Global321

I would draw a line between MM that don't fly any more and spouses/significant others that never earned the status...

MM fliers did what was needed to earn a benefit. They did and should receive the status promised. (Not going to argue whether the airline can take it away - they can and have - until someone successfully wins a lawsuit to say they can't.)

Spouses/SO - did nothing to earn status and should receive status.

Why should UACO treat MM fliers well? Simple - it shows all those still flying how their loyalty will be rewarded/treated. It makes good business sense to treat MM fliers well. The 10's of thousands of fliers trying to achieve MM are watching and can and do switch loyalty. (USAIR screwed me over 15 years ago, IMO. How did I reward them? By spending well over $100,000 with United and flying a million miles with UA.)

Just my opinion.


Good points. Are they right? In my case, no. Just got my "Welcome To The Medallion Status Match Challenge" email today. Not saying that I am going to 100% switch to Delta, but, I will be flying 26,000 miles with them to keep my options open next year.

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

Considering it would take 40 years of earning 1K entirely on United metal (assuming no EQM bonuses) just to earn 4MMer, and that most people don't start flying that much regularly (if at all) until they begin their professional careers, I'm not going to begrudge the miniscule fraction of 4MMers who demonstrated decades of loyalty to an airline some top-tier perks in their retirement years.

Baze

Did nothing? True, I will not argue the fact that a spouse or significant other may not have had their butt in an airplane seat but there is a lot more to it than that. A marriage or union of significant others is just that a union of 2 people. There are many hardships for them both, the separation is very difficult. A person who flies a million miles has spent a significant amount of time away from their spouse or significant other. My father did all his flying in the 60-80's before any million mile programs existed. I would bet he was very close if not well over a million miles. My mother had to deal with all the problems at home with 4 kids while he was gone. She earned her stripes for his million miles. And my wife earns her stripes for my being away so much. As does any spouse or significant other. So I applaud the airline for recognizing this and giving this benefit. The spouse/significant other definitely earned it. Where they dropped the ball was in the case of couples where both fly to earn their own status and possibly million miles and the people who have no significant other. This is one place UA could have shined by giving a choice, either the spouse benefit or CR-1's and you chose annually. I think it would have been better if the gave both but giving you a choice would have appeased a lot of the complaints on this particular issue. But the new UA chose not to do the CR-1's anymore and continue the CO benefit of nominating the spouse/significant other. It worked for CO. I think the backlash from UA fliers may have made them take a step back but to date they have not made any change to it. And if they have not recognized the backlash from UA fliers they have blinders on.

So I don't know how it will all work out in the end but my point is spouses and significant others have definitely earned it.

Well, there is one person on FT who does 4MM in about 4-6 years

bmvaughn

Just pointing out the difference between recent and related. I guess I don't consider understand that as esoteric or obscure, but YMMV.

lf tom

Baze,

As a 40-45 week a year flyer for almost fifty years, I can relate to your father's situation. Many of my miles were pre-1981. And with a spouse and four kids whom I frequently deserted for the comfort of a jet plane and a cocktail, I'd never suggest that she wasn't a worthy recipient of whatever donation someone would like to make--although I'd point out again that UA is essentially giving to her even as it takes the present away from another flyer.

My point is that we BIS MMers flew with the expectancy that our loyalty would be rewarded by UA. Those to whom status greater than mine has been given had no expectation and did nothing extra-beyond being a loving spouse and mother- to earn it. For them it's like Groucho's duck coming down to say they've won the lottery.

Hope that makes some sense.

lf

dgcpaphd

It is when you present it the way you did.
-

oenophilist

Lots of people claim a legal right to things, however if I sell you something and then change the terms of the sale later because I reserved the "right" in my T's and C's, then you can and should challenge that. Terms and conditions are not absolute. And when a company puts out information that directly contradicts its t's and c's, it cannot simply fall back on them.

And as to whether there is little that we can do about it, I'd say that people here are doing a lot about it. Not everyone sees appeasement as the way forward.

dgcpaphd

How interesting. In prior posts you challenged much (not everything) of what I wrote pertaining to my complaints about what the new UA management did in connection with demotions and breaching lifetime agreements.

Now, you seem to agree with the very posts you castigated me for writing previously. I must say I am pleased by your recent post.

Although I am pleased, I am a bit puzzled by the "about face" displayed.
-

colpuck

obviously not judging by your response, maybe as an expert you were handled with more care. But that's how depo's go.


this is true, but it's not the situation here. you were not sold anything besides a ticket. For buying that ticket and lots others, UA gave you something. There is a legal difference between a purchase and gift.

even if there wasn't there is still the t/c that you agreed to that stated UA can do what it wants with the MP program. Also, the industry standard is that the programs are tweeked on a yearly basis and also the MM program has been changed in the past.

The TX DTPA requires the action result from a consumer trasaction, so this action couldn't even be brought in TX.

Colo1K

Please don't confuse appeasement with abandonment/defection. I, for one, plan to do little future flying on the 'new and improved' UA. I fight for things I want, but I no longer want to do business with them.

Baze

The only time I have ever personally seen a line item charge for frequent flier miles was on car rental agreements. I personally have never seen a line item charge for frequent flier miles on an airline receipt.

Global321

Respectfully, I disagree. I buy my tickets on United with several expectations, based on promised made on the UA website...

I expect I will be placed in a queue for upgrades
I expect that my miles will accrue and I will be able to use them for free tickets in the future.
I expect that when I reached a MM I would receive Systemwide upgrades
I expect next year I will receive 6 global upgrades next year (assuming I reach 100k miles).
I expect that the rules may be tweaked, but that they will not just zero out my benefits.

Some of these expectations have not been met. My expectations have not been met.

Can UACO change the program without our consent for previously promised benefits? No one knows, despite the strong opinions here. That will be up to a judge. (And make no mistake this will go before a judge. Too many lawyers in the world not to. )

colpuck

What you expect, what you are entitled to as a matter of law, and what UA has graciously given you are three very different things.

Global321

If UACO cancelled the MP program and zero'd out everyone's miles, and kept pricing about the same, I would theorize they would see a mass exodus of elite fliers to other carriers. If true, the program IS a part of what we are buying when we buy a ticket.

What we are entitled to is EXACTLY the debate. And as I said, only a court can say for sure. The rest is opinion.

xFF

I'm fully aware of the other FAQs -those which some aver they relied upon in forbearance of other travel alternatives in order to 'lock in' the benefit package represented there. Those have been called the 'smoking gun.'

That said, look carefully at this one, which I don't think I've seen before, and note the following:

1. The subject of the question is compound: it is both MM and IE. The question is whether those two groups would continue to receive their benefits in the future.

2. The answer to the question is affirmative; those two groups will continue to receive their benefits. But, does it say they will necessarily continue to receive the benefits extended under the legacy programs? No. In fact, this FAQ denies that necessity on its face. Instead, it says that the lifetime benefits under the new program would be announced no later than the end of 2011.

And Fredd, yes, there are lifetime benefits under the new program.

Premier status is one. Whether that remains at the current *G level for all MM tiers in the future is a source of concern to some, but there is a promise of Premier status nonetheless.

Another is lifetime status, annually matched subject to the minimum level for the MM tier earned, extended to another, closely associated person, even while the 'lifetime' is that of the MMer, and not the other person.

Just sayin'...