Originally Posted by
CollegeFlyer
LOL. If you actually take a PR representative's statements at face value, and buy into everything the company says, including believing that it has implemented changes designed to lower its income...then I don't even know where to begin. It seems awfully trusting, to say the least. I highly doubt that I am in the minority on this issue (as evidenced by the other replies in this thread).
No offense to UA Insider of course--he's just doing his job, and I appreciate his presence here. But it's important for an objective reader to consider the source of any messsage.
Wow. You
really have a problem with reading comprehension. Nowhere did UA Insider suggest the changes would lower its income. Let me repeat myself: you really need to read the OP again. Your "attacks" on UA insider say more about you than him, who many FTers have met in person or corresponded with directly. That's all I'll say on that front. And in either event, it's just plain
common sense that there are a lot more requests for award ticket changes than there are for close-in bookings. Notwithstanding what a bunch of complaining FTers post about.
Imagine where we'd be if the FT community had followed this advice with regard to other issues over the years, such as e500 expiration mileage or YBMH-restricted SWUs. Or with regard to recent merger-related issues such as quarterly CR-1s or crap blankets. Perhaps you'd prefer to live in that world, but I certainly would not.
When faced with a deterioration in quality, members of a program or institution have two viable options:
exit and voice. You suggest that everyone who dislikes a change should give up and get out. But other people legitimately prefer to try using their voice.
I will stand up with my voice when I feel it is warranted. But I will not cry wolf when a mouse scampers by, I have too much integrity for that.