Originally Posted by
gldwebs
Am I the only one here that recognizes UA is a business? I dont know many businesses that make money by creating a better product and constantly giving it away. The PN7 PZ0 makes a ton of sense. Most GS members are PAYING for F anyway (Im in paid F at least 75% of the time). GS members give 4-40x the revenue of 1k and are FAR more profitable. on a $ comparison - my $15k in flights to a 1k's $15k in flights (to compare equally) are probably worth 2x or more because mine are high value lower costs to UA. They WANT people with those flying patterns to be very happy. Last year I flew 88k actual BIS miles on around $50k in spend. That is far more valuable to them than the 1k flying 100k BIS for $15k. They WANT me to get an upgrade the few times I am stuck in coach then they want you to get it. I am not trying to be "Im better than you" here, but its a great business decision to keeping their money. Most 1k fliers are not necessary loyal, but are more likely hub-stuck to UA. Sure, an ORD person can go to AA, but there really isnt that big of a differentiation at this point to bother changing since you already spent the time building to 1k, have a bunch of banked miles, branded CCs, etc. You ARENT leaving unless your company makes you leave OR the competitors offer something awesome (which, they arent). I, on the other hand, could leave. I am buying international business class tickets. I could have bought my ticket on singapore airlines in their superior product, but I chose to consolidate with UA because I also fly to the EU (where I could fly LH F). They KNOW I would leave them because the GS benefits are not that much more above what I could get paying for F/C with top tier international fliers. This is the reality of the world. 1K and below are not getting something for free unless UA is 100% sure they wont sell it.
<NOTE: This post was not meant to piss anyone off but rather be a frank assessment of how I believe UA is looking at the difference between a GS and a 1K.>
This "<insert name of airline> is a business" argument has been brought out so many times over the years. Yes, the airline is a business, however United has an obligation to make good on the features and amenities that it promises customers - there is no value in, and actually an argument could be made for fraud, in stating "you will receive an upgrade certificate valid for Polaris Business worldwide from any W or higher fare" then taking deliberate steps to make sure the certificate can almost never be redeemed.
Delta is an example of an airline that has deliberately restricted global upgrades, made its frequent flyer program nearly unusable for any desirable redemption, and leads an almost useless global alliance, yet offers and communicates the value proposition of a product that is remarkably better than United - and has the ability to clearly articulate its value proposition and unique selling features, while continually improving the product. For example, Delta is introducing hot towel service and upgraded dining in international coach.
The problem with United is a very limited value proposition (hey, we're in Star Alliance and fly to lots of places - beyond that, really nothing), has no current unique selling features (Polaris is NOT unique, nor is it even great anymore), and does absolutely nothing to articulate any sort of value or benefit to customers - but just continually cuts service and product under the false narrative of "normalizing to the industry", which in Kirby's eyes means cutting or restricting along with other airlines, but refusing to follow other airlines in upgraded services or products.
So, yes, United is a business - but it's a very poorly run business with the wrong leadership and just happens to be making money off the coattails of a strong economy, but as the economy weakens and global travel demand softens, it is at greater risk vs carriers who still offer a desirable product at a fair price. I am not suggesting that United give away all of its seats for mileage redemptions and upgrades, but there should be more transparency and a clearer path to customer expectations around this benefit.