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).]