Baze

I can attest to your car company and oil changes example. BMW/Mini did just what you say. When I bought my Mini it offered free oil changes at the prescribed mileage interval OR annually. After the first year of ownership they changed it to only be at the interval prescribed by the computer in the car, no more annual oil change. Pissed a lot of Mini owners off including me. There was absolutely no recourse. Mini won. When I got rid of the car at 22,000 miles and 3 years the computer in the car said I still needed to go another 8,000 miles until the FIRST oil change. I just did it myself as that is ridiculous. So UA is not the only one to not honor a "promise". And they won't be the last.

Fredd

That's an interesting coincidence that you actually experienced just such an injustice.

OTOH maybe you gave up too soon. Others claim BMW relented under pressure.

dgcpaphd

Good detective work, Fredd.

You see, it is possible to have demotions and breached agreements restored.

All it takes is teamwork and no mocking from those who have no basis to mock.
-

Baze

Considering I only put about 7,000 miles a year on my cars and an oil change is $59. It was not worth my time or money to fight it. Now if I drove 21,000 miles a year and an oil change cost $200 and I changed the oil 3 times a year it may have been worth it. But in my case it was not.

entropy

What exactly do you think happened? They cancelled MileagePlus, eliminated your mileage plus #, gave you a OnePass #, gave you OnePass miles in exchange for your MileagePlus miles, and then renamed OnePass MileagePlus.

They may have stated otherwise, but that's what happened. In your OnePass activity,

it even says
"UA Migrated Premier Miles"
"Balance transfer due to system conversion"

but it ain't OnePass miles going into MileagePlus.

So, more to your point, MileagePlus was killed (along with most of the rest of United). You will join the mediocrity that is Continental Elite Access...

Ukalien

Is this all you can add to the discussion? This is repetition ad nauseam.

There is a legitimate conversation going on here about a loyalty program that is, in essence, still in existence and came with "lifetime benefits" in exchange for attainment of purchase level targets (miles). These benefits have been withdrawn under the guise of a "new" program (MileagePlus instead of Mileage Plus) with "new" "lifetime" benefits, and here's the perverse part, using the "old program" customers and their "previous" program mileage history, to count towards where they stand in the "new" program. For those of us affected by this, we call this broken promises, morally wrong, and ethically indefensible.

Now you may like seeing business conducted this way, and perhaps because on this one you don't have any skin in the game. But for most of the people contributing to this thread, and a huge number of affected people beyond this site, this stinks. It is not what you expect from a reputable company that cares about it's customers, let alone some of it's most lucrative clients. This is corporate smoke and mirrors and a modern day equivalent of snake oil salesmanship, demonstrating to all going forward, that this company can't be trusted.

What United should worry about now is the runaway effects of treating their LOYAL customers this way. They just had a rough weekend. Wait until the compound impact of transforming profitable Promoters into Detractors starts to take effect, this is only just beginning!

And you notice, I didn't even mention litigation. We live in the most litigious society in the world. This wouldn't even need to make it to court to create problems for United. Complaints have been filed against many well known brands in the travel industry over recent years and have been settled without going to court.

Customer satisfaction means nothing. Customer LOYALTY means EVERYTHING!

http://www.millionmilersunited.com/

Fredd

It's wise to choose one's battles carefully, whether the choice is based on principle, economic considerations, or both.

You did write "Pissed a lot of Mini owners off including me. There was absolutely no recourse. Mini won."

Given that understandable anger, you should at least feel some degree of vindication, if not pleasure, to learn that there was recourse, that others chose to take on BMW, and that apparently they did win.

IMO UA has devalued the benefits of the entire program. Even if UA restored to PMUA MMers the full panoply of previous lifetime benefits, they aren't what they used to be. About that, many agree.

Still, for me it's a matter of principle. YMMV

vsevolod4

There is a far different claim for the lifetime CR-1s for those who achieved the 1MM threshold while the program under its previous terms was active and the associated claims were posted, than by those who achieved the threshold subsequent to the program having been amended.

If you hit 1MM in 2011 or earlier then you have a great case for holding UA to the promise they had on the website, as it clearly applied at the same time. You earned it, you were promised for earning it to have some lifetime benefits.

But if you hit it in 2012 after the "top-up" and consolidation of CO lifetime EQMs, after the program had changed and after the wording on the website had changed, you have much less of a case. They have the right to change the program, as has been repeatedly mentioned. And they clearly miscommunicated, which is the only reason you have some case, and not no case.

Still, it is anything but customer-friendly and loyalty-assuring, particularly with your most-frequent customers, to piss them off by changing the program abruptly, without a soft landing.

Personally, I think that UA should reconsider and grant to EVERYONE achieving any MM (1MM, 2MM, 3MM, 4MM, etc.) threshold through June 30, 2011, any and all of the perks, gifts, lifetime promises, SWUs, that they would have earned under the old program, and give fair notice that if you hit a threshold in the future, you will still get SOME benefits but not these specific ones.

Xyzzy

D you see any inconsistency in your two statements? I certainly do.

abaheti

I assume you meant June 30, 2012? If so, I like this approach. It would give those of us who were trying hard for MM under the old program an incentive to fly a bunch and hit the target, and give others fair warning. Whether June 30, 2012 is fair or it should be longer is another long discussion, I'm sure. But the approach makes sense to help the existing MM community and those of us who worked for years a chance to get what we thought we were working towards.

dgcpaphd

Alas, we have another fine, well reasoned post that shines light on reality.

The OP's post over shadows the repetitious mantra of those who can see little except the "right of UA to change the program at any time" which is a general rule but not an absolute rule. Facts and circumstances determine whether this right remains for UA.

Take a look at the court cases cited in this thread alone. Consumers do have recourse despite the few that appear to be locked into a one sentence rule that states that UA has the right to change the program, at will.

That right to change the program assumes there is no deceptive activities surrounding the changes.

Those infamous screen shots, alone, equate to skullduggery which sets aside the right to change, at least, the million-mile program.
-

colpuck

Actually no. I would prefer to discuss the changes in a rational way and get together to come up with a rational and reasonable response to UA that would be persuasive.

Instead of looking at what we should do and how we can best effect change. There is an endless discussion of meaningless statements, screen shots, and a refusal to accept that there are some good points about the new MM program.

I want to see a solution, a best of both worlds, and that even if we can not have it all we can at least agree that what we get is the best option out there. However, it doesn't look like that is going to happen. I keep trying to help, to point that arguments the majority while valid are not persuasive. I keep trying suggest there are better ways, ways that UA would have to pay attention to. But, it appears nobody is listening.

pigx5

I agree with you about a solution.
I missed your suggestion about the other way.
Can you show me the links?

jetsetr

I had suggested several things that I outlined in a previous post that seems to have fallen by the wayside. I basically suggested making economic arguments, which granted, are more difficult to aggregate and organize on the front end, but I think have a better shot of being received and listened to on the back end.

By the way, per UrbaneGent's earlier suggestion, I finally did listen to that KGO radio (San Francisco AM radio 810) podcast interview with travel lawyer Al Anolik.

The interview from Saturday, March 3, 2012 starts in hour two at the 7 minute mark and goes to the 14 minute mark (link above takes you directly to the second hour). Al Anolik starts talking about the changes to the MM program at the 9min 45sec mark. Interestingly, this renowned travel lawyer notes at the 10 min 30 sec mark that,

"The courts have allowed the airlines, nowadays, to do what they want with frequent flier mileage. In the very beginning they couldn't. And then we jumped on them a few times, and they changed the rules. And the rules basically say, 'We give you mileage, we'll do what we want.' That is where the consumer is now."

Perhaps those who are looking at a potential class action route as the ultimate action (in addition to negative word-of-mouth) should step back and think about the economic arguments to be made, and also think about what benefit package would be acceptable, with the understanding that it is, IMHO, highly unlikely that the new UA would restore all benefits that were taken away.

And as someone who is also an existing AA EXP, I will state this right now: For those potentially thinking about jumping to AA (or DL, US, or whomever) because of the anger over UA's actions, and because the mid-tier elite benefits are better, I predict that as AA emerges from Chapter 11, that they, too, will adopt a four-tier elite strategy, with graduated elite bonus miles (25/50/75/100%). If you can't trust one airline, then you can't trust any of them. Caveat emptor.

dgcpaphd

Thank you for your thoughtful and sincere post.

I wish to comment on the interview you cited. I listened to the interview. It was obvious that the attorney had not prepared for the interview. It was as though he was stopped on the street and asked for his opinion on a very superficial level.

The attorney talked about mileage. Mileage is not the issue of the million-mile demotions.

The thrust of the matter is the fact that there were postings made to united.com wherein specific promises of lifetime benefits were promised. Mileage was not discussed in those postings.

The new UA management is currently insisting that united.com is the final word applicable to the Mileage Plus program.

Therefore, the promises that were broken (and not discussed or addressed by the attorney) are the basis for keeping the pre 2012 million-mile program intact.

I agree, most of the other demotions made to the Mileage Plus program cannot be reversed because they fall within the rule that UA can change the program at will.

However, those promises that were posted on united.com in the FAQs section made specific promises that are being breached.

United made a ton of money from those of us who relied on those promises that the new UA management chooses to ignore.

Again, that is the issue which is NOT what was discussed by the attorney in his off-the-cuff responses during the interview.
-