How is that any different than E- on a UA 777?

Looks like the aircraft for YVR-HKG will be on the 772:
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ai...0LR_77L_v3.php

So not as bad as the 77W. EDIT: Just not as many seats. The pitch/width are exactly the same. Ugh

I tried calling United to see if basic K fare on AC international is 50% but the agents I talked to have not been trained on this yet.

There is no E+ on the AC plane, only 3 rows of premium economy. So, unless you are willing to fork over the coin for premium economy or biz, you are going to suffer no matter what your status.

And, by the way, UA's E- sucks just as badly. But most of us on a UA flight will be in E+.

Phone agents really are never very familiar with such things, training or not. I really don’t think they get much training at all on partner earnings. They probably are shown where to look up the info, but they’ll basically see the exact same info you do (and have less riding on an interpretation). They are really there for reservations.

It's not (well, apart from the 0.05" extra seat width that UA claims).

However it's better than the AC 787-9 which allegedly has a 30 inch pitch in the back. Ouch.

Don't ever use/trust seatguru for aircraft assignment info.

YVR-HKG is usually 77HD.

UA reserves the right to make unilateral changes to the chart with no notice, so there’s no way to be sure. However, you’re reading the chart correctly: currently, UA is not reducing the earnings for Basic vs. Regular economy. This is in line with how they’re treating BE in 2019, also: full PQD / redeemable miles credit, but only half credit for PQM. In 2020, PQM go out the window.

I’m disappointed to hear that AC has introduced BE on TPAC itineraries. It’s only a matter of time until UA follows suit.

Does international Air Canada "K" class credit to UA at 50% or 100%? I see a SFO-YVR-HKG Standard Economy flight in "K" (no basic econ option), but I see conflicting information that it could be credited at 50%.

Spirit Airlines (and Ryanair in Europe) has proven that there is a market of travelers who just want the lowest possible fare and are willing to limit themselves to a small carryon and no seat reservation to get it. I think it's great that United and the other legacy carriers have given those travelers an option, and it absolutely should be extended to transpacific flights.

I would have a different view of Basic Economy if there was a customer revolt and almost nobody wanted to fly it. But this is an option consumers actually want- because it turns out there's a market segment that doesn't care about stuff that I do. So yes, it should absolutely be available and is a good innovation of the industry, not a bad one.

I recently flew Canada->USA on AC (014 ticket) and didn't get any MP credit. Upon submitting a missing miles request I received a denial citing that fare code "F" is not eligible.... however, on my itinerary it clearly states I was on a "K" fare.

Does United map fare classes differently for partner airlines? I thought "K" fares were at least partially eligible.

Was it a UA or AC flight number?

AC flight and number.

If it was an AC flight with an AC flight number, then there shouldn’t have been any confusion. However, I have read a couple of reports that AC is changing the fare classes for their flights to lower-earning buckets for passengers on Tango fares. (I suspect that the various *A airlines are collectively trying to figure out how to cut earnings for each others’ light fares). I’d follow up with MileagePlus customer service and point out that you flew K, not F.

Thanks. So I called MP and the lady I spoke to was decidedly unhelpful. Regardless of how many times I told her I was on a "K" fare as per my itinerary she said "F" fare was not eligible.

Ah well. I tried one last approach which was to fill the "Contact MP" web form and attaching my itinerary showing the "K" fare. We'll see what happens.

have you tried the automatic retro-credit online form? This should call in the info from the ticket ...