You are correct. But to some degree it's relative. As an example, often an H fare happens to be the lowest fare in the market at the time. Or an H fare is only a few dollars more than the lowest fare. Other times it can be more though.

But, I wasn't really trying to compare the two programs as much as I was trying to state that no matter how you sugar coat it...it's a benefit reduction and you got screwed. I only mentioned United because I think the $250 had nothing to do with the new J seats. I think they are separate issues, yet I see some are trying to "justify" American's moves by blending one issue in with the other and overly sympathizing and accepting the airline's motives. Certainly I think you'll see American trying to use the new seats as part of their justification for the new fee.

I'm just of the school that you don't roll over and accept these things without making the vendor sting a bit, or you'll find more of the same quickly in the future. I believe consumers can effect change. Or a change back. But you can't effect change if you don't accept you got screwed to begin with!

I'm not trying to convince AA flyers that United is better. I don't want them coming over to UA and hogging up my First Suites! I'm just trying to say that when you get screwed, you get screwed. And it's not the consumers responsibility to just accept their stated reasons. You can either endorse the change, accept the change, or try to effect change about the change.

The only thing I'm trying to convince anyone of here, is that you got screwed. What was once truly free, now will cost you.

I want American to do what's right for their customers because I have a vested interest in American remaining competitive with United. I want American to be a better airline and program for their customers because that means United will have to be a better airline and program for their customers! Competition is good for us. IMHO.