UA Systemwide upgrade certificates
Dec 30, 2001 | 12:22 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
UA Systemwide upgrade certificates
Hi Randy,
I wonder if you could chime in on a matter that confuses me regarding Coupon Connection.
The rules say:
A United Airlines Systemwide Upgrade (SWU) certificate is legally transferable but void if bartered, which I understand to mean "used in any kind of exchange transaction".
Such certificates fetch $350-$500 on E-Bay, and lately we have seen FTers flatly asking for that sum in various instruments such as vouchers.
Shouldn't the trade of SWUs be banned on FT? It is clearly against UA rules. But I assume that Flyertalk is not in the business of enforcing UA rules. Then, should it be authorized? Ignored? If it is against the rules yet it is allowed, shouldn't the CC rules be revised?
I would greatly appreciate the opinion of the expert.
Thanks!
I wonder if you could chime in on a matter that confuses me regarding Coupon Connection.
The rules say:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The exchange forum for legally transferable coupons issued by various frequent traveler programs (these include free car rental days, 50 percent off hotel stays and upgrade coupons)</font>
Such certificates fetch $350-$500 on E-Bay, and lately we have seen FTers flatly asking for that sum in various instruments such as vouchers.
Shouldn't the trade of SWUs be banned on FT? It is clearly against UA rules. But I assume that Flyertalk is not in the business of enforcing UA rules. Then, should it be authorized? Ignored? If it is against the rules yet it is allowed, shouldn't the CC rules be revised?
I would greatly appreciate the opinion of the expert.
Thanks!
Dec 30, 2001 | 2:27 am
#2
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,111
Droneklax , I ask this with respect, but nonetheless some puzzlement: Why does this continue to be something you feel the need to bring up? By my count this makes the fourth thread and the third forum on which you've commented on this in some way:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/009518.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005186.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005272.html
I am not trying to censor you (as if I could), but I don't understand why you keep bringing this up and wanting some sort of "official" action. Several reasons come to mind for me to ask that question: First, in your opening post on http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/009518.html you say, in part, Necessity being the mother of all Evils, I am asking myself the question because I am short of SWUs, and if the consensus is that "gifting"is OK, I'll gift . And while that thread didn't reach that sort of "consensus" (if such is even possible on this sort of medium), there was a great deal of mostly good discussion of this issue in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005186.html which you initiated, much of it a helpful parsing of the issues involved. Second, I am simply curious as to why you are focusing on SWU's? Late-lamented 500 miler certs had the same "void if bartered" language, as do the 15% coupons that get bandied around, as do, iirc, even the fairly worthless new-style UA car upgrade coupons, etc., etc. Is there something about SWU's (as opposed to these others) that particularly bothers you? Third, IF there was a consensus on the thread I cited in #2, I think it was that the community has been fairly good about enforcing outright solcitations for cash. Fourth, I think asking Randy to comment on this and to take the action I suspect you think is necessary (enforcing the no trading rules scrupulously) puts him in a bind -- to truly enforce the T&C's of this forum is probably to ask him to dedicate a staff member to this; and, as I said, I think on the whole the community is fairly good about self-policing and the egregiousness of things both tends to be heightened by each new influx of newbies and gets pretty well moderated over time.
It is certainly possible that I am being a pollyana or simply rationalizing, but I do think (or maybe rationalize) that there are indeed matters of degree here, not absolutes. You've also asked the Talk Board to take this issue up and I assume that they will do so (although -- digression -- on this and lots of other issues, it would be helpful to have some regular reporting from that group too).
I really am respectfully seeking your response, and am not just flaming.
Chuck
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/009518.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005186.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005272.html
I am not trying to censor you (as if I could), but I don't understand why you keep bringing this up and wanting some sort of "official" action. Several reasons come to mind for me to ask that question: First, in your opening post on http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/009518.html you say, in part, Necessity being the mother of all Evils, I am asking myself the question because I am short of SWUs, and if the consensus is that "gifting"is OK, I'll gift . And while that thread didn't reach that sort of "consensus" (if such is even possible on this sort of medium), there was a great deal of mostly good discussion of this issue in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005186.html which you initiated, much of it a helpful parsing of the issues involved. Second, I am simply curious as to why you are focusing on SWU's? Late-lamented 500 miler certs had the same "void if bartered" language, as do the 15% coupons that get bandied around, as do, iirc, even the fairly worthless new-style UA car upgrade coupons, etc., etc. Is there something about SWU's (as opposed to these others) that particularly bothers you? Third, IF there was a consensus on the thread I cited in #2, I think it was that the community has been fairly good about enforcing outright solcitations for cash. Fourth, I think asking Randy to comment on this and to take the action I suspect you think is necessary (enforcing the no trading rules scrupulously) puts him in a bind -- to truly enforce the T&C's of this forum is probably to ask him to dedicate a staff member to this; and, as I said, I think on the whole the community is fairly good about self-policing and the egregiousness of things both tends to be heightened by each new influx of newbies and gets pretty well moderated over time.
It is certainly possible that I am being a pollyana or simply rationalizing, but I do think (or maybe rationalize) that there are indeed matters of degree here, not absolutes. You've also asked the Talk Board to take this issue up and I assume that they will do so (although -- digression -- on this and lots of other issues, it would be helpful to have some regular reporting from that group too).
I really am respectfully seeking your response, and am not just flaming.
Chuck
Dec 30, 2001 | 2:45 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: FTFOE
Programs: TalkBoard: We discuss / ad nauseum things that mean / so very little
Posts: 10,225
I will offer the possibility that Droneklax has chosen to start this topic here to get Randy's attention and to ask for Randy's opinion in the matter.
cblaisd: Thank you for a very fair post.
FewMiles..
------------------
[ FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web ]
[ Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage ] [ Unofficial oneworld Info Desk ]
cblaisd: Thank you for a very fair post.
FewMiles..
------------------
[ FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web ]
[ Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage ] [ Unofficial oneworld Info Desk ]
Dec 30, 2001 | 7:02 am
#4
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, Cagayan de Oro
Programs: CebGo 5J, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum, Alaska Titanium
Posts: 4,778
This is an important topic that needs some time devoted to it. FT is a forum for exchange of ideas etcetera. It could become a bartering forum or a mini ebay but I hope FT does not go this way. I offer coupons, upgrades for FREE to any other frequent ytraveller who would like them. Some others do not. Many discussions pivot around this issue. I would rather that people who want cash go to ebay because at the end of day - bartering or selling flight coupons is against airline rules - let Ebay deal with this issue and allow FTer's to have a forum that is professional and on focus.
Dave - London, UK
Dave - London, UK
Dec 30, 2001 | 9:02 am
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
cblaisd I agree that we have all expressed our views in the threads you kindly listed above. I did not intend this thread to be a new discussion. Anyone interested can go back and read.
The intent of this thread is solely to ask Randy for his expert opinion. In addition, since this is taking place under his own roof, he might have an interest in the matter.
What prompted me to post was the most recent thread where someone asks for $500 for a SWU, in high denomination vouchers, please. That takes Chutzpah with a capital ch.
Why focus on UA SWUs? Because they are the highest benefit offered by UA to its top flyers, and as a 1K, not only am I very familiar with them but I am also displeased with the idea of my benefits being sold to the highest bidder on FT. Its bad enough that it happens on E-Bay.
The next time that an upgrade does not clear, I have no problem if the passenger who got it qualified for it legitimately. I have a problem if it is because someone with lower status bought a SWU against the rules.
I see no difference between bartering 20,000 miles and exchanging a SWU for anything else. Its against the rules, period. So why is one forbidden and the other allowed in CC? In a way, it's worse. A SWU is a benefit for UAs top flyers. I dont think most of us would agree with the selling of benefits on FT. If memory serves right, we have seen a few uproars when some programs sold their Gold benefits for a few hundred dollars.
My own thinking on the issue has in fact evolved a bit. I was initially opposed to the sale of SWUs on E-Bay. Theres something about it that is not right. When I saw that bartering went unchecked on FT- which I consider to be a reputable forum- I began to have doubts (hence my first post above). I am now of the opinion that making money out of SWUs on FT or anywhere else is wrong. SWU are a superb benefit, we should not screw it up.
People bartering (i.e exchanging) SWUs on FT are in it for financial gain, plain and simple. If they were not, theyd use them on domestic flights- they obviously fly enough to be able to use them. Or theyd give them away, which is within the rules of both CC and UA. I dont think this is a victimless crime (excessively strong words but you get my meaning). There are consequences. Aside from the stolen upgrade issue I mentioned above, in the long run I wonder whether this kind of behavior by UAs most loyal fliers will not lead to UA cracking down with more stringent rules on certificates or a reduction in top benefits.
Setting aside the issue of whether its right or wrong to barter SWUs, there is the matter of the consistency of the rules on CC. As I think I pointed out somewhere: if it is permissible to exchange/barter SWUs on FT, fine. Its against UAs rules, but if FT can live with it then simply change the rules. If it is not permissible, then enforce the rules with a moderator. As of now, there is a major inconsistency between the rules and what goes on in there. Obey the rules or change the rules.
As far as the Talkboard is concerned, I simply have no idea if they have taken my question under consideration. I have no clue what they are doing, in fact.
Sorry if I look like Im on a mission here. Im not. Cblaisd, your puzzlement is on par with mine regarding why people want to sell their FF benefits on FT, and why it is allowed. I think it's obnoxious to ask for 5 HK-49s for 1 SWU. Or $500 in big vouchers. Give them away if you can't use them. Or go sell them on E-Bay.
Once again, this is not intended to be a long discussion. Weve done that before. Its just a request for Randys opinion, if he has the time to chime in. Since UA SWUs are a FF benefit, I assume the topic is right up his alley.
[This message has been edited by Droneklax (edited 12-30-2001).]
The intent of this thread is solely to ask Randy for his expert opinion. In addition, since this is taking place under his own roof, he might have an interest in the matter.
What prompted me to post was the most recent thread where someone asks for $500 for a SWU, in high denomination vouchers, please. That takes Chutzpah with a capital ch.
Why focus on UA SWUs? Because they are the highest benefit offered by UA to its top flyers, and as a 1K, not only am I very familiar with them but I am also displeased with the idea of my benefits being sold to the highest bidder on FT. Its bad enough that it happens on E-Bay.
The next time that an upgrade does not clear, I have no problem if the passenger who got it qualified for it legitimately. I have a problem if it is because someone with lower status bought a SWU against the rules.
I see no difference between bartering 20,000 miles and exchanging a SWU for anything else. Its against the rules, period. So why is one forbidden and the other allowed in CC? In a way, it's worse. A SWU is a benefit for UAs top flyers. I dont think most of us would agree with the selling of benefits on FT. If memory serves right, we have seen a few uproars when some programs sold their Gold benefits for a few hundred dollars.
My own thinking on the issue has in fact evolved a bit. I was initially opposed to the sale of SWUs on E-Bay. Theres something about it that is not right. When I saw that bartering went unchecked on FT- which I consider to be a reputable forum- I began to have doubts (hence my first post above). I am now of the opinion that making money out of SWUs on FT or anywhere else is wrong. SWU are a superb benefit, we should not screw it up.
People bartering (i.e exchanging) SWUs on FT are in it for financial gain, plain and simple. If they were not, theyd use them on domestic flights- they obviously fly enough to be able to use them. Or theyd give them away, which is within the rules of both CC and UA. I dont think this is a victimless crime (excessively strong words but you get my meaning). There are consequences. Aside from the stolen upgrade issue I mentioned above, in the long run I wonder whether this kind of behavior by UAs most loyal fliers will not lead to UA cracking down with more stringent rules on certificates or a reduction in top benefits.
Setting aside the issue of whether its right or wrong to barter SWUs, there is the matter of the consistency of the rules on CC. As I think I pointed out somewhere: if it is permissible to exchange/barter SWUs on FT, fine. Its against UAs rules, but if FT can live with it then simply change the rules. If it is not permissible, then enforce the rules with a moderator. As of now, there is a major inconsistency between the rules and what goes on in there. Obey the rules or change the rules.
As far as the Talkboard is concerned, I simply have no idea if they have taken my question under consideration. I have no clue what they are doing, in fact.
Sorry if I look like Im on a mission here. Im not. Cblaisd, your puzzlement is on par with mine regarding why people want to sell their FF benefits on FT, and why it is allowed. I think it's obnoxious to ask for 5 HK-49s for 1 SWU. Or $500 in big vouchers. Give them away if you can't use them. Or go sell them on E-Bay.
Once again, this is not intended to be a long discussion. Weve done that before. Its just a request for Randys opinion, if he has the time to chime in. Since UA SWUs are a FF benefit, I assume the topic is right up his alley.
[This message has been edited by Droneklax (edited 12-30-2001).]
Dec 31, 2001 | 12:12 pm
#6
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,690
I certainly understand your point of view Droneklax, and barring very extreme circumestances (like if I ever needed money any way I could get it for life-saving surgery for one of my kids), I too am uncomfortable with selling upgrades.
On the other hand, upgrades are very limited and there may be situations where I don't really have quite enough to cover all my domestic trips, but have too many SWUs which I usually reserve for international trips. In that case, I can use a SWU for a domestic trip (which seems like kind of a waste) or give it to someone who has HK49s that they don't need but has need of international upgrades.
What do you think is the best way to approach this very delicate issue?
On the other hand, upgrades are very limited and there may be situations where I don't really have quite enough to cover all my domestic trips, but have too many SWUs which I usually reserve for international trips. In that case, I can use a SWU for a domestic trip (which seems like kind of a waste) or give it to someone who has HK49s that they don't need but has need of international upgrades.
What do you think is the best way to approach this very delicate issue?
Dec 31, 2001 | 4:17 pm
#7
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 53
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Punki:
In that case, I can use a SWU for a domestic trip (which seems like kind of a waste) or give it to someone who has HK49s that they don't need but has need of international upgrades.</font>
In that case, I can use a SWU for a domestic trip (which seems like kind of a waste) or give it to someone who has HK49s that they don't need but has need of international upgrades.</font>
What would I do in your scenario? I'd likely exchange the certs. However, doing that (even in the very reasonable "no harm/no foul" manner you presented) is very clearly against program rules. In my post, I talked of a similarly "reasonable" 1-to-1 exchange of soon-to-expire SWUs for longer-dated ones with colleagues.
Let's not forget that FT is a relatively small community of "truly extreme" flyers in the context of these programs. However, just for the sake of argument, note that if everyone in these programs (ie: not just FT members) utilized these types of "reasonable" exchanges, there would definitely be an impact on the program for all of us. I've done a good bit of consulting with consumer products companies, and loyalty programs, coupons, rebates etc. are always developed with certain "breakage" levels expected - people who won't utilize the offer. I don't know what United's #s are, but if every SWU were used it would definitely lead to less of them being issued (or restrictions added). If every SWU were used for int'l travel, even more so. And since this stuff is all capacity-controlled, every SWU "optimized" makes it just that much harder for me.
I believe the question is simply whether or not FlyerTalk will serve as a forum where these "reasonable, but clearly against program rules" exchanges will be allowed to take place. Seems logical to put it in front of the guy in charge!
So what if all exchanges against program rules were banned in CC? It may be overly pollyanna-ish of me, but in my short time here this community seems to be very strong and close. Wouldn't it be nice if people just posted "I'm going on a trip and need XXX" and whoever had extras would give them out (yes, I've seen that this sometimes happens already, but it seems the exception, not the rule)? Obviously, the ratio of success with these requests would depend highly on the contributions (both in certificates and in knowledge) made to the community by the requestors. As an example, if I had a complex itinerary and someone here helped me save a lot of money on it, I'd definitely be positively inclined to send an upgrade cert there way if I saw them posting. Unfortunately, I know this may be just way too naive, but a nice idea to think about in the holiday season nonetheless!
[This message has been edited by sfojfk1k (edited 12-31-2001).]
Dec 31, 2001 | 6:57 pm
#8
Moderator, Argentina and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MIA / EZE
Programs: Lord of Malbec & all Wines Argentine. AA EXP / Marriott Lifetime Gold / Hyatt Explorist / Hertz PC
Posts: 36,210
" reasonable, but clearly against program rules " ..... (quoted from post above).
I think we have the answer right there. Why would Randy go against the rules...? Perhaps, if we think the rules should be changed we should ask for Randy's support in changing them.
I think we have the answer right there. Why would Randy go against the rules...? Perhaps, if we think the rules should be changed we should ask for Randy's support in changing them.
Jan 1, 2002 | 9:46 pm
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
Punki,
I am not sure how to solve this, this is why I posted here so that Randy could give us his opinion.
I would just guess that posting "I'd like to exchange 4 HK-49 for 1 SWU" is against UA rules (whether we should worry about them seems to be the real issue).
What about posting simply that you have 1 SWU to give away? Now, if you give your SWU away to someone who never gives anything back, you've obviously lost. But if you give to anyone in a group known to give as much as they take, isn't there some chance that at some point you'll come close to being even?
... I wish I had SWUs to give away I always seem to use them up, and I would be more than pleased if the rules allowed me to buy them!
I am not sure how to solve this, this is why I posted here so that Randy could give us his opinion.
I would just guess that posting "I'd like to exchange 4 HK-49 for 1 SWU" is against UA rules (whether we should worry about them seems to be the real issue).
What about posting simply that you have 1 SWU to give away? Now, if you give your SWU away to someone who never gives anything back, you've obviously lost. But if you give to anyone in a group known to give as much as they take, isn't there some chance that at some point you'll come close to being even?
... I wish I had SWUs to give away
I always seem to use them up, and I would be more than pleased if the rules allowed me to buy them!
Jan 3, 2002 | 8:56 am
#10
Founder of FlyerTalk
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,540
Fair question and one i don't mind answering. I need a day or so to clean up some other things elsewhere in the universe and then let me get back to answer this. But I do think the question is pertinent and fair to ask of me.
Jan 10, 2002 | 6:16 am
#11
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,811
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Randy Petersen:
[B]Fair question and one i don't mind answering. I need a day or so to clean up some other things elsewhere in the universe and then let me get back to answer this...B]</font>
[B]Fair question and one i don't mind answering. I need a day or so to clean up some other things elsewhere in the universe and then let me get back to answer this...B]</font>
Jan 12, 2002 | 11:50 pm
#12
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Programs: 1MM BIS. Former 18-year segment 1K, 1997-2014...now just a distant memory.
Posts: 1,200
Will tread a little lightly into this one by initially saying that, yes, UA and other airlines "prohibit" quite a few things that would clearly be advantageous to us flyers. And, while they are not at all "illegal", they are prohibited because the airlines say they are.
If I, after flying my butt off every year on 100+ UA flights in order to requalify for 1K (with the vast majority at my expense and with most flights flown on UA at a higher cost than I could fly them on other airlines), thus "earn" six SWUs, should I not be allowed to use them as I wish, even by exchanging them for something that would be of more benefit to me in my type travels, i.e., exchanging for credit vouchers or
HK-49s? No, I guess not, because UA says that is not Kosher.
Come on, relatively few of us have the opportunity to take the number of international trips each year required to use all six. Some of us 1K'ers don't have the luxury of having our employer send us overseas on business. And, for sure, these SWUs are essentially wasted for domestic upgrades.
I am sitting here with all six of my 2001 SWUs still available. A month ago I was going to use four of them to upgrade me and my lady friend on a trip to BKK in early March, but UA suddenly upped the BKK fare by $200 each. Then was going to use them to upgrade to SIN, and hop over to BKK, but UA then also upped the SIN fare by $200 each, for "low season" travel to Asia.
Sometimes it is really difficult to remain loyal to United, and still comply with all the "rules".
If I, after flying my butt off every year on 100+ UA flights in order to requalify for 1K (with the vast majority at my expense and with most flights flown on UA at a higher cost than I could fly them on other airlines), thus "earn" six SWUs, should I not be allowed to use them as I wish, even by exchanging them for something that would be of more benefit to me in my type travels, i.e., exchanging for credit vouchers or
HK-49s? No, I guess not, because UA says that is not Kosher.
Come on, relatively few of us have the opportunity to take the number of international trips each year required to use all six. Some of us 1K'ers don't have the luxury of having our employer send us overseas on business. And, for sure, these SWUs are essentially wasted for domestic upgrades.
I am sitting here with all six of my 2001 SWUs still available. A month ago I was going to use four of them to upgrade me and my lady friend on a trip to BKK in early March, but UA suddenly upped the BKK fare by $200 each. Then was going to use them to upgrade to SIN, and hop over to BKK, but UA then also upped the SIN fare by $200 each, for "low season" travel to Asia.
Sometimes it is really difficult to remain loyal to United, and still comply with all the "rules".
Jan 19, 2002 | 11:45 am
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
Just a bump for Randy's attention.
Jan 20, 2002 | 11:27 pm
#14
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Since the BoSox and ChiSox won it, now it is the Cubs turn to take the Series. Go Cubs Go!
Posts: 3,685
ColoBill. Please email me for an interesting offer.
Jan 23, 2002 | 6:25 pm
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
Randy- Have you had some time to formulate an opinion on this? It's a difficult issue, but that's why some of us are interested in how youwould approach it.
Thanks for your time- and sorry for the nagging.
Thanks for your time- and sorry for the nagging.