Will UA restore the 500 mile minimums for elites?

[PhillyPhlyer40]

I just decided to do something about it (WRITE) instead of just taking my business elsewhere.

We will see where it goes for this 1K!

[CPMaverick]

Here's my letter.

Hello-

I've been a loyal UA flyer for almost 4 years, and have, in fact, increased my UA flying every year. This year I already have enough flights booked to retain my 1K status.

However, this year I qualified for Platinum status on American Airlines. This is primarily because I switched to AA for my itineraries involving short flights after United dropped 500 mile minimum RDM and EQM.

I realized that I miss many things about UA by flying American, such as E+ seating. However, I will continue to fly AA while they offer 500 mile minimum. It just doesn't make sense to fly UA LAX-ORD-MKE when American offers me 1732 more RDM (with Platinum bonus miles) and 866 more EQM than United!

I was lamenting to my co-worker that I miss some things about UA, and he told me I should let UA know that this policy, unmatched by AA and recently re-instated by CO, is costing UA business.

[ExCrew]

For what it's worth, many posts recently on UA FT have been about being 200 or 300 miles short of making the next level of elite status. Those 500 miles add up quickly. And on the other side of that coin, so do the losses from not having them.
I have requal'd for '09 already. However, I still have many more months of flying before the end of '08. Because of the loss of the 500 mile mins, I won't make it to 125k, and thusly, won't get my extra SWUs. My incentive to continue to fly UA for the remainder of the year? Zero.

I figure if I stay with UA in 2009, I will earn roughly about 8,600 flown miles for my trip portions flown in between SMF and SFO (86 mls. each way) annually. Almost all of my flying will be on the West coast. Under the old system, I was guaranteed 50,000 miles for my trips through SFO. I'm getting screwed, and not in a good way.

This is complete and utter bulls*%t. And...no idle threat here...I will book away from UA if they stand with US Air on this. I'm not threatening to never fly UA again. But I will kiss 1K status goodbye. BFD. It's a crap benefit unless you live in a hub or fly overseas a lot.

Originally Posted by CPMaverick

Here's my letter.

Bravo! Well said and well spoken!

[eyevision]

Well, it is costing me about 3200 miles this year. Lots of midwest and so cal trips from SFO.

As a result, I paid for my vacation ticket to Cabo and used miles for my sister's only to make certain I make status this year. This one change would have cost me.

Absurd to be buying a ticket for my vacation when I have 280,000 in my account, but that's what United reduced me to. Which I'm sure was the entire point of the policy.

[mrzim]

This is the response I got from the Vice President of Mileage Plus:

mrzim,

As you note, the airline industry is fiercely competitive. We are aware of Continental’s actions, and have been monitoring the effect of our change.

Thank you for sending your email and letting me know of your concerns around this policy. As I’m sure you are aware, airline profitability makes investment in product difficult. We are forced to look at allocation of spend to make targeted investments. For example, as we invest in truly lie flat seats in our international business class across our fleet, this is being funded through reallocation of spend in other areas – such as the 500-mile accrual policy change.

Every airline is making decisions on what products to bring to market and what customers are willing to pay for, and we will take your concern around this policy into account.


Best regards,

Robert

[CPMaverick]

That kind of response is ridiculous. The 500 mile change can't be giving them liquidity to spend on lie-flat seats.

Responses like that need to be countered with the fact that the 500 mile change is COSTING UA revenue. And I know for a fact that it personally has caused me to change my travel habits negatively for UA.

[ExCrew]

It's wonderful to see some of you sending your letters. However, the lack of overall hue & cry over this is quite surprising. There is no reason why anyone here who earns UA MP miles should not write a letter. Just because the removal of this one benefit may not directly effect you, it doesn't mean something else UA tries to yank won't. If you say nothing, it gives them carte blanche to do just that. I and others need your help now and I have and will continue to support you whenever I can.
The lack of outrage shown towards UA sticking to this incredibly shortsighted policy tells me that they can (and will) do whatever they want to your benefits, and if you don't like it, then TS.
I thought we were a little more vocal, a little more outspoken, a little more tight-knit than that.

[restlessinRNO]

Originally Posted by ExCrew

... Because of the loss of the 500 mile mins, I won't make it to 125k, and thusly, won't get my extra SWUs.

If it's any consolation to you, you only get those extra SWUs at 150,000 miles.

[mahasamatman]

Originally Posted by ExCrew

There is no reason why anyone here who earns UA MP miles should not write a letter.

Some people prefer to pick their battles and don't feel the need to complain about every change. I'm sure UA has a list of chronic complainers, and they give more weight to people who only complain occasionally (and even mix in some compliments when warranted).

Originally Posted by ExCrew

Under the old system, I was guaranteed 50,000 miles for my trips through SFO.

It's funny that to me, your argument specifically shows why the 500-mile minimum is bad. I was sort of ambivalent before - now I see that the change may actually be a good one.

[blueman2]

Originally Posted by mrzim

This is the response I got from the Vice President of Mileage Plus

Well I am quite impressed with this response.

1. It clearly not a canned response. It hits exactly the issue you wrote about
2. The writer took the time to explain the situation and even show the trade offs UA is making.

Contrary to what CPMaverick's comments, acrued miles do hit UA's profitability. Each mile that we add to our accounts forces UA to recognize a potential future expense on their books. This reduces their current profitability as reported in their financial documents. Yes, there is no dollar flow for UA when they give RDMs, but as most know, dollar flow is not the basis for GAAP reporting.

(reflection: good god, I sound like a UA appologist! Not my intention!! I bad mouth UA so much for their shortcomings, I feel it is important to recognize when they do something right)

[mahasamatman]

Originally Posted by blueman2

dollar flow is not the basis for GAAP reporting.

The funniest thing about GAAP, as our VP tells it, is that nobody actually uses it for anything. Yes, it's required to report it, but it's generally ignored in favor of non-GAAP reporting.

[gfowler-ord-1k]

Originally Posted by mahasamatman

The funniest thing about GAAP, as our VP tells it, is that nobody actually uses it for anything. Yes, it's required to report it, but it's generally ignored in favor of non-GAAP reporting.

That is why many countries, USA included, are moving towards IFRS reporting. IMO GAAP is a legal way of cooking the books.

[blueman2]

Originally Posted by gfowler-ord-1k

That is why many countries, USA included, are moving towards IFRS reporting. IMO GAAP is a legal way of cooking the books.

True, but even IFRS (as I understand it) will require airlines to show a potential liabilities on their books (such as RDMs). Any anytime you put a liability on your books, you need to show a reduction in income to make your books balance. So this issue will not go away just because of IFRS. (I think?)

But in any case, today UA must add this liability, and must reduce income as a result. So the point the UA employee makes is valid. A bit of a stretch, to be sure: I bet the savings in reported income from the 500 mile change will cover less than 1% of the costs of the new seats!!!

[stupidhead]

Originally Posted by DogHead

Not necessarily. Although UK based, I fly UA domestic short sectors too, especially in CA (still in mourning after death of my favourite SNA-LAX).
It also affects short intra-EU flights on *A partners.
For quite some time UA doesn't give a monkey for alien MP members, but I'll write anyway. Just to be in peace with myself and other FTers.

If United doesn't give a monkey for you, why would you give a monkey about them? For me the relationship always has to be mutual.

Given the complaints I see here, I'd be happy if United went under, until I realise that I just lost $350.

[John26]

Just sent an email to Premier Executive Voice on this issue as well as BOB in Domestic BUSINESS Class.