PG-
I think on the United board about 'getting more SWUs' (I'm still woking on cross-referencing!), PremEx posted another part of the UA website that actually did reference SWUs as a 1k perk.

There should be uniform info out there on UA's website, not conflicting. And what is the FINAL source of info for UA, the website, the newsletter, MP CSRs?? I can claim I saw a perk on the website and UA could say it was out of date or not the final source.

The more we delve into this topic, the more perplexed I am getting.

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-11-2001).]

pg writes: FYI from:
http://www.ual.com/site/primary/0,10017,2101,00.html

But again there is nothing but speculation about United doing away or reducing these or any other benefit, and this debate is not about any specific change at any airline.

This debate applies to all airlines and is about if an airline should be required to give sufficient notice of program changes. It's not about the way they can do it now.

PG - the UA UK site promises the 6 x SWU in writing:

http://www.unitedairlines.co.uk/0419.htm


1K Upgrades

As a 1K� member, you are entitled to the highest upgrade privileges and priorities on United.�

Systemwide upgrades
Six confirmed upgrade certificates, valid on any United route worldwide, are enclosed in your 1K membership kit.

Premex - the link you mention is about 2000 benefits, you yourself called it "outdated" in the United forum. My point was to rebut whether United is engaging in "bait and switch". If the US web site page for 1K benefits does not even mention SWUs, is United engaging in bait and switch? The bait and switch argument is phony, one could use the same logic to presumably try to sue the Nasdaq, which baited us with 5000 point levels and is now well below 2000.

I would like to know whether:
1) United should have implemented a one calendar year delay when they started giving SWUs a few years ago?
2) whether United was justified last year changing the elite requirements late in the year?
3) whether NW is justified this year in changing their rules allowing flight mileage accumulation with non-flight partners (without a one to two year notice)?

And while you're considering those, consider if the airlines should be allowed to change without a year's notice (as they did):

*The required mileage for top elite level (changed in October for the following year)

*The ability to obtain no blackout rewards at reduced mileage (changed in October for the following year)

*Upping the minimum fare basis allowed for international upgrades (change announced in the summer for effect in October)

*The entire process by which upgrades are granted (chenged immediately and without notice)

*The rules for standing-by for international upgrades (chenged mid year without notice)

ETC....

I know only a few policies that changed from one airline, I'm sure others could add to that list...

So, yes PG, I would take the trade-off of the few marginally benefitial immediate changes for the lock-in of programs that do not pull these suprises.

The devil is in the details. If I had to answer the question as stated, I would say that the entire process should not be changed. But I suspect that the reference is to the auto upgrade policy at CO, whereby folks do not have to call in to get the upgrade but the upgrade is handled automatically (as has been standard policy at United for many years). I have no problems with automating the upgrades, immediately and with no notice.

Rather than turning this into a discussion about Continental's automatic upgrades (very well covered in the Continental forum) I suggest that even though that is a prime example of what one passenger might perceive as benefit positive or neutral and another passenger might perceive as benefit negative, even without that one example, the argument is still valid based upon all of the other argumets.

I'd trade ANY benefit positive immediate changes for the stability of the program during the earning year. That (not a specific policy by a specific airline) is the crux of this discussion.

I have no desire to get in the middle of personal arguments, but I think it is important to maintain a cynical view about airline reward programs. Simply stated, when business sucks, they hand out benefits like candy. Then when it gets good, they want to take it all back in. Marketing tells them they are turning down revenue because seats are filled with upgrades and freebies, so out the window they go. Most airlines have floated way too much "free metal" to members of the lower elite tiers.
Not only has this contributed to an increase in the gap between available rewards and the demand for them, but at the same time, it has created false expectations, to the point that we see many posts on FT from lower level elites, demanding they receive upgrades and rewards that could never be provided on that scale. The airlines have contributed to the creation of a sense of entitlement on all our parts. It's lousy marketing, and their solution is to just change the program, and remind you the fine print says they can. It probably will get a litle better going forward, because their business already stinks, and the horrific events of Tuesday will certainly not help traffic, but in the main, they will always slice and dice these loyalty programs to suit their needs. It's real simple. Fly a lot of miles, and your benefits will be better. Expect nothing when things are good, and something when they are bad, but for heaven's sake, it isn't worth fighting about like this.

Presumably, most of us gun for status based on what programs DO offer based on the current calendar year, not on what they MIGHT add or subtract during the year.

We should be motivated by the yearly CORE program policies/perks, not seduced by the late year ADD-ONS (which are definitely unpredictable and fleeting).

No one wants to walk away or preemptively deny themselves some late year largesse from the airlines. But we have to be consistent when it comes to the principal of late disclosure. If we ACCEPT good news late in the year for the following year's program, but WON'T ALLOW bad news made in the same time frame, then WE are being intellectually dishonest.

I believe most of us value continuity/consistency, because no one wants to have to keep checking the website or the Service Center everyday to make sure the programs haven't changed while we weren't paying attention. Some FTers might be that obsessive, but not most.

Rather, create an industry wide disclosure date that is late enough in the year that the airlines have some ability to evaluate how the programs have performed so far that year, while being early enough for Flyers to have time to switch programs and earn status, if they dislike the changes to their program.

June 1 strikes me as a spreading the pain date. The airlines get your loyalty for at least 6 months, before they risk having you ditch them. And consumers still have enough time to switch and get status, although they will have 'wasted' 6 months with the airline. As long as both parties have reasonable risk/benefit ratios, this date should be a good starting point (or even end point) to hammering out an agreement.

BTW, with this scenario, an airline could theoretically announce on Jan 1 (six months BEFORE the official June 1 official program change anouncement date for the next year) that the program will NOT be making any changes for the followng year...and use that VERY early disclosure as a strategy to get new busness from the 'fencesitters'. The threat of that strategy alone could motivate the airlines to all VOLUNTARILY make the program changes known a year in advance.

The goal is not to compel airlines through Congress, the Courts, etc., but use market forces and competitive edges to level the playing field between the two parties.

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-12-2001).]

?dup

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-12-2001).]

dup of the dup

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-12-2001).]

Look,
I'm not going to argue with the expertise of beaubo and PremEx. And I'm certainly not going to get in the middle of cm and NJ.

But after the events this week, my guess is that UA et al will be offering us the world to return to the air.

Please DON'T offer your opinions on my comment.

Dan

Dan-

Part of the problem IS airlines offering 'us the world' to keep flying them. The value of their programs should be on an absolute NOT a relative basis to its customers. Instead of ratcheting up expectations that they either can't deliver and/or sustain, just keep the core program in place from year to year. Which BTW will insure that the programs are primarily servicing their true loyalists, not the cream-skimmers who f;it around from year to year in search of incremtal advantages in other programs.

Continuity gives us the chance to get to know and get comfortable with our programs.

I don't NEED 'the world to keep flying with UA, I just need their forthrightness (and hopefully keeping 2001 program intact, even with no 2002 addons.)

I always appreciate your opinion and all FTers that take the time to post!!

Stay safe in NYC.

With the overwhelming task at hand for the airlines, EXPEDIENCY would suggest simply rolling over FPP 2001 into '02 intact.

To reiterate, with the myriad of issues that airlines have to deal with for 2002, why not leave programs as is and rollover into 2002 intact.

Lets face it, no program in 2001 was particularly good or bad, as you didn't see any massive in or outmigrations to any programs, so clearly there is overall general satisfaction with FFPs.

Let the airlines just reup in 2002, so they can move on to more pressing issues.

BTW, the rollover I'm suggesting for 2002 is for expediency purposes only, it does NOT address the core issue of making early disclosure a formal policy for future years (there WILL be future years!)

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-22-2001).]