channa

And that is exactly the problem.

CO is being competitive with UA/AA in this regard (mileage bonuses). But they are NOT being competitive in many other areas:

- SWUs
- Standby/same-day confirmed fee waivers for top tier
- Close-in reward booking fee waiver to top tier
- Threshold bonuses (e.g., Elite Choice)
- Higher redemption requirements for awards (e.g., 100K Europe J vs. 80K)
- Gold level lounge access on int'l itineraries

CO used to compensate for this with the higher mileage bonus, high upgrade rate, and competitive policies (they allowed free standby just like everybody else). However, Plat mileage bonus has fallen, upgrade rates have plummeted, and CO's policies are now less platinum-friendly than their competitors' policies.

rjque

Precisely. And, as you pointed out above, UA and AA have F cabins for which full-fare C pax can use SWU's/VIP's. Also, UA and AA have a much better premium hard product for important routes like SFO/LAX-NYC and sometimes SFO/LAX-IAD/ORD/MIA. IME CO tends to offer better customer service than UA but OnePass is really not competitive with Mileage Plus and AAdvantage at the top tier elite level. I'm still going to use CO to make Gold but after that I will certainly be looking at opportunities to build elite status on other airlines rather than push for Plat. If UA could manage to get its Customer Service act together there would be no reason to ever use CO.

MIA-SAT

I think that the analysis of both of you fails to take into account one issue. It is FAR easier to make top status on CO than on AA or UA. The issue is not only 75K vs. 100K miles, but also CO's use of 150% eqm's on H, K and Y fares AND the double segment qualification for these and F fares.

The result is that there is a group of flyers who can make Plat on CO, SAT-IAH-MFE in Y 12 times yields plat, when such a flyer on AA would still be a Gold.

Those travelers who do not fly 100 real segments or 66,666 to 100,000 BIS miles (counting 500 minimums), but who still make CO's plat qualification levels will most likely consider CO superior to UA and AA.

I qualify for top tier on both AA and CO and once CO restored the 500 minimum eqm, the question of which is "better" depends on the circumstances of the trip that I need to take.

SS255

But won't this change when CO joins the *A? It is my understanding that if you're Gold (or equivalent) level on any of the *A carriers, you are entitled to lounge access on international itineraries.

Funnyguy

I am extremely disappointed with the return of the 500-mile minimum. I mean, I will benefit from it a bit (perhaps 2-3K miles a year) but what is the big deal?
Why 500? Why not 1000, or 750, or 387? 500 is just a number that someone thought up when the industry was different.
By throwing this small bone, Continental is saying that it is not listening to customers on the other changes, which have much more impact on all of us.
The change of reward travel to Tel Aviv from 70K to 90K will cost me 100K a year (yes, I book 5 reward tickets to Tel Aviv every year for my family. 100% of my miles go there). The change fees of $150 make the travel inflexible. The big advantage of reward travel was that you could book it 9 month in advance, and then change it for $35 (as gold). That is gone.
The inability to hold reward travel for a week demotes this even more.
I will start flying United more, even though I hate their planes and terminals.

cova

Since you are based in the Bay Area and with the shut down of OAK, I agree with you. SFO is a hard upgrade city, and with the loss of OAK, it probably does not make sense to stick with CO.

Once *A happens, you can still fly CO and get mileage credit on an UA account. With few upgrades as a CO Plat - then losing the CO upgrade if you fly CO and credit to UA will not be much loss.

If one is SFO based, it is likely better to focus on UA and at least earn UA 1MM status - which gives you mid-level for life. The 2MM mark gives you life RCC.

For me, being DC based, I am finding better upgrade chances on flights in/out of DCA. Maybe CO changed the gov't fare codes or lawyers have scaled back, but DCA upgrades have improved.

Mackieman

I suppose you can't please everyone. 500 is a nice round number to assign to flights that are less than 500 miles in stage length. 500 is also not that significant when you consider the cost of a domestic saver reward in Y. I still don't get it since I am not elite, but I'm not up in arms. I spend almost no money with CO compared to the plats (except that one crazy guy who got to plat on $3500 or something) so it makes sense for them to have the benefit.

entropy

IMHO UA's CS is far better than CO. For any issue, CO will record it and apologize, perhaps. UA will toss you a 50-$300 voucher or some miles (I recently got 2k for a busted audio unit on SEA-SFO on a cheapo fare). Arrivals lounge closed? $300.

Stripe

500 seems to be the industry standard (for those who still have a minimum). Can't remember specifics but I know other airlines have had 750 and 1000 mile minimums in the past.

It does seem odd to limit it to elites however. I guess a non-elite will struggle to get to that first elite level, then be eligible for the 500-mile minimum boost that will accelerate progress to the next levels. The silver elite benefits cost the airline very little, while there are so many plats that the key benefit (upgrades) becomes sufficiently uncertain that loyalty to CO is diluted. CO should focus more on creating a more exclusive top tier than on making it harder to reach the lowest tier.

Stripe

Bingo!

rjque

The problem is that UA does not fix problems that are brought to its attention - CO does. I'm too lazy to list all of the problems that COInsider has fixed after being made aware of them but suffice to say that UA does not come close to providing this level of CS. I'd much rather get correct service the first time than have to spend time trying to get compensation for a failure and even then, you usually need to argue with UA to get it to do the right thing. Some examples:

- RCC agents who are not only incredibly rude, but who also make up their own rules regarding admission and drink tickets;

- Incredibly understaffed hubs (LAX is particularly bad);

- Untrained staff in overseas call centers; and

- GA's who rebook Q-UP fares in coach because "you bought coach ticket with a free upgrade."

CO has a few bad apples but nowhere near the systemic problems UA has.

BigFly

Sorry Continental, too late.

sushibear

Just opened my email. How 'bout that? The 500 minimum makes the award change fee more bearable for me. This will keep me away from SW and DL.

sushibear

The change fee was second on my list, but as a Texas flyer--more than 50% of my flights include "doing time" in Terminal B--the 500 mile minimum was in first place by far. It may not seem like a big deal to some, but it will keep me on the RJs (which I hate) rather than making the move to SW or DL (DL offers mainline service almost everywhere I go and their FC upgrades are fairly easy to come by on).

Privateer

Well, I'm glad CO management restored the 500 mile minimum. I think it would be fairer if it applied to everyone, but giving it to Elites is better than not. For anyone frequently flying the short-hops in/out of the hubs, this provides some encouragement not to look for alternatives and some recognition that it is a bit of a hassle.

Scott -- thanks for responding to the feedback with more than "sorry, but that's it".