Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > MilesBuzz
Reload this Page >

Does CO->Amtrak->UA really work?

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Does CO->Amtrak->UA really work?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 4:06 pm
  #136  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: SPG gold; otherwise just base in everything so far, but learning!
Posts: 489
Unhappy It's over, apparently

I spoke to a representative from AGR not long ago after I could not find the link to transfer to UA.

She told me they had received an e-mail earlier today stating that the partnership was over, effective immediately.

I guess I am out of luck. I had obtained the Amtrak MasterCard and had planned ot transfer points into UA, but never did. I wish they had given some notice. Perhaps I did not look in the newsletters, but was this announced anywhere? On the website, in one place it says it is a redemption option, but when you go to that page, only Continental and Midwest are listed.
fuzz is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 5:09 pm
  #137  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, US
Posts: 2,264
No notice

There was no advance notice. This apparently is one of these things covered by "we reserve the right to end the program etc." at any time.
Reindeerflame is offline  
Old Dec 30, 2004 | 6:29 pm
  #138  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OAK
Programs: UA Gold MM / AS MVP Gold
Posts: 2,504
I guess I will be using my MBNA/Amtrak miles for a first-class cross-country sleeper car award on Amtrak now.
amartin1979 is offline  
Old Dec 31, 2004 | 10:44 pm
  #139  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Community Builder
Community Influencer
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,666
You have got to be kidding me, NJ. Do you really think this change came about because of some posts here on FT?! We're not nearly so important.

Last edited by gleff; Jan 1, 2005 at 1:56 pm Reason: Edited out quote of deleted reply
dhuey is offline  
Old Dec 31, 2004 | 11:20 pm
  #140  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,720
Originally Posted by dhuey
You have got to be kidding me, NJ. Do you really think this change came about because of some posts here on FT?! We're not nearly so important.

DHuey --

I would not reject the connection out of hand considering that the nexus between Mahastaman's posts and this occurrence is quite coincidental, don't you think?

In any event, like many of you, I am truly sorry to see this end, unlike some who have stated as much now, but who sang quite a different tune while the transfers were still possible.

In any event, I think that the old wartime adage: "Loose lips sink ships" cannot fully be dismissed.
NJUPINTHEAIR is offline  
Old Dec 31, 2004 | 11:35 pm
  #141  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Community Builder
Community Influencer
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,666
NJ, they had no reason to kill the whole program if they didn't like the A --> X and B --> X routine. They could have hired a 12 year old to modify some code to prevent that from happening again.
dhuey is offline  
Old Dec 31, 2004 | 11:56 pm
  #142  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,720
Originally Posted by dhuey
NJ, they had no reason to kill the whole program if they didn't like the A --> X and B --> X routine. They could have hired a 12 year old to modify some code to prevent that from happening again.
Perhaps you are correct as we probably will never know what was the reason.

The only consolation I can take from this is that those who wished to prevent others from using this transfer oppotunity for their own selfish reasons have as a result of these turn of events been themselves precluded from using this transfer mechanism. Quite ironic, dontcha think!

Of course, I wish that these changes had never been implemented in the first place, unlike some on these boards.
NJUPINTHEAIR is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2005 | 2:09 am
  #143  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
1M
2M
50 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 18,069
I am not sure that the decision to drop UA is such a great loss, particularly given UA's precarious financial condition. AFAIK, you can still transfer CO miles into Amtrak, which can then be used for rooms at Hilton, Marriot and Ritz Carlton (mmmm!) Given the trends in airfares and room rates ^ this may prove to be a blessing except to those (like me) who needed a few thousand miles to top off a pricey UA award ticket.
Boraxo is offline  
Old Jan 3, 2005 | 3:37 am
  #144  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: BOS, MHT
Programs: AA ltg, B6, DL, UA, AS, SPG/Marriott Plt, HH, Hyatt
Posts: 10,062
all deals come to an end. I have seen things change that no one else even ever found! It just happens. You all can cast blame on Ft or FW or some poster or two, and maybe some of that has merit, but what really stinks is not the fact that it changed, but HOW it changed! Why should we be upset with each other? I mean, the real culprit is those marketing persons who decided to just STOP the transfer abilities cold turkey. It is they you should all be writing to in great angst and haste. Yes, I would Cc a letter to Amtrak and United now, and get as many people on board as possible and demand explaination as to how and why they pulled the plug with the unexpected speed of a Tsunami.

Otherwise, jerks in the business will simply continue to pull this sort of thing over and over again.

MM
Marathon Man is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.