Process to create top UA FF concerns

Old Jun 8, 2012, 6:25 pm
  #1  
Moderator: United Airlines
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
Process to create top UA FF concerns

Based on other discussions, let’s see if there is any consensus on change we really would like to see as a community. Let’s start a process to eventually poll the community to see if there is any consensus to work with.

Below is a list of changes (or in some cases a continuation of one subsidiary’s policy but a change for the other) that could be in the poll. Initially please provide suggestions to added to the poll, I will update post #1 as suggestions are added. Once the list as stabilize, I will work with the mods to create a formal polling thread. While there likely being many items to poll on, it may take a couple of passes at the polling to get top 2 or 3.

I think there needs to be a distinction between changes and things not yet working (such as upgrades, boarding process,…). Let’s focus on the policy changes and hope for the best UA will eventually those other things working at some point. I would also respectfully suggest we don't flog the SHARES issue, we should focus on policies, not internal tools.

Potential polling list:
- Silver losing E+ access at booking
- Restore Silver bag allowance (2x50) (or better)
- Reduction in RDM bonus for Plat (75%) and Gold (50%)
- Reduction in MM benefits (Annual regionals/GPU, RDM bonus, Lifetime UC for 2MM, …) we can narrow down this into sub-pieces if need be later)
- Boarding Process (no dedicated line for Gold & higher)
- Four non-fare limited GPUs replaced with six fare limited GPUs (or better yet go for six non-fare restricted)
- GPUs posting at earning vs end of the year (or better yet post at earning and expire at end of elite year)
- Loss of FlexEQMs for higher than Plat status
- Change in method for meal choice priority (front to back except GS vs Stars approach based on status/paid)
- Change in regional earning (2/qtr to 2 @75K+2 more per 25K)
- Return to e500s vs CPU
- Publish / fix CPU priority & TOD "reform" see post #12
- Empowered elite phone agents (able to act without supervisor involvement)
- ???
- No issue is worth pursuing.

I am sure some really important issues are missing, please make suggestions.

Understand as a diverse community it may be too difficult to come to a consensus, but it seems like it might be worth a try to make an attempt.
One thought is to sub-divide into elite levels or other sub-classification.

For a list of many of the changes, see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...-ua-vs-co.html

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm Reason: additions thru post #44
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 6:26 pm
  #2  
Moderator: United Airlines
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
reserved for future use
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 6:36 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LAX/BOS/HKG/AMS/SFO...hmm, I need a life.
Programs: United1K, AA ExPlAAt, DL MM/Gold, Hilton Diamond, Avis First
Posts: 13,316
As I look at the list I have to say as a 1K the only one I could really get excited about is the reduction of GPU's and maybe the boarding process. I think this is the reason the other thread can't get traction. As a Plat or 1K you really can't do a lot better elsewhere and there are no real horrible changes. With the SOS revolt there was a horrific change:non upgradeable (CPU) domestic fares. If THAT ONE pops up I think you will see a similar revolt. Short of that it will be tough.
avidflyer is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 6:55 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: UA 1K, Star Gold,Marriott Gold, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 414
Tops for me are 1) the GPU change and believe it or not, 3) the meal orders in the premium cabins. #2 is something that perhaps you could add to your list. SFO1K just reported in another thread that scanning his passport in a kiosk when travling domestic DID NOT save passport info and allow him to do OLCI for an international flight 1 week later.

The inability of SHARES to save passport info is absurd and needs to stop. There are multiple threads about the sudden inability to no longer be able to check in online for international flights. Several knowledgable FTers such as yourself, sbm12 and many other frequent posters seemed to be confident that scanning one's passport in a kiosk every few months would do the trick, but it seems that may not be the case.

Last edited by redwoman; Jun 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm Reason: add passport issue
redwoman is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:14 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
I think there needs to be a distinction between changes and things not yet working (such as upgrades, boarding process,…).
While it does makes sense to not waste effort trying to influence a policy change that United already agrees with us on, when there's no timeline to fixing the things not working, those things still need to be on a list. For some of these, someone will decide it's easier to make it policy rather than fix. When I'm not getting the right priority on a misconnect, I don't care whether it's policy, lack of training, or a buggy system, I just want it working. Some of the most frustrating things (especially around upgrades) are "stealth policies". When pushed, it's a broken system, don't blame us. But if there were a policy to make it better, it would get better. That make is a policy topic.

For example, when on a "direct" flight, you can't select a seat on the second segment or get equal upgrade processing, and after 2 hours on the phone your reservation got so messed up, you don't dare try to work against the system for that again, if it's on the "won't fix" list, they've made it a policy to offer that level of service.

Another example is the inconsistency in hard product. Tuesday on a SFO-BOS on a new 737-900 plane with nothing. Earlier this year, my JFK-SFO in C became non-PS. SFO-LHR 777s. Is that a transitory issue they are trying to fix, not worth pushing for a better plan on? New planes came in bare configs making things worse. If it's not fixed until 2015, and by that time they'll be a new set of improvements and planes working their way through the system that won't be consistent until 2018, and by that time... That's a policy to worry some, but not too much about an inconsistent product.
RedHeadFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:22 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
I would get behind eliminating the "W" fare min for the GPU's but why should we cut it down from 6 to 4 ? AA gets 8. I don't think 6 is to much to ask for but zGet rid of the W fare minimum
chinatraderjmr is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:29 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC and London
Programs: UA 1K; Avis Preferred; PriorityClub Gold; nada anywhere else
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
I would get behind eliminating the "W" fare min for the GPU's but why should we cut it down from 6 to 4 ? AA gets 8. I don't think 6 is to much to ask for but zGet rid of the W fare minimum
This.

I have to admit I've been reasonably happy with the new United, but then I mainly fly internationally so a lot of the angst around CPUs and buy-ups just doesn't affect me.

The required W or higher fare class for GPUs, however, is rather galling.

Last edited by id_est; Jun 8, 2012 at 7:30 pm Reason: Fixed mistake
id_est is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:33 pm
  #8  
Moderator: United Airlines
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
Originally Posted by RedHeadFlyer
While it does makes sense to not waste effort trying to influence a policy change that United already agrees with us on, when there's no timeline to fixing the things not working, those things still need to be on a list. For some of these, someone will decide it's easier to make it policy rather than fix. When I'm not getting the right priority on a misconnect, I don't care whether it's policy, lack of training, or a buggy system, I just want it working. Some of the most frustrating things (especially around upgrades) are "stealth policies". When pushed, it's a broken system, don't blame us. But if there were a policy to make it better, it would get better. That make is a policy topic. ...
my reasoning for not to include is it will take us awhile to get to consensus and it would make little sense to raise an issue that might have been fixed by the time we reach consensus. Additionally UA has an easy answer/out (if we get a response at all), "we're working on it - end of discussion." It would undermine the process to include "problem issues", IMHO.

Originally Posted by RedHeadFlyer
... Another example is the inconsistency in hard product. Tuesday on a SFO-BOS on a new 737-900 plane with nothing. Earlier this year, my JFK-SFO in C became non-PS. SFO-LHR 777s. Is that a transitory issue they are trying to fix, not worth pushing for a better plan on? New planes came in bare configs making things worse. ....
The seat/IFE issue on sCO is a problem but believe there have been responses to that already. The PS fleet is to be reconfiged later this year and the sUA 777s are slowly be reconfiged (3/4 done).
Agree these are significant problems, and may deserve a separate list -- but I'm still of the opinion we should separate problems and policies. Let's see what others have to say.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:44 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IAD
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Rewards - LTPP
Posts: 4,240
I would add the reduction in RPU/CR1s.
njcommodore is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 7:59 pm
  #10  
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,287
Originally Posted by redwoman
the meal orders in the premium cabins.
I doubt there would be consensus on this issue.
dayone is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 8:07 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by dayone
I doubt there would be consensus on this issue.
Nevertheless, it really irks me.
cranky1K is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 8:28 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Programs: DL Platinum, AA Lifetime Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Radisson Premium
Posts: 6,635
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

I would add CPU priority/TOD "reform" - compromise where TODs still offered along with Y/B/M, but no kettle mileage upgrades going above elites after t-96.
demkr is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 9:22 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PIT
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, Amex Plat
Posts: 314
My main concern is instrument upgrades (GPU/RPU and miles) working as advertised and not being trumped by ToDs or what have you.

Currently, there's nothing worse for me than having to sweat and babysit upgrade requests with instruments, especially at T-24 when the waitlist expires and R/RN and O/ON magically open up to allow ToDs buy-ups.

Also, although this hasn't affected me yet, get your IT in order, so award and revenue tickets on *A carriers don't get screwed up all the time. I'm tired of reading daily horror stories on FT about this.
ULMFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 9:45 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA 1K, UA 1 MM
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by avidflyer
As I look at the list I have to say as a 1K the only one I could really get excited about is the reduction of GPU's and maybe the boarding process. I think this is the reason the other thread can't get traction. As a Plat or 1K you really can't do a lot better elsewhere and there are no real horrible changes. With the SOS revolt there was a horrific change:non upgradeable (CPU) domestic fares. If THAT ONE pops up I think you will see a similar revolt. Short of that it will be tough.
Where is the info on reduction of GPUs? Website still lists 6 GPUs for 1K. Thx.
flyer_south is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2012, 9:47 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
my reasoning for not to include is it will take us awhile to get to consensus and it would make little sense to raise an issue that might have been fixed by the time we reach consensus. Additionally UA has an easy answer/out (if we get a response at all), "we're working on it - end of discussion." It would undermine the process to include "problem issues", IMHO.

The seat/IFE issue on sCO is a problem but believe there have been responses to that already. The PS fleet is to be reconfiged later this year and the sUA 777s are slowly be reconfiged (3/4 done).
Agree these are significant problems, and may deserve a separate list -- but I'm still of the opinion we should separate problems and policies. Let's see what others have to say.
You do make sense. If we do restrict the topics to policies, let's be sure that we understand where they fit in the context of other problems. If policy issue #1 is below problem issue #10 in FT pain points, we're doing a disservice calling the policy fix we want issue #1. Personally, that's closer to where I am, the only policy thing listed so far getting near my problem pains is the "TOD reform" and I've heard a good portion of that claimed as problem.

United getting its fleet consistent vs. FT coming to a consensus, which is more likely to come first, now that's a head scratcher.
RedHeadFlyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.