Presidential Plus Card Changes

Old Oct 23, 2011, 11:08 am
  #691  
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by KevinInRI
Apologies if this has been answered before but... I'm a current United Red Carpet Club member (expires 4/2012) that I originally purchased with UA miles. Recently applied for and got approved for the Continental Presidential Plus CC which will give me a one year United Club membership. Am I eligible for a pro-rated refund of my remaining 1/2 year or so UA Red Carpet Club membership? If so will that refund come in miles since that's the way I purchased it? How does one go about getting a pro-rated refund in cases like this? Thanks.
1. I was a current RCC member when I applied for the UA Club Visa. The credit card T&Cs expressly said NO pro-rated refunds for existing RCC members, so I recommend checking the PPC T&Cs.

2. That said, despite the T&Cs, a full year of RCC was just tacked on to the end of my existing membership, so I didn't lose anything (except the interest on the money). This happened automatically without my having to do anything.
EsquireFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2011, 3:53 pm
  #692  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Providence, RI
Programs: AAEXP, BASlv, UAGold, Hyatt Diam, IHG Plt, SPG Plt, HH Diam, MR Plat, CC Gold, Nat ExecElite
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
1. I was a current RCC member when I applied for the UA Club Visa. The credit card T&Cs expressly said NO pro-rated refunds for existing RCC members, so I recommend checking the PPC T&Cs.

2. That said, despite the T&Cs, a full year of RCC was just tacked on to the end of my existing membership, so I didn't lose anything (except the interest on the money). This happened automatically without my having to do anything.
Actually I did go back and reread the T&C for the Pres Plus Card and it does say the following: If you are already a United Club or Presidents Club member before you are approved as a Cardmember, you are eligible to receive a refund for any unused portion of your current membership (including Presidents Club Spouse memberships) as long as the refund is greater than $15. Your refund will be based on the number of days remaining on your current membership. Refund checks will be automatically mailed by United or Continental in 6–8 weeks.

So I guess I'll have to wait and see how they'll handle it since I bought my membership with miles instead of cash.
KevinInRI is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 6:04 pm
  #693  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 456
Of all the ridiculous things that have happened as a result of the merger, this one issue single-handedly takes the cake for me....

Customer A flies 10,000 BIS miles, deposits 65K FlexEQMs, and gets next-to-top-tier status (i.e., Platinum).

Customer B flies 99,000 BIS miles, but can't use 1,000 FlexEQMs to reach the next higher tier (i.e., 1K).

Customer C flies 147,000 BIS miles, but can't redeem 3,000 FlexEQMs to qualify for another set of upgrade e-certs.

Yeah, that makes sense, encourage your best customers to fly less, and simultaneously devalue the FlexEQMs already earned by them to essentially $0.

I am utterly STUNNED that anyone in management (and certainly no one from the ex-CO team) would think this is *remotely* the correct (much less equitable) answer.

And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.

Brilliant move, Wacker Drive!!

tanlines is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 6:50 pm
  #694  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Jersey Shore
Programs: UA 1MM, UA 1K, SPG Plat, Yfirst gold, Hyatt Plat, Avis Plat.
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by tanlines
Of all the ridiculous things that have happened as a result of the merger, this one issue single-handedly takes the cake for me....

Customer A flies 10,000 BIS miles, deposits 65K FlexEQMs, and gets next-to-top-tier status (i.e., Platinum).

Customer B flies 99,000 BIS miles, but can't use 1,000 FlexEQMs to reach the next higher tier (i.e., 1K).

Customer C flies 147,000 BIS miles, but can't redeem 3,000 FlexEQMs to qualify for another set of upgrade e-certs.

Yeah, that makes sense, encourage your best customers to fly less, and simultaneously devalue the FlexEQMs already earned by them to essentially $0.

I am utterly STUNNED that anyone in management (and certainly no one from the ex-CO team) would think this is *remotely* the correct (much less equitable) answer.

And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.

Brilliant move, Wacker Drive!!

plus 1
infomark is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 7:53 pm
  #695  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: IAD
Programs: UA 1K, Hertz 5* Gold, HH Diamond
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by tanlines
Of all the ridiculous things that have happened as a result of the merger, this one issue single-handedly takes the cake for me....

Customer A flies 10,000 BIS miles, deposits 65K FlexEQMs, and gets next-to-top-tier status (i.e., Platinum).

Customer B flies 99,000 BIS miles, but can't use 1,000 FlexEQMs to reach the next higher tier (i.e., 1K).

Customer C flies 147,000 BIS miles, but can't redeem 3,000 FlexEQMs to qualify for another set of upgrade e-certs.

Yeah, that makes sense, encourage your best customers to fly less, and simultaneously devalue the FlexEQMs already earned by them to essentially $0.

I am utterly STUNNED that anyone in management (and certainly no one from the ex-CO team) would think this is *remotely* the correct (much less equitable) answer.

And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.

Brilliant move, Wacker Drive!!

To me, this is the most clearly stated summary of this issue!
gras is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 7:53 pm
  #696  
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by tanlines
And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.
OK, but that's why Customer A is only Plat and Customer C is 1K. If oyu think Customer A is clearly <<<< than the value of Customer C, then how is giving Customer C 1K and giving Customer A Plat not to "protecting the sanctity of 1K status"?

And the same reasoning applies to give Customer B Plat status and Customer C 1K status, at least as far as the "protecting the sanctity of 1K" or whatever goes.

I'm not saying that I like the change (because, if given the choice, I would want to choose to be a low-value 1K customer too), or that I think it's fair (because a lot of people already accumulated FEQM that are now getting retroactively devalued). I am just saying that it does seem to effectively restrict 1K to higher-value customers, and that your example illustrates that rather than disproving it.
EsquireFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 8:10 pm
  #697  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,814
I totally understand why they did it but wish they got feedback a bit more from us rather than just implementing it.

I think a more fair system would be to use a percentage system based on the number of BIS miles they flew rather than a limit.

Lets take an example. If we set the percent to be 25% and

... say if you flew 20,000 BIS miles. That would give you a limit of 5,000 Flex EQMs that you could apply. (fair and you need to fly more to make elite)

... say if you flew 69,000 BIS miles. That would give you a limit of 17,250 Flex EQMs that you could apply. (you could make plat if you spent enough).

... say if you flew 89,000 BIS miles. That would give you a limit of 22,250 Flex EQMs that you could apply. (you can still get that 1K status!)

Seems more reasonable (atleast to me) this way rather than setting a limit of 75,000 FlexEQM miles (doesn't seem fair to give plat to someone that hasn't flown too many miles -OR- someone who has 1,000 FEQM but can't apply it to make 1K).
edcho is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 8:22 pm
  #698  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,696
Originally Posted by tanlines
Yeah, that makes sense, encourage your best customers to fly less, and simultaneously devalue the FlexEQMs already earned by them to essentially $0.

I am utterly STUNNED that anyone in management (and certainly no one from the ex-CO team) would think this is *remotely* the correct (much less equitable) answer.

And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.

Brilliant move, Wacker Drive!!

I absolutely agree with most of this, but please don't let the assumption that more miles == better customer throw you off course. The most frequent customer is quite often NOT the best customer. That discussion, is best left for another thread.

The huge problem I have with the absurd new 'flexible' EQM policy is that they are nw going to be anything but flexible. They are now NFEQM -- Non Flexible EQM. Chase has spent a few years touting these as a way to, "turn silver into gold." Sure -- people understand that. But, they're going to have a hell of a hard time understanding how it doesn't turn Platinum into 1k. People right here on FlyerTalk have had a hard time understanding the new rules, and we know more than pretty much anyone about how these programs work. Add to that the fact that pre-2012 NFEQM don't expire and NFEQM earned in 2012 and beyond have an expiration date.

It's easy to see how United and Chase have come together to completely confuse the customer with regard to this program. It makes absolutely no sense. I've not even gotten to the discussion of how the NFEQM are now completely worthless to anyone who flies more than 75k/year. There is a reason my signature has had the term, "arcane rules" in it for years. This is but another shining example of why.
Xyzzy is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2011, 10:47 pm
  #699  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by Xyzzy
I absolutely agree with most of this, but please don't let the assumption that more miles == better customer throw you off course. The most frequent customer is quite often NOT the best customer. That discussion, is best left for another thread.

The huge problem I have with the absurd new 'flexible' EQM policy is that they are nw going to be anything but flexible. They are now NFEQM -- Non Flexible EQM. Chase has spent a few years touting these as a way to, "turn silver into gold." Sure -- people understand that. But, they're going to have a hell of a hard time understanding how it doesn't turn Platinum into 1k. People right here on FlyerTalk have had a hard time understanding the new rules, and we know more than pretty much anyone about how these programs work. Add to that the fact that pre-2012 NFEQM don't expire and NFEQM earned in 2012 and beyond have an expiration date.
Indeed. I did equate most frequent with most "valuable"..... that may not
be reality

And you're right, many of the "normal" frequent flyers are not going to
be able to "understand" this new math, no matter how hard they try to
spin it. For many, it will seem like a clear "bait and switch."

(of course, the airline's response next year will be that there IS no more OnePass Program, so anyone should be "grateful" that their "old" FlexEQMs didn't magically expire 12/31/11... And for the legal purists, the answer, will, of course be "all terms of our program are subject to change or discontinuance at will.").

take home message.... the "value" of frequent flyer benefits are being eroded, just as quickly as peanuts, free food and pillows have disappeared
from the aircraft.


Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
OK, but that's why Customer A is only Plat and Customer C is 1K. If oyu think Customer A is clearly <<<< than the value of Customer C, then how is giving Customer C 1K and giving Customer A Plat not to "protecting the sanctity of 1K status"?

And the same reasoning applies to give Customer B Plat status and Customer C 1K status, at least as far as the "protecting the sanctity of 1K" or whatever goes.

I am just saying that it does seem to effectively restrict 1K to higher-value customers, and that your example illustrates that rather than disproving it.
There is no argument that Customer C "earned" 1K status by his flying alone.
That isn't the point.

The issue is the sudden (and retroactive) devaluation of FlexEQMs that have already been earned under an existing policy that made them of value to elites at ALL levels of flying....

Someone who routinely flies 30 or 40K miles a year gets an incredible value when s/he redeems existing Flex miles to achieve platinum status...
For someone who already FLIES >75K/year, however, the value of their accumulated FlexEQMs is now essentially ZERO.

And the group of elites that gets penalized the most? Well, that's the folks who "just missed out" on 1K by a few thousand miles... Banked 20,000 Flex miles for that "rainy day?" sorry. can't redeem ANY Flex miles..... you're still a platinum...


There is NO scenario under which the new rule is equitable for CO-centric elites who already fly >75K, but can't use any of their accumulated FlexEQMs to "top off" to 1K, or to obtain another round of SWU/CR1s, etc....

None.


And since a re-branded version of this card is CERTAIN to be forthcoming next year, UA-centric elites should also be "concerned" about this change, because it will almost certainly apply to that card as soon as it's introduced.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Oct 27, 2011 at 11:55 pm Reason: merge
tanlines is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2011, 11:28 am
  #700  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Honolulu
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 46,925
Originally Posted by tanlines
Of all the ridiculous things that have happened as a result of the merger, this one issue single-handedly takes the cake for me....

Customer A flies 10,000 BIS miles, deposits 65K FlexEQMs, and gets next-to-top-tier status (i.e., Platinum).

Customer B flies 99,000 BIS miles, but can't use 1,000 FlexEQMs to reach the next higher tier (i.e., 1K).

Customer C flies 147,000 BIS miles, but can't redeem 3,000 FlexEQMs to qualify for another set of upgrade e-certs.

Yeah, that makes sense, encourage your best customers to fly less, and simultaneously devalue the FlexEQMs already earned by them to essentially $0.

I am utterly STUNNED that anyone in management (and certainly no one from the ex-CO team) would think this is *remotely* the correct (much less equitable) answer.

And forget the notion that this rule somehow "protects the sanctity of 1K status." That's utterly absurd, because the monetary "value" of Customer A to the airline is <<< than the "value" of Customer B, and clearly <<<< than the "value" of Customer C.

Brilliant move, Wacker Drive!!
Thank you for putting this down so perfectly. While not being able to get to 1k doesn't effect me, I've been puzzled as to how/why they would discourage their most frequent customers to fly another airline if they have no hope of reaching the next level.

I generally make it to silver on my own but this year I won't. I'll use my FEQM to make it for the last few thousand miles. That means if a short trip comes up before the end of the year I might not use CO it if it costs more. After all, eventually, those FEQMs will expire (not pre-2012) and I'll have to use them or lose them. I'll fly another carrier if it's less costly.

I'm still puzzled as to why UACO did this.
Mary2e is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2011, 11:37 am
  #701  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,766
ACtually, under the current scheme, you're better off spending on the UA Platinum Select visa (the "lesser" card) to get 5-10k EQM from spend/.com spend.
entropy is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2011, 12:45 pm
  #702  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by entropy
ACtually, under the current scheme, you're better off spending on the UA Platinum Select visa (the "lesser" card) to get 5-10k EQM from spend/.com spend.
Agreed. Although, give the beancounters enough time, and I'm *sure* they'll find someway to change THAT benefit into something that we'll "like"!!

tanlines is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2011, 4:32 pm
  #703  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,240
Originally Posted by tanlines
Customer A flies 10,000 BIS miles, deposits 65K FlexEQMs, and gets next-to-top-tier status (i.e., Platinum).
Since Customer A flies so little, does it really matter? Or do people feel their "exclusivity" is being tarnished?
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2011, 7:32 pm
  #704  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: UA 1K, Star Gold,Marriott Gold, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 414
Will the CO Presidential Plus Visa/MC participate in the UA Choices program in 2012?

Dear Shannon (UA Insider),

I have not been able to find any threads explaining whether the CO credit cards will fall under the UA MP credit cards "Choices" program in 2012. My issue is one related to jmr50's question that you answered back in July 2011 (quoted below):


"Hi jmr50, in this scenario, you could put 20K of Flex EQMs into your empty account and then fly any number of miles to reach incremental statuses up to 75K. Once at 75K, you won't be able to add Flex EQMs and flown EQMs together to get to a higher tier. In 2012 we’ll begin showing EQMs earned via flights separately from EQMs deposited from the conversion of Flex EQMs. "

From your answer, it is clear that if in 2012, one flies BIS and gets 99,999 EQMs, all the Flex EQMs earned on the Continental Presidential Plus credit card will not help one gain 1K status, because in 2012 the Flex EQMs can only get one up to Premier Platinum (75K). However, currently under the UA MP Choices program, I am allowed to trade 50K miles for 5000 EQMs. In 2012, could one do the following using a CO PP credit card:

Get 90K PQMs (EQMs as they are called now) by flying *A, get 5K PQMs by buying $5K worth of flights on united.com with the credit card, get 5K PQMs by exchanging 50K miles in the UA MP account, and reach 1K status?


Thank you for reading.
redwoman is offline  
Old Oct 29, 2011, 1:18 am
  #705  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
Since Customer A flies so little, does it really matter? Or do people feel their "exclusivity" is being tarnished?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

While it might not "matter" to Customer A, it will CERTAINLY "matter" to any person who flies 96K miles, and finds out he can't use 4K of his Flex miles to reach the 1K tier....

And it will most DEFINITELY matter to someone who flies 147,500 miles but can't use 2500 FlexEQMs to reach the next set of GPUs!!

I don't think the issue has anything to do with tarnished exclusivity... It's more about earning Flex miles the past 2 or 3 years that are now essentially worthless....
tanlines is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.