Originally Posted by
piemel
This policy is such a no brainer.
In a certain sense - that board member who pushed through this anti-business changer certainly didn't use his brain.
Or in the sense that parents with infants often cannot afford a though for pax around them ... in that sense a no brainer. From the POV of logic and UA unique selling points, this is a disastrous move.
Originally Posted by
piemel
There are few things more frustrating in life than having to board as a single flying parent with an infant in your carrier/vest..
Then don't do it. Why should your issues made other peoples' problems?
But UA sided with your view of entitlement. As UA became the ultra-LCC from here to the States and they still earn full miles on LH, I did contemplate to book UA for my personal travel. This move helped me with the decision to spend 15% more and fly an airline that values *G status over pax with demands.