I won't address your lack of manners here because it is pointless...but here is a real world hypothetical example. Looking at the following itinerary:

AUS-IAH-FRA-IAH-AUS
Departing 3/11/14
Returning 3/18/14

UA quotes $1,089 for their own flights (K fare connecting to UA46). The itinerary on same routing on LH441 is sold as a T fare for $1,465 by UA. Almost $400 more.

Now if I go to LH's website, they are offering me the same itinerary at $1,370 but the return leg is on a non-earning K fare (outbound on H). Or I can upfare the return to an S fare and pay $1,482.

Hopefully this establishes a few things:

1) Just because it's a K fare on LH doesn't make it cheap. Take a look at the fare I quoted. The K portion of the LH trip is North of $600 one-way ($100 less than the return).

2) UA prices LH flights higher than LH prices its own flights.

3) If I ticket a flight with LH, I still don't earn any PQD.

So to use some logic here...if the UA flight doesn't work for me for some reason, my options are to:

a) Ticket an itin with UA that costs $400 more per person

b) Ticket an itin with LH that costs me $300 more per person but earns half the EQMs and RDMs and zero PQD.

c) Ticket an itin with AA that costs me $1,073 that earns full EQMs, full RDMs and no PQD. And for EXPs the decision is even easier.

But it doesn't stop there....I usually buy 4 tix, so lost revenue is on 4 tix, not one. And if I got the idea that PQD was unachievable for me, I may scale my flying on UA back even on those tickets that UA probably does want from me (my business travel that can be North of $.20 per mile).

How exactly is UA coming out on top in this kind of scenario?