pdx1M

their continued non response to this issue suggests that arrogance is a corporate value at the new UA.

Guys let's be realistic. No sane corporation (nor it's reps as individuals) is going to debate something like this in a public forum. What would you like their response here to be? They have issued the new rules. Presumably they are watching overall reaction and if and when they decide that those rules should be modified they will announce those. It isn't arrogance that they aren't here carrying on a pointless debate. In fact if anything it is arrogance that folks here should think that is what they should be doing. My bet is that at the end of all this they will tweak the program a small amount. It won't make most folks happy and version 2 of the debate will rage. Some of you will decide to boycott UA; others will grumble and not really change habits. UA will run their new airline and in the overall mix of where their revenue comes from these actions will be in the round-off of the numbers.

This thread has done a couple of good things. It has exposed to UA reps a set of complaints about the program and the reasoning. It has exposed some ideas on things that might address those complaints. But UA is also capable of litterally counting the number of contributors to the thread on each of the issues so mere posting count really isn't going to do much to make your case.

nmenaker

I wouldn't expect ANY response at this stage in the process, which is the currently the ANGER phase. The airline shouldn't respond to every ninny who isn't happy with the new regimen. They should be sitting, reading, listening, thinking, and only POSSIBLY altering any/some of the new model. I don't think the current proposed model was done in a vacuum, we had leaks and test reports (remember the 4K$ spend requirements, that's didn't happen)..

I'm sure they are doing the number crunching, figuring out how many miles they were planning on deducting from liabilities under the new plan. re-calculating the possible loss of players, loss of revenues, figuring out what might make sense and what might not. I wouldn't expect ANYTHING of detail/value to be communicated for at least another 4-6 weeks.

elgringito

A very logical response.

halls120

then what is UA Insider here for? Just to respond to easy fixes like unfair oversize baggage charges?

A simple "we hear you, and have communicated the FT community's concern about the 2012 MP program to our colleagues that oversee that program."

22 words would go a long way.

uastarflyer

In the meantime my hope is newly minted MMers and veteran MMers alike book away en masse and send itineraries to United indicating the connection between gutting MM and MP and choice of carrier.

Gold and spouse gold privileges work on non-revenue-sharing *A carriers after all.

bldr1k

Yes - this is exactly how every large business is run. The question is, will it work for the airline industry? Frequent flier programs have enabled airlines to keep their profitable customer base even when their routes, airplanes and service were sub-optimal.

This new approach (it isn't just United) of what have you done for me lately may work both ways. United will cater to the current high-value fliers and the rest of the frequent fliers will likely reduce their travel on United and consider other options, especially if there are cheap upsells. It is unclear what this does to their profitability, but time will tell.

The airlines have to generate profits. I would hope they could do this without destroying loyalty...

Baze

There are other factors involved in my wifes loyalty program.

1. The competition in the area does basically the same thing
2. She is a small local business and can't afford to lose one customer
3. Massage Spa competition is cuthroat

So basically the huge airlines feel they can lose a few customers while my wife can't afford to lose one so she would never go back on her loyalty program. It would be suicide to the business. The airlines are constantly losing and gaining customers in large quantities. They are willing to cut programs deeper and go back on their word as they know there are enough new people out there to make up for it, they hope. When it looks like they may have cut too deep they will restore or come up with a new offer to entice people. And look at the people on Flyertalk. For the most point it is all about the points. What credit card gives me the most points, which airline is currently given the best promotion. I bet there are more people changing loyalty more than we realize all based on points. For most the MM is a far distant unobtainable goal, until they get close. And the airline is betting people will be unhappy but close enough they don't want to give everything up. And for some they would be right. Some they will miss the boat. It is a fine line that is constantly shifting.

It would be interesting to see how the different airlines that offer a million mile program have changed it over time at what the effects were. I think UA is betting the uphappy will either go away or just keep flying but grumble and they will entice new and the overall outcome is they will still get the money, just from a different person.

PSGlenn

I was a loyal 1K for many years with UA. However, when they closed the 1k rooms and lumped us in a group far below GS. I began to lose interest.

I for one began looking at American a few years ago. Fares were, many times, less expensive on the same routes. As a 1K I was given Platinum status for the 1st year on AA. I achieved Gold status for the following year and achieved Platinum for 2012.

As a UA MM (1.7M) I already had Premier Executive for life, so I didn't really think about it. I was looking forward to reaching 2MM for my lifetime RC membership. Now with the merger changes, I'm over 2MM, so I'm PP for life.

However, I've gotten hooked on AA and will achieve Platinum status for 2013 by the end of February 2012. Executive Platinum is very doable! So, I'll continue to spread my travel between the two airlines and work the best strategy for my personal benefit.

uyflyer

A point often missed in this discussion. Not only the unhappy will go away..The present MM structure provides *negative* incentives for couples like us (both 1K MM) to fly UAL. With the CR-1 gone and the spousal benefit limited only to spouses, the rational thing to do is for one of us to fly UAL, while the other flies OAL. This way we maximize benefits accross airlines/alliances. Indeed and for now, Ms. uyflyer is testing AA taking advantage of the DEQMs..A paid J ticket that could have gone to UA.
If UA throws us a bone (keep the CR-1s, make PMUA MM PPs, extend the matching benefit to anyone, not just spouses), we may revert to flying UA almost exclusively, but for now this is not in our best interest.

So, not only the unhappy will leave. Any rational couple in our situation will also cut UA travel by half...Strike another one for the law of unintended consequences..

Happy travels to all

Xyzzy

That's one way of looking at it. Anther is the MM couple who sees that their combined mileage builds twice as fast which makes for more reward tickets so they can take the whole family somewhere. They don't use the spousal status but understand that not every benefit is useful to every member of every program. I'd also venture to say that contrary to your UA->AA J ticket example at least one person moved the other way because of the AA bankruptcy.

Most people have no clue about the minutia we are discussing here. Every person posting to the UA forum this month could leave UA permanently and it wouldn't even make a blip on their radar.

BDLORD

I beg to differ with your logic, I know plenty of people who don't post here who aren't happy with how this has played out.
It will affect the bottom line eventually.

And I still think if the CO FFer's got the shaft you wouldn't be so smug.
Just my opinion

^

ozstamps

Sorry Mr. Smisek .. WRONG.

Hope Math was not your Major? @:-) @:-)

The posters on this thread alone would spend many millions a year.

halls120

You may be right, but in any event, this is why UA doesn't care whatsoever about the complaints posted on FT.

SADDE6

Agreed, UA's actions will most directly impact 1MM flyers who currently earn less than 100,000 EQM a year. However, no one is a 1K/GS forever. What I find most troubling is the credibility gap this creates. If UA ultimately decides not to grandfather 1MM flyers, is it reasonable to expect them to spend the next 10+ years pursuing 2MM status? What assurance would they have that UA would not change the rules again years from now. This is a classic "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" scenario.

While I would think that any grandfathering action by UA would only apply to those who obtained 1M BIS miles prior to 12/31/2011, even if it were extended to all I would venture a guess that the additional revenue generated by 1MM flyers would more than pay for the additional benefits sought, as they tend to travel on fares that are more profitable for UA. Conversely, the revenue lost by UA for each MM flyer who leaves UA will take many more non-frequent flyers to replace (many of whom travel on deeply discounted fares).

This is precisely what makes UA's actions so puzzling. They have provided a carrot for non-1K/GS 2MM flyers to get to 3MM and for 3MM to get to 4MM. But where there used to be a carrot for non-1K/GS 1MM flyers to get to 2MM status, UA has now replaced it with a stick. And that stick is driving off loyal customers left and right.

nor4

Coal miners used to take a canary down into the mines with them to warn of impending danger. Canaries were more susceptible to the noxious gases that were sometimes released during the everyday business of mining for coal.

Once the canary began to suffer (and sometimes die) the miners got out of the mine.

FTers are more aware of the implications of United's decisions than the average fliyer. We complain first and act first. But the rest of the crowd will soon feel the noxious fumes and begin responding.

United is missing a huge message by ignoring the strong negative response by FTers. It is an indication of their (Smisek's) arrogance.

We do know better. And we don't like what we see.

That's a message United management should pay close attention to. We will be at the vanguard of those less aware but eventually equally unhappy with these changes. And once the shift begins it becomes more difficult to reverse it.

Watching for impending problems and correcting them in time is what separates good managerrs from good leaders. Good managers put together an internally consistent system then lean back and drink their coffee. Good leaders look at that system and study its outcomes in the real world and make necessary corrections to actually achieve his goals, not just go through the routine of devising a new system.

Smisek is a manager, not a leader.

I wonder if the UA Board of Directors has any leaders sitting at the table?