Million Milers - Petition the UA Board
Feb 4, 2012, 9:34 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,224
I'm sure UA will be quaking in their boots after receiving this petition. They will no doubt have many late night conference calls discussing re-vamping the MM program to make FT'ers happy.
Get over it. Changes have been made, the merger is done, go fly another airline if you aren't happy. I have, and I'm still alive.
Get over it. Changes have been made, the merger is done, go fly another airline if you aren't happy. I have, and I'm still alive.
Feb 4, 2012, 9:43 am
#47
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DC
Programs: AA EXP; UAMM
Posts: 1,902
Con Air?
When UA says "we reserve the right to make changes to the Mileage Plus program" -- of which the Million Miler program is a part of-- how is that lying? Nobody seems to complain when they change the program such as to create a 1K level. Complimentary upgrades. Or CR1s/SWUs. None of which existed in the beginning. It's only when it's a change that upsets some that becomes "United lied to me!"
1) When United promises you benefits in order to get you to spend your money with them, they are forming an agreement with you. When United refuses to provide the benefit after you've spent your money, they are not keeping up their end of the bargain. They have not kept their word, I call that lying.
If I'm dealing with an individual and they say they'll do something for me if I pay them first, and then they bail out when it's time to give me what they promised, I'd say they lied to me to get my money. What would you call that?
Society is based on trust to a large degree. In the old West it was said a man's word is his bond. Trust was, and is, the basic glue of society. In the United States, we have a always put a great deal of importance on the idea of a person telling the truth. This is not true in all societies but it is in the United States.
So when United lies, it not only is a problem for this particular issue, it undermines a broader understanding we all have about how American society works. If United's behavior became the norm, we would live in a very different, and, I think, diminished society.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) Many posters fall back on the phrase "we reserve the right to change..." As you may know, Smisek is a Harvard Law School grad. It may well be that his training allows him to use this phrase as a cover for his decisions. But his decisions extend far beyond a narrow legal basis for his actions.
First we need to realize that there are many, many interpretations of even the simplest statements. That is why we have armies of lawyers in this country. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would see United's actions illegal, despite the "reserve the right" phrase.
But given the possible interpretations of the phrase, that is not the larger issue here. I think it is about the moral face Smisek is presenting to its best customers and to the country in general. In short, he is saying, I can do something that is widely considered immoral and get away with it. "I run a big corporation and you're just a few disorganized customers who won't interfere with my grand plan. Frankly, I don't really care what you think."
This is the kind of corporate arrogance that seems to be more and more prevalent in large corporations (see the effects of Wall Street arrogance, for example). It is short sighted to sacrifice valuable assets like brand loyalty and a long time, profitable customer base for a few benefits that are marginal to United's overall profitability.
But Smisek does it because he can, and because he can hide behind his legalistic understanding of social behavior. He doesn't seem to understand the foundation of trust that underlies societal norms...and, by extension, the community of frequent fliers on United. Without trust, United simply becomes another con man.
Perhaps they should have kept the Continental Airlines name and shortened it to Con Air.
If we simply roll over and say que sera, sera, we are empowering this sort of thing. And that, over time, leads to a very different airline and, yes, country.
Social media, such as FlyerTalk and petitions, can push back against this sort of corporate arrogance. How you respond to this sort of thing is simply a matter of what sort of world you prefer.
On a grander scale we've seen common people pushing back against the arrogance of power in the Middle East. While the stakes are not as high here, the template is the same. Only by speaking up will change happen.
Feb 4, 2012, 9:58 am
#48
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 816
When UA says "we reserve the right to make changes to the Mileage Plus program" -- of which the Million Miler program is a part of-- how is that lying? Nobody seems to complain when they change the program such as to create a 1K level. Complimentary upgrades. Or CR1s/SWUs. None of which existed in the beginning. It's only when it's a change that upsets some that becomes "United lied to me!"
The standard elite benefits are earned for a period of one year (plus) and only meant to last for one year. Typically there is reasonable notice if there are big changes and one can leave the program if the changes are not welcome.
Most of us would be up in arms if on the 31st of January, UA suddenly pulled Complimentary upgrades and other benefits with immidiate effect and without notice - and that would be within their rights. Or for instance they redesignated half of their United clubs and then say to those who have life long memberships they were no longer welcome in the redesignated clubs.
My point is that the MM issue is a bit unique as one can argue that they have kept their loyalty year after year just to achieve the promised benefits.
Probably the fairest way - which might be a bit complicated - is to allow anyone who is a current mileageplus member (even those who haven't got to MM status) to opt in to receive the hitherto promised benefits and any new members will get the new benefits.
Feb 4, 2012, 12:06 pm
#49
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DC
Programs: AA EXP; UAMM
Posts: 1,902
Whilst i am not necessarily endorsing the petition, I do think there is a difference in the changes you state in your post and the new MM changes.
The standard elite benefits are earned for a period of one year (plus) and only meant to last for one year. Typically there is reasonable notice if there are big changes and one can leave the program if the changes are not welcome.
Most of us would be up in arms if on the 31st of January, UA suddenly pulled Complimentary upgrades and other benefits with immidiate effect and without notice - and that would be within their rights. Or for instance they redesignated half of their United clubs and then say to those who have life long memberships they were no longer welcome in the redesignated clubs.
My point is that the MM issue is a bit unique as one can argue that they have kept their loyalty year after year just to achieve the promised benefits.
Probably the fairest way - which might be a bit complicated - is to allow anyone who is a current mileageplus member (even those who haven't got to MM status) to opt in to receive the hitherto promised benefits and any new members will get the new benefits.
The standard elite benefits are earned for a period of one year (plus) and only meant to last for one year. Typically there is reasonable notice if there are big changes and one can leave the program if the changes are not welcome.
Most of us would be up in arms if on the 31st of January, UA suddenly pulled Complimentary upgrades and other benefits with immidiate effect and without notice - and that would be within their rights. Or for instance they redesignated half of their United clubs and then say to those who have life long memberships they were no longer welcome in the redesignated clubs.
My point is that the MM issue is a bit unique as one can argue that they have kept their loyalty year after year just to achieve the promised benefits.
Probably the fairest way - which might be a bit complicated - is to allow anyone who is a current mileageplus member (even those who haven't got to MM status) to opt in to receive the hitherto promised benefits and any new members will get the new benefits.
To extend the analogy, think of United's promise to fly you from A to C. After paying for your ticket, getting on the plane and flying for a while United decides to land the plane at B, halfway to C, in order to save fuel costs. They changed their mind about flying to C as being a bit too expensive.
I know they are legally required to fly you to C, but they could decide not to, and simply find a way to try to keep you happy afterwards. They might make the argument that they reserve the right to make schedule changes. Some would raise a stink, some would say "that's life", but everyone would think twice about flying United again.
Feb 4, 2012, 2:30 pm
#50
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
I think your comment raises two important issures which have been discussed in various posts here.
1) When United promises you benefits in order to get you to spend your money with them, they are forming an agreement with you. When United refuses to provide the benefit after you've spent your money, they are not keeping up their end of the bargain. They have not kept their word, I call that lying.
If I'm dealing with an individual and they say they'll do something for me if I pay them first, and then they bail out when it's time to give me what they promised, I'd say they lied to me to get my money. What would you call that?
Society is based on trust to a large degree. In the old West it was said a man's word is his bond. Trust was, and is, the basic glue of society. In the United States, we have a always put a great deal of importance on the idea of a person telling the truth. This is not true in all societies but it is in the United States.
So when United lies, it not only is a problem for this particular issue, it undermines a broader understanding we all have about how American society works. If United's behavior became the norm, we would live in a very different, and, I think, diminished society.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) Many posters fall back on the phrase "we reserve the right to change..." As you may know, Smisek is a Harvard Law School grad. It may well be that his training allows him to use this phrase as a cover for his decisions. But his decisions extend far beyond a narrow legal basis for his actions.
First we need to realize that there are many, many interpretations of even the simplest statements. That is why we have armies of lawyers in this country. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would see United's actions illegal, despite the "reserve the right" phrase.
But given the possible interpretations of the phrase, that is not the larger issue here. I think it is about the moral face Smisek is presenting to its best customers and to the country in general. In short, he is saying, I can do something that is widely considered immoral and get away with it. "I run a big corporation and you're just a few disorganized customers who won't interfere with my grand plan. Frankly, I don't really care what you think."
This is the kind of corporate arrogance that seems to be more and more prevalent in large corporations (see the effects of Wall Street arrogance, for example). It is short sighted to sacrifice valuable assets like brand loyalty and a long time, profitable customer base for a few benefits that are marginal to United's overall profitability.
But Smisek does it because he can, and because he can hide behind his legalistic understanding of social behavior. He doesn't seem to understand the foundation of trust that underlies societal norms...and, by extension, the community of frequent fliers on United. Without trust, United simply becomes another con man.
Perhaps they should have kept the Continental Airlines name and shortened it to Con Air.
If we simply roll over and say que sera, sera, we are empowering this sort of thing. And that, over time, leads to a very different airline and, yes, country.
Social media, such as FlyerTalk and petitions, can push back against this sort of corporate arrogance. How you respond to this sort of thing is simply a matter of what sort of world you prefer.
On a grander scale we've seen common people pushing back against the arrogance of power in the Middle East. While the stakes are not as high here, the template is the same. Only by speaking up will change happen.
1) When United promises you benefits in order to get you to spend your money with them, they are forming an agreement with you. When United refuses to provide the benefit after you've spent your money, they are not keeping up their end of the bargain. They have not kept their word, I call that lying.
If I'm dealing with an individual and they say they'll do something for me if I pay them first, and then they bail out when it's time to give me what they promised, I'd say they lied to me to get my money. What would you call that?
Society is based on trust to a large degree. In the old West it was said a man's word is his bond. Trust was, and is, the basic glue of society. In the United States, we have a always put a great deal of importance on the idea of a person telling the truth. This is not true in all societies but it is in the United States.
So when United lies, it not only is a problem for this particular issue, it undermines a broader understanding we all have about how American society works. If United's behavior became the norm, we would live in a very different, and, I think, diminished society.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) Many posters fall back on the phrase "we reserve the right to change..." As you may know, Smisek is a Harvard Law School grad. It may well be that his training allows him to use this phrase as a cover for his decisions. But his decisions extend far beyond a narrow legal basis for his actions.
First we need to realize that there are many, many interpretations of even the simplest statements. That is why we have armies of lawyers in this country. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would see United's actions illegal, despite the "reserve the right" phrase.
But given the possible interpretations of the phrase, that is not the larger issue here. I think it is about the moral face Smisek is presenting to its best customers and to the country in general. In short, he is saying, I can do something that is widely considered immoral and get away with it. "I run a big corporation and you're just a few disorganized customers who won't interfere with my grand plan. Frankly, I don't really care what you think."
This is the kind of corporate arrogance that seems to be more and more prevalent in large corporations (see the effects of Wall Street arrogance, for example). It is short sighted to sacrifice valuable assets like brand loyalty and a long time, profitable customer base for a few benefits that are marginal to United's overall profitability.
But Smisek does it because he can, and because he can hide behind his legalistic understanding of social behavior. He doesn't seem to understand the foundation of trust that underlies societal norms...and, by extension, the community of frequent fliers on United. Without trust, United simply becomes another con man.
Perhaps they should have kept the Continental Airlines name and shortened it to Con Air.
If we simply roll over and say que sera, sera, we are empowering this sort of thing. And that, over time, leads to a very different airline and, yes, country.
Social media, such as FlyerTalk and petitions, can push back against this sort of corporate arrogance. How you respond to this sort of thing is simply a matter of what sort of world you prefer.
On a grander scale we've seen common people pushing back against the arrogance of power in the Middle East. While the stakes are not as high here, the template is the same. Only by speaking up will change happen.
For those who are happy with the changes - good for you!
Feb 4, 2012, 5:21 pm
#51
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Menlo Park, CA, USA
Programs: UA 1MM 0P, AA, DL, *wood, Lifetime FPC Plat., IHG, HHD
Posts: 6,912
Honestly, I think if one really wants to drive some sort of action or change it would be with the press. There is a lot of current discussion about THIS issue, as well as concern over at AA about their program in general, etc. I think if one could rally some interest with the press about how say the industry changes are having or will have or could have some serious effects on the frequent flyer programs - with the UA/CO merger as being a possible POOR example of changes, you might get more tracking and response from the company.
Feb 5, 2012, 3:41 pm
#52
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DC
Programs: AA EXP; UAMM
Posts: 1,902
kilo
I think this approach is fair, simple and would remove a lot of the concerns, at least for UA fliers who received the worst of the merger.
I don't even think it's that complicated. Just announce a "revision" that allows any MileagePlus/OnePass member the choice. UA fliers could continue under the previous MileagePlus BIS rule and a OnePass flier could opt in under that rule, which would strip them of all EQMs earned by non-BIS methods.
Anyone who didn't opt in to the old Mileage Plus system would automatically be included in the new system. As would any new member.
Those who are approaching million mile BIS status will do their own cost/benefit calcualtion and choose accordingly. I would guess there would be some variablility in the mileage level where one would choose one menu over the other, depending on flying habits, perceived benefits of the rewards menu, etc.
That is a petition I think many could support. It's simple, specific and provides a solution that rewards according to a common metric.
What do you think?
Probably the fairest way - which might be a bit complicated - is to allow anyone who is a current mileageplus member (even those who haven't got to MM status) to opt in to receive the hitherto promised benefits and any new members will get the new benefits.
I think this approach is fair, simple and would remove a lot of the concerns, at least for UA fliers who received the worst of the merger.
I don't even think it's that complicated. Just announce a "revision" that allows any MileagePlus/OnePass member the choice. UA fliers could continue under the previous MileagePlus BIS rule and a OnePass flier could opt in under that rule, which would strip them of all EQMs earned by non-BIS methods.
Anyone who didn't opt in to the old Mileage Plus system would automatically be included in the new system. As would any new member.
Those who are approaching million mile BIS status will do their own cost/benefit calcualtion and choose accordingly. I would guess there would be some variablility in the mileage level where one would choose one menu over the other, depending on flying habits, perceived benefits of the rewards menu, etc.
That is a petition I think many could support. It's simple, specific and provides a solution that rewards according to a common metric.
What do you think?
Feb 5, 2012, 4:24 pm
#53
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Programs: United Platinum & 2.0MM; Marriott Bonvoy Titanium and Lifetime Gold; Hyatt and Hilton Honors peon
Posts: 251
I would certainly be inclined to favor this approach. I have flown 1.7 million BIS on United. Being so far beyond 1 million miles, I feel particularly downgraded both in terms of the downgrading of 1MM (100% flight bonuses and relatively decent status for upgrades vs. the new situation) and the lack of much real benefit at the 2MM (After hitting 1MM on UA, I would have done much better building miles on another airline and getting to MM on a second carrier).
I have focused my flying almost exclusively on UA for 26 years. This has been a real, conscious and focused commitment. think 1.7 million BIS desrves more than the current downgraded benefit level.
I have focused my flying almost exclusively on UA for 26 years. This has been a real, conscious and focused commitment. think 1.7 million BIS desrves more than the current downgraded benefit level.
Feb 5, 2012, 6:19 pm
#54
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
However, you omitted a critical element and/or event when you ask why is it lying.
UA posted on its official website (in the FAQs section) and stated that the million-mile program would not change and further promised that the CR-1s would continue for life.
Despite the announcements that were left on UA's web site for about one year, the new UA management told me and others (including a reporter from the Wall Street Journal) that the announcements (FAQs and answers) will not be honored because those announcements were a "regrettable" and "confusing" mistake.
Many people relied on those announcements, including me. Obviously, UA made a lot of money from those believing those "mistakes."
Lying is a harsh word to describe this event but for UA to continue with the breach, what would you call it? Perhaps it can be called the groundwork for a future class action suit?
-
kilo
I think this approach is fair, simple and would remove a lot of the concerns, at least for UA fliers who received the worst of the merger.
I don't even think it's that complicated. Just announce a "revision" that allows any MileagePlus/OnePass member the choice. UA fliers could continue under the previous MileagePlus BIS rule and a OnePass flier could opt in under that rule, which would strip them of all EQMs earned by non-BIS methods.
Anyone who didn't opt in to the old Mileage Plus system would automatically be included in the new system. As would any new member.
Those who are approaching million mile BIS status will do their own cost/benefit calcualtion and choose accordingly. I would guess there would be some variablility in the mileage level where one would choose one menu over the other, depending on flying habits, perceived benefits of the rewards menu, etc.
That is a petition I think many could support. It's simple, specific and provides a solution that rewards according to a common metric.
What do you think?
I think this approach is fair, simple and would remove a lot of the concerns, at least for UA fliers who received the worst of the merger.
I don't even think it's that complicated. Just announce a "revision" that allows any MileagePlus/OnePass member the choice. UA fliers could continue under the previous MileagePlus BIS rule and a OnePass flier could opt in under that rule, which would strip them of all EQMs earned by non-BIS methods.
Anyone who didn't opt in to the old Mileage Plus system would automatically be included in the new system. As would any new member.
Those who are approaching million mile BIS status will do their own cost/benefit calcualtion and choose accordingly. I would guess there would be some variablility in the mileage level where one would choose one menu over the other, depending on flying habits, perceived benefits of the rewards menu, etc.
That is a petition I think many could support. It's simple, specific and provides a solution that rewards according to a common metric.
What do you think?
If this idea were promulgated, I would be delighted.
New UA management, where are you?
-
Last edited by iluv2fly; Feb 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm Reason: merge
Feb 5, 2012, 7:03 pm
#55
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Central Virginia
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 1,231
For those travelers that feel as you do, it is time for you all to look for another carrier. You will be a lot happier.
Feb 5, 2012, 8:38 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
I would certainly be inclined to favor this approach. I have flown 1.7 million BIS on United. Being so far beyond 1 million miles, I feel particularly downgraded both in terms of the downgrading of 1MM (100% flight bonuses and relatively decent status for upgrades vs. the new situation) and the lack of much real benefit...
I have focused my flying almost exclusively on UA for 26 year....
I have focused my flying almost exclusively on UA for 26 year....
And telling those of us that have spent many years supporting UA and following the rules to achieve a promised objective, that they should find a new airline is way beyond missing the point.
Feb 6, 2012, 1:25 am
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
Yes, UA reserves the right to make changes to the Mileage Plus program.
However, you omitted a critical element and/or event when you ask why is it lying.
UA posted on its official website (in the FAQs section) and stated that the million-mile program would not change and further promised that the CR-1s would continue for life.
Despite the announcements that were left on UA's web site for about one year, the new UA management told me and others (including a reporter from the Wall Street Journal) that the announcements (FAQs and answers) will not be honored because those announcements were a "regrettable" and "confusing" mistake.
Many people relied on those announcements, including me. Obviously, UA made a lot of money from those believing those "mistakes."
Lying is a harsh word to describe this event but for UA to continue with the breach, what would you call it? Perhaps it can be called the groundwork for a future class action suit?
-
This is a great idea. But, how do we buck demonstrated intransigence of the new UA management?
If this idea were promulgated, I would be delighted.
New UA management, where are you?
-
However, you omitted a critical element and/or event when you ask why is it lying.
UA posted on its official website (in the FAQs section) and stated that the million-mile program would not change and further promised that the CR-1s would continue for life.
Despite the announcements that were left on UA's web site for about one year, the new UA management told me and others (including a reporter from the Wall Street Journal) that the announcements (FAQs and answers) will not be honored because those announcements were a "regrettable" and "confusing" mistake.
Many people relied on those announcements, including me. Obviously, UA made a lot of money from those believing those "mistakes."
Lying is a harsh word to describe this event but for UA to continue with the breach, what would you call it? Perhaps it can be called the groundwork for a future class action suit?
-
This is a great idea. But, how do we buck demonstrated intransigence of the new UA management?
If this idea were promulgated, I would be delighted.
New UA management, where are you?
-
Feb 6, 2012, 3:04 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SF CA USA. I love large faceless corporations. And they cherish me in return (sometimes). ;)
Programs: UA Premier Gold/disappointed 1MM, HH Gold, IHG Plat, MB Gold, BW Diam Sel
Posts: 17,575
I think your comment raises two important issures which have been discussed in various posts here.
1) When United promises you benefits in order to get you to spend your money with them, they are forming an agreement with you. When United refuses to provide the benefit after you've spent your money, they are not keeping up their end of the bargain. They have not kept their word, I call that lying.
If I'm dealing with an individual and they say they'll do something for me if I pay them first, and then they bail out when it's time to give me what they promised, I'd say they lied to me to get my money. What would you call that?
Society is based on trust to a large degree. In the old West it was said a man's word is his bond. Trust was, and is, the basic glue of society. In the United States, we have a always put a great deal of importance on the idea of a person telling the truth. This is not true in all societies but it is in the United States.
So when United lies, it not only is a problem for this particular issue, it undermines a broader understanding we all have about how American society works. If United's behavior became the norm, we would live in a very different, and, I think, diminished society.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) Many posters fall back on the phrase "we reserve the right to change..." As you may know, Smisek is a Harvard Law School grad. It may well be that his training allows him to use this phrase as a cover for his decisions. But his decisions extend far beyond a narrow legal basis for his actions.
First we need to realize that there are many, many interpretations of even the simplest statements. That is why we have armies of lawyers in this country. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would see United's actions illegal, despite the "reserve the right" phrase.
But given the possible interpretations of the phrase, that is not the larger issue here. I think it is about the moral face Smisek is presenting to its best customers and to the country in general. In short, he is saying, I can do something that is widely considered immoral and get away with it. "I run a big corporation and you're just a few disorganized customers who won't interfere with my grand plan. Frankly, I don't really care what you think."
This is the kind of corporate arrogance that seems to be more and more prevalent in large corporations (see the effects of Wall Street arrogance, for example). It is short sighted to sacrifice valuable assets like brand loyalty and a long time, profitable customer base for a few benefits that are marginal to United's overall profitability.
But Smisek does it because he can, and because he can hide behind his legalistic understanding of social behavior. He doesn't seem to understand the foundation of trust that underlies societal norms...and, by extension, the community of frequent fliers on United. Without trust, United simply becomes another con man.
Perhaps they should have kept the Continental Airlines name and shortened it to Con Air.
If we simply roll over and say que sera, sera, we are empowering this sort of thing. And that, over time, leads to a very different airline and, yes, country.
Social media, such as FlyerTalk and petitions, can push back against this sort of corporate arrogance. How you respond to this sort of thing is simply a matter of what sort of world you prefer.
On a grander scale we've seen common people pushing back against the arrogance of power in the Middle East. While the stakes are not as high here, the template is the same. Only by speaking up will change happen.
1) When United promises you benefits in order to get you to spend your money with them, they are forming an agreement with you. When United refuses to provide the benefit after you've spent your money, they are not keeping up their end of the bargain. They have not kept their word, I call that lying.
If I'm dealing with an individual and they say they'll do something for me if I pay them first, and then they bail out when it's time to give me what they promised, I'd say they lied to me to get my money. What would you call that?
Society is based on trust to a large degree. In the old West it was said a man's word is his bond. Trust was, and is, the basic glue of society. In the United States, we have a always put a great deal of importance on the idea of a person telling the truth. This is not true in all societies but it is in the United States.
So when United lies, it not only is a problem for this particular issue, it undermines a broader understanding we all have about how American society works. If United's behavior became the norm, we would live in a very different, and, I think, diminished society.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) Many posters fall back on the phrase "we reserve the right to change..." As you may know, Smisek is a Harvard Law School grad. It may well be that his training allows him to use this phrase as a cover for his decisions. But his decisions extend far beyond a narrow legal basis for his actions.
First we need to realize that there are many, many interpretations of even the simplest statements. That is why we have armies of lawyers in this country. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would see United's actions illegal, despite the "reserve the right" phrase.
But given the possible interpretations of the phrase, that is not the larger issue here. I think it is about the moral face Smisek is presenting to its best customers and to the country in general. In short, he is saying, I can do something that is widely considered immoral and get away with it. "I run a big corporation and you're just a few disorganized customers who won't interfere with my grand plan. Frankly, I don't really care what you think."
This is the kind of corporate arrogance that seems to be more and more prevalent in large corporations (see the effects of Wall Street arrogance, for example). It is short sighted to sacrifice valuable assets like brand loyalty and a long time, profitable customer base for a few benefits that are marginal to United's overall profitability.
But Smisek does it because he can, and because he can hide behind his legalistic understanding of social behavior. He doesn't seem to understand the foundation of trust that underlies societal norms...and, by extension, the community of frequent fliers on United. Without trust, United simply becomes another con man.
Perhaps they should have kept the Continental Airlines name and shortened it to Con Air.
If we simply roll over and say que sera, sera, we are empowering this sort of thing. And that, over time, leads to a very different airline and, yes, country.
Social media, such as FlyerTalk and petitions, can push back against this sort of corporate arrogance. How you respond to this sort of thing is simply a matter of what sort of world you prefer.
On a grander scale we've seen common people pushing back against the arrogance of power in the Middle East. While the stakes are not as high here, the template is the same. Only by speaking up will change happen.
And I don't think anyone is proposing to take away the new benefits from those who prefer them. @:-)
Rather, it's more a matter of allowing existing (and perhaps some soon-to-be) MMers to choose the old benefits if they wish to.
Feb 6, 2012, 5:15 am
#60
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
So United had something posted on their FAQ list about the future of the new Mllion Miler benefits (which was not out for a year, but only a few months) and have decided that what was listed was not going to be the official policy going forward? So what... you stayed with them for an extra 5 or 6 months when you could have started building up a new Miilion Miler status with another carrier? Yeah... OK...
The announcements remained on united.com for about one year, not "only a few months" as you stated. By the way, even "a few months" is too long.
-