptions based on price, convenience AND degree of expectation. The degree of expectation can be expressed as a function of the customer's familiarity with the vendor's product/service and competitive alternatives (customer can search and understand the differences in product). Ma and Pa Kettle who fly once per year would rely heavily on price and probably ignore schedule and product. A business executive who MUST get to a meeting on time in the most direct and expeditious manner possible will ignore price but place great emphasis on schedule, and only consider product when search discovers two equal opportunities with equavalent schedules. A frequent flyer will use their own preference to rank price, schedule and product.

What is hard to predict is how the frequent flyer will react when product changes significantly enough. He/she may decide to use search to select a product they perceive as being superior, or they may decide to abandon product as an important factor and decide to purchase based on price or schedule.

Bottom line: full service airlines are expected to deliver a comprehensive full-service product. If they fail to do so, or worse, remove pre-existing product features, they can suffer a loss of customers.

You may disagree because you look at today's bottom line - but to be successful in this business you must have a long term approach and vision. That is why Continental remained the strongest airline financially throughout the deep crisis of the past couple years while other airlines stuggled or entered bankrupcy. In addition, Continental chose to listen to its customers directly - and has implemented a number of changes that we requested. Continental is strongest because it went Bankrupt oh yeah TWICE. Gordo screwed everybody and the new management team started 100yds In front of everyone else.

Yes, but I bet the tickets won't get any cheaper. I'll just pay my usual fare + the ff charge and any luggage charge. I can't see UA going well since we're no longer allowing checked bags or ff points on that fare we'll lower it, and then once you add the new fees it'll be right back where it was.

Exactly. You want to be Ryanair and charge for every single thing, fine. But then your tickets better cost $10, not $200.

I would gladly pay an annual fee (of $50 or so) to have a US based reservations agent or web support desk answer the phone. Some days I'd even pay $100.

Continental is strongest because it went Bankrupt oh yeah TWICE. Gordo screwed everybody and the new management team started 100yds In front of everyone else.

CO went bankrupt many, many years ago and Gordon had nothing to do with what Lorenzo did during his tenure. Bethune created a whole new airline.

What happened way back then has absolutely nothing to do with Continental's financial or market position today - or even how they survived 9/11.

People mention the LCC's - specifically Southwest. The ironic thing is that they've almost gone the other way: better service, fewer bogus fees, and more respect for passenger flexibility than the majors. If anything, UA might want to look to them for ideas on how to compete.

I'm generally a fan of UA - I like upgrades, I like E+, I like miles that can take me to global destinations. But still, WN gets a chunk of my business every year because any trip I'm not 100% sure I'm really going to take can't be bought through UA without buying up to a very high fare. For certain business trips I might still do that, but for most trips - business or leisure - I just grab the seat on WN knowing that if I nix the trip it's no big deal.

People mention the LCC's - specifically Southwest. The ironic thing is that they've almost gone the other way: better service, fewer bogus fees, and more respect for passenger flexibility than the majors. If anything, UA might want to look to them for ideas on how to compete.

I'm generally a fan of UA - I like upgrades, I like E+, I like miles that can take me to global destinations. But still, WN gets a chunk of my business every year because any trip I'm not 100% sure I'm really going to take can't be bought through UA without buying up to a very high fare. For certain business trips I might still do that, but for most trips - business or leisure - I just grab the seat on WN knowing that if I mix the trip it's no big deal. well you are their target. flying on wn makes me cringe just thinking about it.

United could offer the possibility of a cheaper ticket from chicago to l.a. with the trip times to be determined by united for instance and the prospect that the flight could leave from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Isn't that (the unpredictability of when flights will arrive or depart) already the way it is when flying out of ORD (due to frequent weather delays)?

well you are their target. flying on wn makes me cringe just thinking about it.

Yeah, it makes me cringe to actually have to do it, which is why I'm interested in any innovation on United's part that might offer additional flexibility, as was indicated as one of the new product possibilities in that Denver Post article.

I agree that the tickets would be probably the same price as they are now. They'll probably be selling seat padding as extra next.

No one has discussed this, but I HATE the idea of "Premiere for a day." Competition is already fierce for upgrades, and many flights have more elites boarding in Zone 1 than all other zones together. I put in my BIS miles to earn the privilege (and my $350 for the RCC) -- I don't think a casual flier who ponies up an extra $25 once a year should get exactly the same benefits that I've earned through my loyalty to the airline.

Should United ever institute such a policy by eliminating miles on discounted fares they will kill the potential of ever seeing any of my future business.
The reason to fly United is the program eliminate any chance to earn miles and there isn't a chance in the world I would otherwise step foot on one of their planes except if it's the last carrier standing.
I came to United to participate in its program and earn miles. It is all about the miles especially with what a flyer has to put up with these days……

I came to Flyertalk to enhance the potential or earning miles on United. The rest of this outstanding community was an unexpected bonus along the way.
I do the lion’s share of my business at American today. Not because they are any better carrier then United. They simply run a less conditional program today then United. At the end of the day I get most of the seats I need on AA including business class tickets to the West Coast for Christmas week at the 45k redemption level booked just 30 days ago.
Trying doing that on UA these days.:rolleyes:
Of course United had nothing when I checked. American simply secured my business again for next year as well.United walks a fine line IMO
I eliminated other programs/carriers for a lot less serious concerns.Not earning miles when flying would be sucicide.Miles are the reason to fly period
Many more miles and Happy Holidays all ^ Three cheers for Flyertalk while we are at it :)

If the carriers in the US were all stupid enough to jump on such a bandwagon, they'd be commoditizing their business even more than is already the case. I think we'd have holdouts.

Were such a thing to come to pass, FlyerTalk would have to reinvent itself. :(

No one has discussed this, but I HATE the idea of "Premiere for a day." Competition is already fierce for upgrades, and many flights have more elites boarding in Zone 1 than all other zones together. I put in my BIS miles to earn the privilege (and my $350 for the RCC) -- I don't think a casual flier who ponies up an extra $25 once a year should get exactly the same benefits that I've earned through my loyalty to the airline.

My biggest concern would be when a "Premier for a Day" gets to select their E+ seat. I don't really care about Zone 1 too much - the only people I see getting their carry-ons tagged and hauled off are the Zone 4 or 5 people. But I would care a lot if it became too easy to buy an E+ seat for a nominal fee many weeks before a flight.

That would be detrimental to the frequent fliers who buy their seats closer to the flight time - by definition, the more valuable customers.

If UA rolls out "Premier for a Day", I hope they limit their ability to select an E+ seat to the OLCI window - just like it is today, where you can "buy up" if you are not 3P or higher. My take is that the perk wouldn't include an RCC pass, as they already sell those separately.

I would be fine with P for a D getting you C/F counter service if you need to check a bag, Zone 1 boarding, and an E+ seat - but only after the legitimate elites have already had dibs on their E+ seats.

I'm really surprised no one has yet mentioned Northwest's BS premium charge for certain seats. I thought either every airline would start this or it would flop and NW would go back to handing out seats like everyone else. So far neither has happened. I can't believe they are getting away with it, but somehow they are.

Did you read the article? You will still be able to earn miles on the lowest fares, but you will pay for them. Everyone pays for them now, they are bundled into the price of the ticket. The proposed system would break out the non-essential elements of the ticket and price them separately.

Which, if they want to turn themselves into a Ryanair/easyJet-like European-style low-cost carrier, or closer to Southwest, is mostly fine. They would lose many customers but gain many others.

The trouble is with miles - why would one want to pay for them, except when going on a mileage run? The idea of a frequent flyer scheme is to reward loyalty, surely, and charging for them isn't really a way to do that. Better just to be honest and do away with miles on cheapo fares (like BA, I think) or do away with the FF scheme completely.

As far as "why should a middle seat cost the same as a window/aisle" goes, and the likes, that's adding unnecessary complexity and penny-pinching, IMO, like the idea of charging extra if you want sugar in your coffee. If you want to play that game, you should also ask "why should business class passengers subsidise lowest-fare economy class passengers", which is indeed what they do in a lot of cases now, certainly long-haul.

Neil

Southwest, AirTran, and JetBlue will thank them if they do this. :)

Indeed, it'd play right into the hands of the LCCs. Ask people who don't fly WN (if it's a choice they have) why they don't and the cattle car seating and FFP have got to be among the top reasons.

Gordon Bethune also used to talk about doing the unbundled bit, but the customers will decide.

some might argue that "premier for a day" is a fancy name to market what they already are doing. You can already get into the rcc club if i remember right by paying $50 for a day. And you can already pay to get economy plus on united. So in some senses it already takes place.

further if they are charging $50 a day to get into the rcc, it aint gonna be cheap to be premier for a day.

Question - but does anyone charge for checked bags these days? Sorry if stupid question..

Did you read the article? You will still be able to earn miles on the lowest fares, but you will pay for them. Everyone pays for them now, they are bundled into the price of the ticket. The proposed system would break out the non-essential elements of the ticket and price them separately.

yeah, we pay for 'em... (and when we have to fight 'em to get the miles they forget to post, we pay with time and sweat equity in here!) but we don't wanna like knowwwwww we pay for 'em! (shhhh! my wife thinks the miles are still totally free!)

:D MM

Question - but does anyone charge for checked bags these days? Sorry if stupid question..

yeah if you dont wanna lose 'em, you should ship them and thusly pay for what they should be able to do for you but you dont trust them because it's like your skis headed for a short trip in Tahoe, or your expensive business stuff/papers or your coveted breastmilk (that they wont let a woman take on a plane if she is traveling without the baby) or your wedding dress/clothing or fine jewery or expensive perfume or fine wine from far off lands or art or...

well, you get the idea. Do you like really still trust the airlines to actually get that stuff to you all the time in one piece on time? We are being prompted to pay extra to get the norm these days and that is very sad.

;)MM

The trouble is with miles - why would one want to pay for them, except when going on a mileage run? The idea of a frequent flyer scheme is to reward loyalty, surely, and charging for them isn't really a way to do that. Better just to be honest and do away with miles on cheapo fares (like BA, I think) or do away with the FF scheme completely.
Neil

I believe it started out with loyalty in mind and some of that still exists as a premise to the program outline, but now it's high end, sophisticated marketinig based on well studied psychological behaviors of consumers from all sectors and walks of life fed into computers that generate useful data that marketers attempt to use to make us consume. And it works! Yup, you know... there are now 'loyalty' programs or 'points' schemes for EVERYTHING you can buy today and we all run to grab at them like flies on S#(!&#(!.

Genius! Sick, criminal and down right rude, but genius!

And oh, sure, you'd better bet they'd weave into this a small fee here and there knowing that some high % of the populous either won't know or won't care one lick about it. Those who do are welcome to write in about it and we will see about giving them a much delayed refund. They will just have to wait on hold for 30 mins with CS--to discourage that sort of thing, dontcha know...

Cha ching!!

An example of this is a recent article i read about a woman who was banned from a bunch of local supermarkets that are part of big chains liek Stop & Shop and Shaws... She found an obscure ruling that states if a customer finds a price is marked incorrectly and then it's not caught by the clerk upon check out, that customer can bring the item to customer service and have it for FREE.

She would LOOK for these errors in the store and walk out with free shopping goods for the week time after time.

Sound familiar, my friendly fellow mile mongers ??? :D :D :D

Well, needless to say, as wrong as this may seem, the management kicked her out and who knows the whole truth on how SHE was as a person, etc.

I tend to think that we all win if they make us think we get something for free if we do X, and we go do X and it actually works. Living in bliss has its benefits. It's kinda like eating at some restaurants... you don't like really wanna know WHAT goes on in that dirty kitchen, now do ya? But damn, this cheeseburger is GREAT!

;)MM

(talk to me when you apply this sort of thinking to dating!)

You can be sure that if one airline adopts this policy most others will too.

Well, that hasnt been the case when it has happened in the past so it isnt clear why it would be the case this time.

The brain trust at work! This is very dangerous for United. Other carriers will match, but before too long one of them will start offering mileage earning on these "junk fares" to get the upper edge. United will be forced to match, and in a matter of time, it will have worked itself into a hole -- junk fares that earn miles. Back to square one. (Alternatively, no one else will match, or will drop fares on those routes in return, forcing United to drop the program or to offer miles on those low fares.)

Plus... I remember when Delta started talking about mileage cuts, United was advertising widely how all its fares would earn miles, all the time.

One idea to consider: sell those cheap fares, but allow only elites to earn miles on those fares.

try the ua forum "bare fares" In yesterdays UA Investor Day conference it was discussed and explained ual.com/ir
the concept is to take what they already have and cut waste and make more money. Have you ever looked at your flights seatmap a day or two before you fly? You know those last 4 or 5 seats in the middle in the very back of the plane? you know, the ones that always squash your chances for an op-up. UA is looking at these seats as perishable, and when they go out empty, profits gone. Bare fares is a way to squeeze some profit out of that waste. Its not going to effect FFers one bit (might get you an op-up) UA has 3700 flights a day. If they sold only 1 of these bare fare seats on each flight for the ridiculous price of $100 they would make $370,000.00 a day on them. Get it?


unless a businessperson can book a last minute fare for that instead of $1k+...quickly erodes the benefits...

"No one has discussed this, but I HATE the idea of "Premiere for a day." Competition is already fierce for upgrades, and many flights have more elites boarding in Zone 1 than all other zones together. I put in my BIS miles to earn the privilege (and my $350 for the RCC) -- I don't think a casual flier who ponies up an extra $25 once a year should get exactly the same benefits that I've earned through my loyalty to the airline."

Upgrades? Domestically? You get exactly 4 500 mile certs per 10k miles flown. I can't understand why an FF would be flying UA if they cared about upgrades. Change to CO or NW and you'll get upgraded all the time. As for the RCC, why pay $350? You pretty much get nothing but crackers and cheese for the money. You have to pay then $6/drink and you pay for the wireless too. If premiere for day is bad because it will reduce your benefits, why not switch to an airline that will give you more benefits to start with.

I'm a 1P on UA, and I get pretty much any upgrade I put in for. If I don't think it's worth an e-500 (whether an earned one or a paid one), I know I've got a 34- to 36-inch coach seat.

I've been midtier on most of the majors at one point or another. Midtier on CO or NW is not a guaranteed upgrade - sure, I had good luck off-peak to go with non-so-good luck on peak flights - but the downside (effectively an E- seat) is far worse than the worst segment on UA.

I know you're a huge CO fan and that's great. I'm not really a big fan of any US legacy carrier, but at least United has said "Worst case, you will get a decent coach seat." That's why I'm flying them right now. If I flew enough to be comparing all of the top-tiers, I might be willing to look at trying to get a status match and make a big move somewhere else. But for now, UA through Denver to the West Coast is working for me.

Fantastic - will give me one less reason to fly UA. It is already bad enough with the incompetent ICC handling telephone calls for all but the most frequent flyers. No miles means I'll go with AA where at least I know I get someone that will understand me.

If airlines start eliminating miles for low fares, they will lose any last loyalty and people will just shop for the lowest price as many do now.

Note to UA: most of us will dump the credit cards too, so you'll be losing a lot of revenue. There are plenty of alternatives. :)

The trouble is with miles - why would one want to pay for them, except when going on a mileage run? The idea of a frequent flyer scheme is to reward loyalty, surely, and charging for them isn't really a way to do that. Better just to be honest and do away with miles on cheapo fares (like BA, I think) or do away with the FF scheme completely.

BA's definition of loyalty is ridiculous. By their rationale, a customer who chooses to prefer BA over another carrier for a weekly trip throughout the year LHR-JFK every weekend (for example) in discount economy will get jacksh!t because they didn't buy an expensive ticket. (BA gives you 25% miles, assuming you can even open an EC account, and no tier points, so no status.)

On AA, by contrast, that person would be EXP for flying close to 7k miles every week for the year (=359k BIS miles).

If a weekly flight for a whole year isn't good enough loyalty, I don't know what is.

What BA don't understand is that loyalty is worth something if you entice the customer over to your brand within the product category they are purchasing, whatever that product is.

AA will earn my money and my loyalty as long as BA cannot see that. As a result, I suggest to all my family and friends that they should prefer AA because BA views my business as worthless.

BA's definition of loyalty is ridiculous. By their rationale, a customer who chooses to prefer BA over another carrier for a weekly trip throughout the year LHR-JFK every weekend (for example) in discount economy will get jacksh!t because they didn't buy an expensive ticket.

On AA, by contrast, that person would be EXP for flying close to 7k miles every week for the year (=359k BIS miles).

If a weekly flight for a whole year isn't good enough loyalty, I don't know what is.

What BA don't understand is that loyalty is worth something if you entice the customer over to your brand within the product category they are purchasing, whatever that product is.

AA will earn my money and my loyalty as long as BA cannot see that. As a result, I suggest to all my family and friends that they should prefer AA because BA views my business as worthless.

Well said but why in the UA forum?Put it in BA where it truly belongs.Not that BA would be that bright to get the message.They would rather book one ticket at high revenue then 50 roundtrips in cattle :p

Well from a mileage perspective some airlines alreadys have. Just not in as clear a manner.

For example AA does not give mileage on O or Q fare classes on international flights.

I think airlines know how valuable the frequent flier programs are and will not do something that jeopordizes the revenue they get from them too much.

With that said - it might hurt mileage runs...
The deep discount fares could get hit.

You can be sure that if one airline adopts this policy most others will too.

Well, this was only mentioned as possibilities, but I think it would be stupid to make these changes and alienate business flyers. It's hard enough making sure your fare class is right, booking the correct flights, pricing them, now, if we have to add an, okay, I need this flight with miles but not a seat choice, and this flight with a seat choice but now miles, my God, talk about a cluster in the making. Airlines are making it so you don't even want to travel by air and save the freaking hassle.

Patrick

I also think think kind of base "no frills" pricing is coming. You may have to pay a couple bucks to check a bag, pay a couple bucks to receive miles for flights. We already have seen pay for blankets/pillows, multi-item food carts with different prices, etc. Really, Economy Plus even fits in this model.

You can almost see the day of 45 minute security lines, but you can pay $10 to get in the 10 min line.

It isn't the way I would like to see things run, but its gonna happen.

Its reading things like this that re assures me I did the right thing in leaving the MP program in favor of CO. I have not earned any miles by flying on UAL (though I do have the CC) and have only burned miles over the last 2 years. I had been a Premier or Premier Exec for 8 years and I really don't think UAL cared if I left or not. After all, I am only 1 person. But, if enough people get mad and leave, maybe they'll take notice.

Now, unfortunatly, I have to cancel 3 free award tickets due to a change in plans. They are all on one record, my miles, and yet I have to pay $100. per ticket redposit fee. If it were CO it would only be $35.00 for me as an Elite. Even non Elite it would only be $50. to redeposit all three back into one account. I think its crazy that UAL charges 6 times that....

Cheers

the day they nickel & dime THAT MUCH is the day I stop flying. Of course, if someone is going to outwardly charge me for baggage then they'd better get them their on time and in one piece or else!

As for mileage redeposits, yes, it's criminal that UA charges that much... $100! Pfttt. I have had to redeposit too, and the ONLY way around it used to be if they happened to have changed the itinerary times by enough to have made the passenger not able to fly for reasons not of their own. In other words, if the airline made the change which caused the passenger to not end up with a reasonable version of what they originally set out to fly, then the passenger could write in arguing this and maybe they'd waive the fee. It worked for me long ago but this time they never changed anything so I was SOL. I know other carriers like Jet Blue only charge like $30 to redposit an unused ticket and be able to use it later, but UA has always been strict. If I were elite, however, there would have been no fee! I have nothing against elites but damn if UA doesnt make its passengers totally aware of CLASS. They act like the days of Titanic (and often seem to almost fly that way in so many ways too)

OK I still fly UA a bit now, and I actually like them better than others for certain things, but that's cuz in my opinion, a lot of airlines stink and we all have like no choice in most cases.

I think it is a teriible idea. Who wants to travel and not be able to check a bag?

I hate the BA model, I have never flown them again after suffering on a 12 hour flight from LAX to LHR in a center seat next to the bathroom and receiving 2,500 miles for the flight.

This is a very short sighted decision if implemented. Simplify simplify simplify!!!! Charles Babbage figured out in the 18th century that it cost less to manage a simple postal rate rather than a complicated one, but the airlines are apparently hell-bent on increasing the complexity of the simplest things!!!! What is wrong with 1 BIS mile= 1 QM?

The complexity disease is currently is slowly spreading between *A carriers: AC does this while LH does something just mildly better: points accrual depends on fare paid rather than distance flown v.g. a measly 125 points for flying MAD-VIE!. (In both cases I simply left the airline/their program.) Hopefully, nobody else catches the bug...

The planes are pretty full these days, so it may be that too many elites really put a strain on the system, but how will they entice back or keep their best customers in the next downturn?

P.S.: NW survived the Coach Choice fiasco by allowing their elites to retain access to premium economy seats.

I think it is a teriible idea. Who wants to travel and not be able to check a bag?.

Many of us never check luggage. The article does not say that you wouldn't be permitted to check luggage, only that this service would require an extra charge.

They would just reduce their competitive edge.

Many of us never check luggage. The article does not say that you wouldn't be permitted to check luggage, only that this service would require an extra charge.

I notice you said VS in your profile. Increasingly, it will be difficult to never check luggage, especially if originating or connecting at LHR. :eek:

Even the lowest cost of the LCC carriers in Europe have some free checked luggage allowance, right?

Wow, how far we have come from the early 1980's when airlines created ff programs to try and build customer loyalty and identity. Now, today, some quarter century later, they look at this "loyalty" component as a burden and something that should be paid for in order to access its benefits. Well, just as they lured customers in with ff programs in the 1980's, they will drive customers right back out of any loyalty mindset by implementing what has been suggested in the OP's posted article. Even if the once or twice the year flyer is earning miles on deep discount tickets, the tickets that customer buys over time adds up - and furthermore, the fact that customer returns to the same airline for his/her few flights a year in order to earn those miles says something. Now, they may see leisure travelers as dead weight, but Southwest and JetBlue have made a bundle building airlines that cater to that market.

I wonder if anyone else noticed the juxtaposition of the threads that happened to be listed sequentially when I clicked onto MilesBuzz:

UA thinking of eliminating ff miles on cheap tickets - started Dec 14, 06
170,000 United Miles for $100 - started Sep 1, 04

I wonder about a company that wants to give me 25,000 miles to apply for their credit card; miles for buying lunches/dinners/coffees or soft goods through their mall contacts; sending floral arrangements; etc - but doesn't want me actually flying their airline?

I have always maintained 1K status by actual BIS - but if I need to pay additional monies to 'earn' those FF miles, then why not simply choose the cheaper fare and bank that additonal amount? Then I can use the accumulated funds to purchase whatever ticket I want on whatever airline has the cheapest fare for the route/timing I prefer when I want a ticket?

Wonder how companies would react if it happens - imagine the Feds, contractors that deal with Feds, and a lot of other firms will not be willing to pay additional charges for an employee to earn FF miles that do not benefit the company. And if the employee perceives no FF loyalty to one airline over another - then competition will change in the travel market to choices about seating comfort/customer service/whatever is important to that traveller.

UA can do what they want. They treat domestic elites so poorly that I won't fly them. I have no idea why a FF would bother with them. I know many say it is for certain routes, but connecting, especially when you're not dealing with ORD, is really not that bad.

"AC is the innovator in the world of de-bundling. Robert Milton has been on this kick for several years now. The lowest fare (called Tango) has not earned status miles for several years now (but you still earn miles flown)."

AC may be the leader, but they really are in a monopoly position. UA doesn't have such a luxury. The airline is already getting by on its legacy international routes. I don't think they would want to push their frequent travellers onto NW or CO more than they have already done. Domestic companies are more often allowing only the cheapest tickets so it isn't as if companies will want to pay more for employees so they can accrue miles.

This is completely disgusting. The airlines provide no service at all domestically, so what little scraps they do give are going to be taken away. Charging for checking baggage when we are forced to carry-on less than ever with the new liquid-gel limitation is outrageous. The difference of what you get when flying the same carrier internationally is also ridiculous, more food than one can eat versus not even a bag of pretzels when one flys 4.5 hours. My co. just changed from AA to UA (UA must be rabidly undercutting the price) and I'm not looking forward to it. The previous writer is correct, businesses aren't going to pay more so we can get miles, but those who fly for business take a lot of personal time and deserve some reward, not that you can ever get mileage tickets anyway.

Frankly, I think people should pay to bring bags on board! The FA's would love it and we would depart on time more often. I can't imagine what it will be like when all of the passengers carry on bags. My husband and I always check bags just to keep the clutter down and the boarding time faster. If they play these games (no freq flyer miles) with the leisure travelers, we will just use our miles up and go elsewhere.

Am I the only one who noticed lots of glaring spelling errors in the article? What gives with that? Is that the best Denver can do or are we being set up?

LH started cutting off miles a pretty long time ago...50% only for S & W booking classes for example, etc. (cf their website), so i got tired of this and switched to skyteam (e.g., CO won't cut off points as long as you'll buy a tck on their website, which is where i'd always get the cheapest price anyway)...i guess it was just a matter of time for other airlines to follow the LH (star) pattern.

we fly overseas a lot to see family.

I hardly trust baggage handlers. Even when it's marked fragile.
Even when it's non stop!

You need to bring lots of stuff sometimes. I hate carrying things on board though but we have a baby now. You do the math. breastpumps and toys and stufffff just stufff...

They also have varying and often annoying restrictions on weight limits in different countries. You cannot always know what will fly til you get to the check in counter. I come armed with flattened cardboard box kits and packing tape just in case. If I have to PAY for this then it's time to see about sailing a cruise liner to see grandma!

MM

that's progress fer ya!

Paying for miles, even on the lowest fares, makes no sense to me. What is UAL going to do? Quote $100 for a bargain flight without miles, and $120 for a flight with miles? Then you'll need to determine whether your additional $20 is worth it in the long term, rather than saving/investing it to help pay for a future trip.

Paying for checking in luggage is an even worse idea, even on bargain fares. In the old days one could get by without checking in luggage. But today, with who-knows-what you'll no longer be able to carry on board, unless you're able to travel with only the clothes on your back and a toothbrush (assuming that isn't banned next), checking in luggage is a necessity. Two weeks ago I flew on a two day trip from LAX to LAS, I checked in my one piece, which in the past I would have just carried on board. It's just not worth the hassle anymore.

Paying for miles, even on the lowest fares, makes no sense to me. What is UAL going to do? Quote $100 for a bargain flight without miles, and $120 for a flight with miles? Then you'll need to determine whether your additional $20 is worth it in the long term, rather than saving/investing it to help pay for a future trip.

Paying for checking in luggage is an even worse idea, even on bargain fares. In the old days one could get by without checking in luggage. But today, with who-knows-what you'll no longer be able to carry on board, unless you're able to travel with only the clothes on your back and a toothbrush (assuming that isn't banned next), checking in luggage is a necessity. Two weeks ago I flew on a two day trip from LAX to LAS, I checked in my one piece, which in the past I would have just carried on board. It's just not worth the hassle anymore.

no wait, flying with NO luggage is a crime because then THEY assume you are up to something! Even if you shipped it with services from that airline the TSA would probably flag you because only people with luggage should be on planes. There's a double standard... and I do NOT trust baggage handlers!

(I know citicard once had some deal with AA where you could ship once for free and I would actually love to do that on a ski trip we are doing in March!)

For UA, it's just a business decision.

If implemented, it will also be a business decision to fly on Frontier, Southwest, Northwest, Continental, or anybody else, except UA.

dosn't believe it will happen as they have the competetive edge with the generous miles and the best program for awards..Just his opinion.:)

I expect this will be an unpopular opinion, but why should miles be earned based on BIS miles. Why not $ spent. That would generally reward those flyers who contribute to the bottom line profit more and the mileage runner flying around the country on a cheap ticket less.

Makes sense to me.

Short

I would not be surprised to see my company take UA off of the list of Preferred Travel Providers if this goes through. I work for a global software company with about 30,000 employees. I have no idea what percentage of those folks travel but I bet it's a lot. Those of us who do travel, travel a LOT; even the FNG who started working with us in June made Gold this year. We're a big customer for UA. But our corporate travel policy says we must use one of the Preferred carriers, and we must use the cheapest fare as quoted by Amex (which I think gets it from SABRE) so, following this logic, we would have to fly UA on Barebones fee and therefore earn no miles. (I can usually squeak around this rule, though; UA doesn't have many directs from DCA to anywhere I need to go.)

Since miles are one of the best fringe benefits of this job, it will not take very long for someone to complain that UA's new policy takes one of our benefits away. And once someone complains, I would not be surprised to see UA either lose a level on the Preferred tiering, or off the list entirely.

This does not surprise me a bit. EI is doing away with their program all together, BA has offered fewer miles on cheap tickets for a long time, as well as LH and most of the European carriers. QF does this as well on their own program, but provides full miles on AA.......It sucks and I generally don't fly those carriers since tickets are roughly the same price (when looking for cheap fares) anyway. I am self-employed and would probably not pay any more for miles. Personal evidence suggests that fares are not lower if reduced amounts of miles are awarded....so if it is the same price, then I go for the higher miles. Service is not a real issue because there has been a race to the bottom in that regard anyway.

As for the baggage, the policies have been inconsistent (at best) depending upon where you are flying. When going to DUB for 2 weeks I have 20kg total if I go through asia (from AKL.) Alternatively, I get 2 bags (3 for *A Gold) of up to 70 lbs. each when I go through the US to DUB.........Consistency would be nice, but paying just to check 1 bag will make me rethink my fees, etc......since air fares make up the bulk of my expenses. 2 weeks with only a carry-on is a bit ridiculous. Even long haul CREW check bags for a 4 day trip from AKL to LAX.........

I have recently quit flying UA because they are only rarely the cheapest (they are usually about the same) but being a frequent flyer on them does not provide any benefit, especially on other *A carriers. If they do this combined policy, then they can join NW as another carrier that I WILL NOT FLY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES..........

I expect this will be an unpopular opinion, but why should miles be earned based on BIS miles. Why not $ spent. That would generally reward those flyers who contribute to the bottom line profit more and the mileage runner flying around the country on a cheap ticket less.

Makes sense to me.

Short

Those of us who fly a mix of fares will no longer have any incentive to concentrate our flying on one carrier.

I will only give my full F/J/Y travel to a carrier that gives a minimum of 100% miles on my cheap fares too.

DL lost 5 figures of business from me when they instituted the hateful 50% miles on cheap fares policy. This policy came back and bit Delta hard when many others also defected to other carriers. I wish nothing less than severe financial hardship and punishment to any carrier that attempts the same nonsense that DL did.

Since miles are one of the best fringe benefits of this job, it will not take very long for someone to complain that UA's new policy takes one of our benefits away. And once someone complains, I would not be surprised to see UA either lose a level on the Preferred tiering, or off the list entirely.

What do you do, though, if other carriers match this pricing strategy? The bigger risk is that all mainline carriers stop offering miles on heavily discounted tickets.

As someone who gets 99% of their miles from credit cards, I would love to see all the airlines go this route. It should make it easier to get milesaaver/skysaver/etc. awards.

What do you do, though, if other carriers match this pricing strategy? The bigger risk is that all mainline carriers stop offering miles on heavily discounted tickets.


All I can say is, I hope the legacy carriers realize mileage is the only thing keeping FF's loyal-- I myself have sometimes opted for a less convenient schedule or a slightly higher fare just to stick with the same carrier, for no reason other than I wanted the miles, especially on the long hauls. Ironically, I just booked personal travel and paid about $45 more for a ticket with US than I could have gotten with DL, and my return flight is a red-eye which I positively hate, but I did it anyway because it's a transcon flight and worth about 6500 miles r/t. If it hadn't been for the miles (not even the upgrade possibility, just the mileage itself), my butt would be sittin' on DL metal for that trip.

I hope UA fails with this so miserably that none of the other carriers adopt this pricing strategy. If a second legacy carrier does pick this up, I'm a little afraid of what it'll look like for ALL of them in 18 months. Or maybe I am just really unclear on the concept all together; it just does not seem really practical to me, to risk alienating a LOT of steady customers just to pick up a couple of rock-bottom sales at the last minute. And I understand they are not getting rid of mileage all together, just on certain heavily restricted fares, but when the computer spits that out as the "lowest price fare" and I opt for something more expensive, I can't use wanting the FF mileage as justification.

Fortunately for me, I rarely fly UA. I stick with US as they still fly an amazing number of directs from DCA. If I want to fly UA, it's more expensive and I need to connect through ORD--- even going to JAX or MCO. I can always use the fact that the US route gets me from my home in DC to our office near JAX in about 4 hours door-to-door as justification... hopefully this UA decision never ends up affecting me...

if they awarded by dollars spent. An awful suggestion just as we have our upgrades deposited next week....:D

I am thinking of eliminating flying cheap airlines.

I am thinking of eliminating flying cheap airlines.

I'm thinking of flying the cheapest airline.:D

Short

I participated in a focus group which studied a number of customer service initiatives. Although I cannot disclose the nature of the study, the following data was utilized.

5% of Frequent Fliers represent 35% of passenger revenue. Of the 5%, less than 8% of these passengers purchase discounted fares (represented by K, Q, T fare buckets)

Of Business Travelers surveyed (defined as maiing 10 or more round trips annually for business purposes); only 4% listed "low fare" as a top five reason for carrier selection. Frequent Flier program and related amenities were third.

Of Leisure Travelers surveyed, (defined as making a minimum of two round trips a year), 65% listed "low fare" as a top three reason for carrier selection. The same group did not even place frequent flier program in the top ten reasons.

We can ..... and moan as much as we like; but, the fact remains that the bread and butter of the air carriers are rarely effected.

It could be easily argued that by implementing such a program of "a la carte" services, would increase available resourses to those who fly the most i.e. seat availability, award selection, strengthen elite program, upgrade opportunities, etc. The flip side of the argument today that carriers are offering too many mileage incentives and diluting elite benefits.

Essentially, the US carriers are the last to explore this realm. Fly to Asia on any International carrier and the lower "buckets" are not eligible for frequent flier miles. Many carriers feature advance "Y" seat payment; and, we have the highest weight and baggage allowances in the world.

Where International carriers prosper, US carriers suffer. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm . . . Time to adopt many now global standards.

As someone who gets 99% of their miles from credit cards, I would love to see all the airlines go this route. It should make it easier to get milesaaver/skysaver/etc. awards.

Somehow I doubt that will be the result. First of all, the travelers being targeted generally don't earn FF miles now. And for those who do, the airlines will simply make fewer seats available for redemption.

You can almost see the day of 45 minute security lines, but you can pay $10 to get in the 10 min line.the SSSS 1 min line is free.

cheers.

Where International carriers prosper, US carriers suffer. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm . . . Time to adopt many now global standards.
the US carriers suffer because their product stinks compared to intl carriers. if they adopt what you suggest without changing food (esp on domestic), service, etc., then they just get even worse.

. . . Time to adopt many now global standards.

Does that include meals and drinks included. I have had a full meal including wine and dessert on a 40 min flight (of course within Europe).

A drop of frequent miles will degrade the airlines within the USA. If you say that the people affected are the least to use or earn miles... Why give them a reason to look at LCC and other airlines? Most miles earned are not redeemed any way. It is a bad policy change and will hurt the airline most. They are just giving me a reason not to select them if they are just a bit more than the other airline.

A friend of mine just booked a fare 15% higher to earn miles instead of going with the lowest airline. I am sure she would not do this in the future....

Does that include meals and drinks included. I have had a full meal including wine and dessert on a 40 min flight (of course within Europe). . . . A friend of mine just booked a fare 15% higher to earn miles instead of going with the lowest airline. I am sure she would not do this in the future....

If your friend paid 15% more for a fare versus an LCC then she did not purchase a K or T fare which would an effected fare class. For my leisure travel I search many LCC's and with the exception of one MDW-EWR flight, UA and NW were always more affordable and convenient.

LCC's have their market and those who fly them do so out of choice. FF programs are not a consideration to begin with. When I chose to fly AirTran versus UA, it is strictly a fare choice and I know I surrender any useful miles.

But, let's be realistic, by flying LCC instead of a "legacy" carrier because of a 50% or 0% earnings on fare class, who are you really punishing?? I guess it would depend on travel patterns and redeption.

As the survey shows, less than 1/4% of the a carriers substantial revenue base do not buy fare classes which are affected. The significant balance of travelers purchase based on fare. So, offering low fares without "perks" is what they ask for.

Paying 15% more for full frequent flier amenities is exactly what legacy carriers are looking at. So, in essence, your friends decision to purchase based on amenities versus price fuels the argument which carriers are likely to pursue.

Regarding your Euro flight, I agree, I had a nice meal on a CDG-AMS flight; but, also could not carry on over 8kg, did not have a business class (well, the glorified coach) and only earned 50% miles. My colleague just enjoyed a great trip to AKL, saving $300, the trade off is that no miles were earned.

I notice you said VS in your profile. Increasingly, it will be difficult to never check luggage, especially if originating or connecting at LHR. :eek:

Even the lowest cost of the LCC carriers in Europe have some free checked luggage allowance, right?

No, not anymore. Ryanair is charging for every piece of checked luggage, Easyjet gives you one piece free of charge ( up to 20 kg's ) and is charging extra for any additional piece or extra kilo! And yes, they now charging you extra for premium seats too.

Unbundling by a legacy carrier is absolutely stupid. People expect a legacy carrier to offer a collection of benefits in exchange for their ticket. People expect a LCC carrier to provide transportation for their ticket as well as a menu of other basic services which might be charged a la carte.

...

Again. Full service airlines offer full service benefits. Bundled. Period. LCC airlines can unbundle their services and charge - the market expects and is OK with that. People Express pioneered it years ago (they even charged a fee for each checked bag). Different products. Different markets. Different consumer expectations.

I guess you haven't flown NW in a long time. Legacy carrier, few benefits. No food, even pretzels, in economy for any domestic flights, even to HI and AK. Surly agents, uncooperative management (think of the hassles with the BUH tickets), Priority tags for elite passengers absolutely worthless. I fly NW because they are basically the only game in town where I fly. If I had a choice though, I wouldn't.

Well, if this happened, I wouldn't bother trying to earn miles from flying on United. I would just churn their credit cards more often. Enough for several domestic roundtrips a year. And then take LCCs for trips one does pay for. Sort of a split loyalty.

How far could this be taken? Would the FA's have to check your ticket before you used the lav to make sure your ticket covers that "extra"? And what would be the price difference between the coach lav and the first class lav? Pay Toilets (http://library.thinkquest.org/3205/Pay.html).

I also agree with that.



===========================

Well, if this happened, I wouldn't bother trying to earn miles from flying on United. I would just churn their credit cards more often.

Those days seem to be over. See the posts on this forum. Multiple Chase cards= no bonus miles. :(

On the flip side, I like the fact that UA is considering innovative products. "Elite for a day" sounds a bit strange, but why not try it? As a 1P I'm marginally concerned about the "watering down" effect, but statistically-speaking, it probably could never been significant. Try it out. See if it works. They already sell RCC passes, but who's buying at $50 a pop? Probably no one.

Selling individual seats seems like more trouble than it's worth. United already seems to have a good system with E+.

Agree - upselling folks to something better and getting revenue is good business and is waving carrots. Every one of those options - pay more for E+ at the airport, day passes, E+ access for a year, all good things.

Removing current benefits on the other hand is not customer-friendly. I have to admit earning 35,000 miles (AKA free trip to Hawaii) as a 1P on a $700 T fare to SIN is pretty sweet! :)

My biggest concern with this would be that miles would then be much closer to having a published value. In the US, the IRS has not been able to tax the value of the miles because it can be shown that two people can fly on the exact same ticket price and one earn miles while the other doesn't. Thus, there is no cost to earn the miles (from the IRS perspective) and they have no value.

If something like this kicks in, then there will be some groups that will want to revisit that argument and see if they can figure out a value of the miles to start taxing the balance in FF accounts. It sounds ludicrous, but we've already had a lot of discussions on here before about value of miles and tax implications because of previous IRS investigations and decisions.

On the charging for every little thing, I just ran into this on Allegiant Air for a one-way I priced out FAY-SFB:

Base Fare: $39
"Standard" taxes/PFC: $5.90
Checked Luggage Fee: $2 per bag
Reserved Seat Fee: $11
Travel Insurance: $12
Online Booking Convenience Fee: $7.50
Total: $67.40

You can avoid the Convenience Fee by going to an ATO, oddly enough. My point is that they're just one step away from putting a coin slot on the restroom if they haven't already.