I think it's quite reasonable of UA to ask that the data be removed until they come to a business agreement. None was in place.
What kind of business agreement does UA want -- a business agreement that keeps tools like EF disabled and customers less well informed about award space and upgrade space dynamics?
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
What kind of business agreement does UA want -- a business agreement that keeps tools like EF disabled and customers less well informed about award space and upgrade space dynamics?
Exactly. Does anyone here honestly expect UA to enter into an agreement with EF ?
UA just doesn't want their customers to see award availability on EF. It has nothing to do with an agreement.
Programs: UA 1K, NW/DL Gold, Red Carp Club, Priority Pass, CLEAR (rip), Hertz 5*, Hyatt Gold
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
Personally, I felt it was absolutely inappropriate for EF to charge for this data... if the service were free/ad-supported, I might feel differently.
I thought it was OK for EF to charge for republishing/reselling UA's data if UA didn't care, but since UA has made it clear that they do care, I agree that it would be completely inappropriate for EF to continue to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommittedLurker
I don't share in your blind optimism.
You haven't presented any evidence of UA's conduct in negotiations with EF or future plans regarding EF either, so if bmvaughn's attitude is "blind optimism," then your attitude is equally "blind pessimism."
__________________ CollegeFlyer is now LawSchoolFlyer. zomg i passed teh bar!!!
You haven't presented any evidence of UA's conduct in negotiations with EF or future plans regarding EF either, so if bmvaughn's attitude is "blind optimism," then your attitude is equally "blind pessimism."
My pessimism is supported by UA's actions in the last 1-2 years:
1. Starnet Blocking.
2. New Co-Pay Structure for upgrades, devaluing the SWU instrument.
3. New, Higher Award Redemption Levels, with no corresponding improvement in award availability.
4. Continuous selling of Award Accelerator by UA, knowing full well that these miles are extremely difficult to redeem, more so than other *A partners.
Do you see the above as signs of improvement ? If so, then it is no wonder that UA implements such "enhancements".
I don't think you understand the real problem with Starnet Blocking. For members based in the US, it is really a matter of not being able to get awards to certain int'l destinations they want to visit, either for business or personal reasons.
For members based outside of the US, it effectively can make it nearly impossible to get an award flight from their home airport.
How would you feel if you could not get a single award ticket from your home airport, or one nearby, for practically every single date for the next 330 days ? Would you still think UA is acting in your interest, at all ?
Last edited by CommittedLurker; Jan 12, 09 at 11:50 pm.
I thought it was OK for EF to charge for republishing/reselling UA's data if UA didn't care, but since UA has made it clear that they do care, I agree that it would be completely inappropriate for EF to continue to do so.
Those companies/individuals that get paid or not to help people book award travel are distributing/reselling "UA's data". Should that be stopped by UA too?
When people put up UA emails or UA marketing material here on FT, people are republishing/reselling "UA's data" too. Should that be stopped too?
UA is not shutting down EF's dissemination of UA data because EF is competing with UA. UA is counting on ill-informed customers and shutting down EF's UA info helps keep more customers more ill-informed -- that's just what UA ordered.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
UA is not shutting down EF's dissemination of UA data because EF is competing with UA. UA is counting on ill-informed customers and shutting down EF's UA info helps keep more customers more ill-informed -- that's just what UA ordered.
I have no insider knowledge about what UA's motives are here in this case, but making sure that other people that are republishing your data for profit reach some kind of agreement with you is common sense.
Recall the case of when RyanAir and EasyJet shut down 3rd party websites that were screenscraping their flight availability and pricing pages, and then adding on hidden surcharges to book tickets on these airlines. It deceived customers and left a bad impression of the airline.
While we know that EF is a useful service, from the data provider's perspective, you'd want some guarantees in contract form about how they use it, especially as their incentives (to make a profit off of displaying the data) are different than the company's own.
UA may want to limit redemptions, but there are also legitimate reasons why UA would want to have an agreement in place before EF used it.
It is all about UA not wanting anyone to know how few award seats there are. IMHO.
Glen
.
Uh, it takes about 2 minutes to see an entire year's worth of award availability on any given city/pair on united.com, which is why there are tons of threads on the front page noting how little award availability there is on United.
If United really wanted to be opaque they'd go the delta.com route.
I'd much more suspect the case that United is reflexively worried/opposed to those outside of their control using their data. It's a bit parochial and could stunt the growth of tools that could help United, but it's hard to imagine it is to make it difficult to see award availability (or lack thereof) - united.com already makes that clear as day.
Longer term UA won't win big -- or anything to materially alter its financial results -- by this stupid approach of trying to deprive consumers of information regardless of it being a paid service or not.
If companies like UA don't first kill the "loyalty" program(s) that lay the golden eggs, then parties like the EF provider will become more sophisticated over time. Through off-shoring, jumping around quickly between jurisdictions, distributed control, distributed network processing or application hosting, parties like EF provider will make UA's efforts to deprive consumers of information ineffective.
In terms of some LCCs in Europe (and even some airlines in the US) going after
"screenscraper" services, that has -- or at least had -- motivated the development of facilities to screenscrape out of plain sight of airline management and industry/firm apologists.
The airline that hopes to live off depriving consumer-desired information to the consumers is destined for no good.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
If companies like UA don't first kill the "loyalty" program(s) that lay the golden eggs, then parties like the EF provider will become more sophisticated over time. Through off-shoring, jumping around quickly between jurisdictions, distributed control, distributed network processing or application hosting, parties like EF provider will make UA's efforts to deprive consumers of information ineffective.
The airline that hopes to live off depriving consumer-desired information to the consumers is destined for no good.
Given that UA already makes award availability very clear on united.com, it seems unlikely they are trying to hide it. There are some special cases where EF and SeatCounter are more useful, but united.com generally is very open about the availability (or lack thereof).
It may be that keeping information private to UA going to be a loser in the long run. But there are a lot of data providers out there (mostly not just in the airline industry) that are worried about people outside of their control modifying and re-displaying data to customers. The chief worry is that the data provider will display the data in a way that misleads customers or does not provide a consistent experience that leads the customer to associate bad experiences with the brand. While one can make all kinds of snark about how you can't really make the UA brand worse or that one can't possibly have a worse experience than on .bomb, there are lots of other companies that I've dealt with that have similar worries. So it's not just a made-up worry.
As usual, I think the nefarious answer is less likely than one based on turf-fighting and lack of imagination/risk taking.
[/color]
