Early Disclosure About 2002 FFP Program/Benefit Changes
 

This is from UA forum about 'Systemwide Upgrades' started by DronekLax.

This post is with reference to rumors (and I don't like to rumormonger, but this is a persistent rumor that UA refuses to deny!!) about cutbacks in UA SWUs for 2002.


I don't have the exact language, but the airlines-
'We can change our program at any time' and 'Other terms and conditions may apply'
unfortunately TRUMP your
'Well I got it in writing'!

And I write this with great frustration that the airlines have the potential (hopefully NOT the will!) to be a kangaroo court with their policy decisions.

To give you an idea of the absurdity of these blanket protection clauses used by the airlines-

If I had the same clauses as a consumer...I could pay the airlines for my ticket, but unpay if I wanted to, needed to, desired to, felt like it, changed my mind, went delusional, etc. The airlines probably wouldn't want to do business with me. Yet, on a more sophisticated basis, that's what they are doing to us.

I want UA to succeed, I don't want to soak them, but I don't want to get screwed either.

I understand that the airlines don't want to confess their changes until end of calendar year, so as to maximize the number of customers gunning for their maximum status for 2002. Plus, if they confess too early (like June/July), and the news is bad, then customers will still have time to hightail to other airlines to get their status and better program deals.

So, the airlines have NO motive to provide full disclosure on a timely basis on their own; gang we're gonna have to do some heavy lifting here. We can start with lobbying United (again Randy editorial is crucial start because we can leverge his credibility with other local and national publications, news/travel outlets), but this truly is an industrywide problem.

If you think you are getting Benefit A and the Company does nothing for 11 1/2 months to
contradict your expectation, then they announce right before program renewal you will be getting greatly reduced Benefit B, that is callled BAIT-AND-SWITCH. I don't want to accuse my airline of 19 years of this deplorable tactic, so hopefully they'll make an announcement VERY SOON about 2002. In the meantime, lets try and expedite the process.

BTW- The airlines have no problem 'planning' MONTHS in advance about all their other logistics, why does MP benefit planning need to take so long. If there is indeed a good reason for the delay, I'm a reasonable, lets hear it fom the programs.

[This message has been edited by beaubo (edited 09-05-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

In the not-so-distant past, airlines announced any changes to their programs 2 full years in advance of those changes. This was so that you didn't waste one day flying today for a benefit that wasn't going to be there in next year's program.

In many other instances, the airlines "grandfathered" program changes with "old" or "original" miles that were valid on the old award structure. Giving you many years to use them up.

Things have indeed changed, and this is a pet peeve of mine and one I've mentioned to Randy several times here, by private email and in Chat.

And it is an industry-wide problem.

I hope that when Randy picks the next "cause" that this consumer protection will be at or near the top of his list.

Also, FYI, see a related story in last month's Inside Flyer about American Airlines settlement in a lawsuit regarding program changes at:

http://www.webflyer.com/@flyer/arcdo...1/insideed.htm

UA will not put anything in writing about 1k SWU policy for 2002, nor would they speculate as to when an official rollout of 2002 1k program policies, benefits will take place.

Best they would do is:
put in my permanent record my 'extraordinary' effort in trying to determine info about 2002

put in my record my concrn about timely disclosure of program changes (or lck thereof) for 2002, so consumers have enough time to react and determine if they want to stick with program

remind me that when MP started expiring miles and phased out 'old' miles, they gave members lot of notice; but I reminded them of how DL Palitinum members were given no such notice last year!

I'm feeling more encouraged and reassured, but this is too tenuous of a situation to be tolerated long haul.

I heartily concur with Premex on this one.

Despite whatever waiver the airlines put on their elite program rules and changes, when an airline has a frequent flyer program that makes promises - both specifically by listing them in their program literature and tacitly by having the benefit levels and frequencies exist - and a passenger acts in reliance upon those promises - spending thousands of dollars over many months to achieve those promised benefits - there is an implied contract that those benefits will be delivered. When a passenger is at a point AFTER the time and money has been invested to achieve a designated mileage or segment target, and the airline changes and/or reduces the benefits, a fraud has been perpetrated upon the passenger.

The DOT and the DOJ should require airlines to make and set their Frequent Flyer policies in stone during the year in which passengers qualify for them, forbidding "bait and switch" practices, and forcing the industry to make future changes with sufficient advance notice so that passengers will not be deceived into spending even one dollar for a benefit that the airlines intend to or decide to remove.

This IMHO, as a class action suit, would be easily won. Sadly though, the only winners would be the lawyers.

How much advance notice did United give its frequent flyers when it started giving SWUs for the 1K members? I don't think that it was a year in advance. Should airlines also have a one year wait before they start increasing benefits?

While I am all for early disclosure, I find it unrealistic for us to expect that the airlines would have a 1 year freeze on *all* of their policies.

I fail to see why DOT/DOJ etc. should intervene in a situation where say Continental airline gives an auto upgrade to its elite members instead of requiring them to phone in to get the upgrade.

Without getting into too many details in the wrong forum, some may perceve a benefit (or Continental's lates't euphimism for reductions, the "enhancement") as a far worse deal than what they were getting.

If you sell shoes, put a pair of Itallian oxfords on layway for someone, and at the end of the 20 payments, give them a pair of Hush Puppies instead, that's consumer fraud - bait and switch after having received money for one specific product an trying to give the consumer another.

If the airline says after 1K miles you get 5 systemwide upgrades, they let people approach 1K miles, and when they get there, they say "sorry, this year it will be 2 systemwide" that's the same consumer fraud - bait and switch.

If the airline says it's "enhancing" it program (to use the latest examples from One Pass) that you no longer have to call-in for upgrades as they will be automatically applied (when yield management feels like releasing the seats) many lower level elites flying transcon were "enhanced" right out of their upgrades. When they say that International Mileage upgrades are "enhanced" to be less confusing - when they are really now restricting the upgrades to only H K and Y fares, many are feeling "enhanced" out of this benefit as well.

And please, don't make the arguement that the airline is selling only the seat and transport, and once providing it, their responsibility is over. If they choose to market their FF programs as an incentive, then they are just as responsible for providing these services in a manner that does not constitute consumer fraud.

Should we require the airlines to freeze each and every operational aspects of their FF programs? I don't think so.

When United started giving SWUs, I am sure that it benefited some members and it hurt others (all members are chasing a finite number of upgrades). Similarly when last year, United offered 1K status to those who had flown 84K flight miles, I am sure that it hurt those who did not get a higher elite status (these members now have more 1Ks with whom to compete - and the 1Ks have an advantage). Should United have been disallowed from implementing these policies late in the year? I don't think so.

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

The fact remains that when people spend money and accrue miles in year x in reasonable expectation of certain benefits in year x+1, because those are the benefits that exist at the time, the airline ought not to be allowed to change those benefits until year x+2.

the airlines already told you before you started flying this year that they could change the rules. You have already been noticed. You are just hoping that the benefits are the same or better than last year. They did tell you what the were willing to commit to, nothing. Then you flew them, if you don't like the final outcome you can fly someone else.

And the key word is "perceved"... you said it NjDavid. CO broke no rules. It simply automated a system. End result... it's best customers got FC more often. Other result... you became bitter to the point of posting on virtually every CO thread how much you dislike them. Perhaps, its time for you to fly UA,AA,or Airtran since CO no longer can do ANYTHING to please you.

Are we missing the point here?

Yes, they have their rules that say they can do anything they want.

I think what some of us are saying is that shouldn't be so. That there should be consumer protection rules that prohibit one-sided "catch-all" terms that allow the airlines to do whatever they want.

We're not talking about how the rules read now. We're painfully aware of that. We're talking about what many of us think the rules should be.


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

What do your comments about me have to do with this topic? PG didn't agree with my points and didn't need to call me "bitter". He just raised some excellent points of his own. (And bitter is mild for you, as you have unedited posts recently calling me "a cancer" saying I "spew venon" and telling me to "go away".) Or is this all that you just must find every one of my posts anywhere on this board and follow it with some sort of personal attack? This is our host's pprivate forum, have you no shame at all?

My problem with you lately is simple. You post all over the place that CO was "unfair", "fraudulent","broke promises","lied" and you keep mentioning lawsuits. You constantly claim Incorrectly that there have been BENEFITS taken away. You also REFUSE to acknowledge ANY, not ONE, of the good things that CO HAS IMPROVED lately. It is clear that since you cannot admit clear cut improvements such as a new partner to Hawaii...with full status earning opportunities, you have become myopic. I listed ten things CO has improved lately. Yet you cannot see anything but your incorrect perception, that CO is taking advantage of you. Maybe you can't see it... but you might notice the long lists of CO forum posters telling you that the whole DENY thing has gone too far. And I stand by my comments about you becoming a cancer in the CO forum. You used to actually Help people, answer questions,post bonuses... now every thread you find ANY slim chance to work in BAD CO stuff... and 99% of it is ficticious. You've beaten the drum too long. We all know you hate CO. Its time to either fly someone else... or let those of us who ACTUALLY like the airline we fly, have our forum back.
As for why I posted here. Two reasons, first another poster had already pointed out that all you do is bash CO because you don't like EUA. Second, lately as more and more people have started posting after you do, telling you that you are wrong and ruining the CO forum; you have begun invoking Randy's name. Very similar to what happened with another poster who used to stir up negativity. You keep telling us its your right and quote Randy, to post all those Opinions... Well, My hope is that Randy will finally read this and broker a result. It is my hope that he will ask you to stop posting all those negative attacks against CO and only post when you can add something of value...not opinion. And I would then expect he would ask me to leave you alone. Or I'll make the same offer... Quit bashing CO at every chance and i'll stop correcting your posts.

Edited to reduce some of the fuss. I still feel the same. But I will bend and edit this part.

[This message has been edited by cigarman (edited 09-10-2001).]

cigarman writes: cigarman, I can't imagine an instance when someone was more off base than you are with your statement above.

From the very outset of discussions about a re-launched MoreMiles, it was NJDavid who had the highest standards and ethics about insisting that nobody screw Randy or poach his board for members.

I remember our first ever founders meeting in person where, guess what? It was NJDavid that was the one that insisted that nobody could get an email address from FlyerTalk for any reason, and that we should only pick Beta testers or future members from persons we had already had personal email communications or face to face relationships with.

Yes, we may have met that person from an experience created by FlyerTalk, but we never just went out and mined FlyerTalk emails. This was stictly prohibited.

This was approved and done not only out of respect for Randy's business and our relationship with him, but was also done so that we could hold our heads up high and say we didn't do such a thing if we were ever accused of it, which you have indeed done constantly here on FT.

I can proudly say to you now, that you are wrong on this subject. And you have accused NJDavid of acts which he did not commit.

All of my posts are on topic, save from when I'm defending myself from personal attacks such as this one.


There are hundreds of threads on this board about people who feel their benefits or service were reduced. I'm the only one not allowed to do so in your sick world?


I see three or four posters that say CO can do no wrong. And I see everyone else staying on topic.

You must be a classless, lowlife individual who has never personally experienced the ravages of cancer on an individual or a family to not understand how vile you are being.

A simple read of my posts on that board by anyone will show what a stupid lie that is. I help, answer questions, offer opinions, and do all a member of a community should without stooping to personal attacks against people I disagree with.

Where?

I have a great deal of comfort for my posts standing on their own merit, again save for when I am forced to defend myself from personal attacks. And you have some nerve trying to extort me into changing my honestly stated and factually proven opinion(s) under the threat of your continued harassment of every post I make. That's outrageous.


Those are just lies, borne out of some sort of psycotic delusion that you were excluded from some sort of a private club that you felt was being developed. Get help or get over it.


I participated in the creation of another website (while continuing to participate here) specifically to find a place where loudmouths would not control the flow of conversation, it did not turn out to be so, so I ended my participation there. I am pleased to see Randy taking some steps to prevent that here. None of that is any excuse for your behavior.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 09-10-2001).]

Moderator....helllooooooooooooooooooooooo!!??

I want people to read this thread, because I think it will resonate with many.

I don't mind if Cigar vs NJDavid want to duke it out, but would you kindly consider moving it to someone else's venue.

Thanks.

NJDavid and Cigarman- When you are not posting to one another, you provide good insights. Would you care to share your thoughts on 'Early Disclosure' issue. We need help here!

And round & round & round we go, again and again... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I did. It is a critically important discussion.

My sincerest apologies to the community for cluttering up the thread to defend myself.

A conclusion would be that every year an airline would have to maintain the same amount of reward ticket percentages in each category.

If for example, AA gave 8% of reward seats in 2001, then in 2002 the reward seats percentage should be the same. Extrapolate from 2002 to 2003, and so on.

I agree that's not reasonable, but that's not what I think is being asked for.

If an airline publishes it's FF program details in January 2002 to take effect January 2003, then everyone earning miles for the year 2002 knows exactly what they will get in 2003. Whan January 2003 rolls around, the airline can announce the changes for January 2004. They can still reduce or change benefits every year, but they do it fairly - when everyone is set at -0-. There are no two ways around the fact that collecting money for a product that they have specified but reserve the right to change or reduce would not pass muster in the US courts. Not for a store, a service provider or an airline. Have you ever noticed the end of a product warranty that states the exclusions may not be legal - that's why.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 09-10-2001).]

Last year United made some changes to its elite qualification late in the year. They did it considering the problems that their customers had. I don't think that they should be disallowed from doing so. This year NW is having a promotion which allows members to get status miles with non-flight partners. The rationale stated is that business flying is taking a downturn, and they want to help their customers maintain their status. If you disallow any changes, then the airlines will not be able to fine tune their programs.

The flip side to the x+2 argument is that it legitimizes any changes to FFPs. I am not ready for increases in the award tables in 2003. Ultimately I think that it is consumer reaction, rather than govt regulations, which will force the airlines to act a certain way.

If an airline wants to change a program for the BETTER late in the year, AFTER they have committed to program changes (good or bad!) for the following year, obviously no one is going to mind.

The protection of early disclosure is against changing a program for the WORSE late in the year.

The goal is NOT to hamstring the airlines, just to give us the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision about which program best meets our needs and gives us the lead time to pursue that program's elite program.

I hope UA doesn't change a thing for better or worse!!

Actually, last year when United liberalized the MP program by temporarily lowering the qualifications for the elite levels, some FT'ers did complain, bitterly in a few cases.

In my own case, after being a 1P-lite for 2001 (although not by any means 1P for the first time), I'll qualify easily for 1P again for 2002, so it seems to have been good marketing on United's part. Other than that, the point made by beaubo is well taken. There's a big difference between giving people something extra and taking something away.

The only concern I would have with this is who defines what is "better". While I really like the theory of pre-defining benefits and rules a year in advance, but allowing "beneficial" changes during the year, I wonder from a practical perspective how this would work. The airline could easily claim that, for example, tighter restrictions on upgrades makes the program better for the most premium members (even if it essentially screws the rest of the people). That would be better for some, lousy for others.

I don't know... it seems like there ought to be some way, but from a practical perspective it seems like it'd be a nightmare. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just trust the airlines to do the right thing in the first place? Okay, okay, stop laughing. I said, stop laughing! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

dmfriedman-

Since the programs are pretty mature at this point, there really shouldn't be the need to make any major changes, good or bad.

Most LATE in the year changes/perks offered are not so much inducements as they are apologies. So, assuming that UA has an uneventful year, wse shouldn't be getting any LATE surprises anyway.

If the trade off is the CERTAINTY of knowing the program structure x number of months in advance each year, versus the RISK of UA not spiffing us with yearend surpises, I'll happily take the former.

As mentioned before, what one considers "good" could be considered "bad" by others. So if United gives SWUs it could be considered good by those who get the SWUs and considered bad by those who do not get them. And vice versa.

Also the term "major change" is subjective. I thought that when CO changed to auto upgrades it is a minor (and good) change. But some think otherwise.

I don't think that anyone likes last minute surprises. On the other hand if we disallow changes for a year before the changes go into effect, it would disallow a large number of changes - one of which could have been the granting of the SWUs to 1K members by United (was this in 1999?). If they had to wait a year then before giving the SWUs would they even have given the SWUs to begin with?

The NW promotion this year is not an apology but an inducement. This is the kind of change that would be disallowed since it does not fall under a one year disclosure. But I am glad that it is being offered.

PG-

You actually reinforce my point, however inadvertently!

It is precisely the SUBJECTIVITY of program changes that makes early disclosure so compelling.

Your example is proof that two people can perceive the same change as being helpful or hurtful to them. So, more the reason that these two people should have sufficient time not only to EVALUATE the program changes, but also have time to REACT to those changes (namely the guy who feels hurt can have time to join another program and shoot for status). Early disclosure works for both PERCEIVED good and bad changes in program./

So how many people have left CO for another airline after the auto upgrade changes? I have not seen much REACTION to the PERCEIVED change - my impression is that NJDavid still flies CO - correct me if I am wrong.

As I have posted many times, because of past instances affecting other Flyertalkers, my specific choices for airlines and routes and the reasons for them are private.

However, I will say that CO has lost substantial revenue from my firm (%50) because of this change.

But this has little to do with the subgect at hand. We are not discussing a CO policy, but a policy of all US airlines. Bait and switch and whether or not it's truly fair or leagal, or should be challenged.

"Bait and switch" is a pretty inappropriate term. I've yet to be baited by UA about their 1K upgrades - the UAL web site does not even mention either the N.A. confirmed one way upgrades or the systemwide upgrades.

http://www.ual.com/site/primary/0,10017,1170,00.html

Similarly I fail to see how bait and switch could be used for CO going to auto upgrades. After all, the passengers that CO upgraded automatically could very well have phoned in for their upgrades. Simply by automating some process does not make it a bait and switch tactic by the airline.

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).]