Good for you. There's no reason for you to disparage those of us who have jobs that require heavy travel, spending most weeks away from our families. I fly for pleasure as well, and I am very thankful for one of the few benefits of my "air mobile" career - that my family and I get premium treatment because of the sacrifices they make with me being in the air 40+ weeks a year (45 in 2012).

Funny that you want to disparage GS as well, thinking that miles are everything. What GS is morphing into is the test stage for new revenue based tiers that will probably run complimentary to the mileage program that you enjoy.

I do a lot of last minute travel, with 150cpm fares being common. I have not done the exact math, but round numbers suggest that my fare value to United over the last year averaged more than 60cpm. I would also be curious to learn what United earned on me for the 300k+ miles that Chase purchased for me from CC usage.

We each fly for own purposes and goals. I fully respect your goals and purposes and I even used to enjoy flying PMUA as a lowly Premier (when I was banished from the Red Carpet. Please respect that what best suits you does not best suit everyone else. Thank you.

The only point I am making is that those heavily advocating for a spend-based system, for the most part - do not actually spend any of their own money!

Noone is forced into a job with heavy flying. We all make choices. Be happy that your employer pays so you can make your flying more humane, and enjoy the hard earned status, but stop pretending its you who is valuable to United, when you are not actually paying the bill, and stop advocating against people who fund their own flying, whether it be leisure travellers or self-funded business owners.

While that sounds simple, it is anything but. I'm sure I'm not alone in that my personal compensation is a portion of my P&L for my office, so in an indirect way, my spend on tickets comes out of my pocket. Under your one size fits all approach, my employer would receive the miles, not me. Considering that its indirectly my money, I'm not going to give up my miles to make a few MR's feel better.

I think some sort of spend should play a factor into status, but I have never understood this attitude of who should then get the benefits, other than from pure MR's that probably cost UA more than they make. I have felt this way regardless of whether I travel for work or personal. I'm the one doing the heavy travel, spending a large amount of time away from home each year, not my employer. Many of us view the miles and points generated as a small bonus to the lives we have to live away from home. In fact it's discussed at the highest levels of our company, and even our CEO disagrees with you.

Wait, why do you HAVE to live away from home, are they holding you at gunpoint at your job?

Talk about one size fits all.
In your world, an elite is either
a) someone who flies for work, and therefore deserves status, because they are sacrificing sooooo much in their lives.
b) someone who flies MR's - and therefore should be not be even considered worthy of the same carpet that these high rolling business fliers, basically a pest to the airline.


Did you ever consider that some people are on a plane to TRAVEL, and/or go on frequent vacations, and not just to FLY. These people have the ultimate decision of choice and flexibility with their money. Alienating these people with lots of discretionary spend, and flexible destination choice, would be the only thing that a spend-system achieves.

I think you may have misunderstood me, as I think there is some sort of balance, not one extreme or the other. What I'm saying is that I understand why UA is sometimes frustrated with someone reaching 1K with something low like 3K spend. When I read some of the posts by individuals that found ways to receive an ecert on almost every flight, call the 1K line almost daily, demand things beyond the norm, etc, I can see where an airline would like to find a way to balance this out some.

So with that in mind, is a 3K spender that flys cheap and sometimes mistakes fares the client that UA wants? I'm betting no. Is the vacation traveler that spends $7K and hits 1K a client that UA wants? Probably yes IMO. The business traveler that spends 20K and hits 1K, very likely the client UA wants. Just random #s on my part, but I think it gives a glimpse into what I'm thinking.

Nightmare scenario- unbundle the fare from PQMs
 

So I take it the nightmare scenario for many here would be an a la carte model, where you have to opt-in, by paying a fee for each flight, in order to get PQMs? Of course, it would be presented as a way to save the Kayaker money, because the base fare would be lower, yet offer the flexibility for the business traveler to earn PQMs on the flight, for a small fee.

Perhaps only lower-level (S, T, K) fares earn no PQMs without the fee.

This would be entirely consistent with the general unbundling of goods & services in the airline industry.

:eek:

^^

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Its that $7k spender that would not fly UA anymore if they couldnt get status.
There would be plenty of airlines that would like that $7k and award status for it. That $7k spender is likely someone with full control of destination and airline choice.

I've thought about that, but would that change the behavior of a business traveler? I think it would, as at that point there would be no reason for loyalty, as each flight would add a significant amount to the ticket price to add PQM's, and at that point everyone would save wisely and simply carry the Explorer card for group 2 access and call it day. Personal travel would now be focused on who happens to be cheapest at the moment, rather than focused single carrier spend. I could easily carry a few cards that cost me just a few hundred a year with multiple airlines, giving me the important perks of early boarding, etc. I choose not to at this moment and focus my spend on UA. If the rules changed to your description above, I too would change my behavior.

My personal travel for 2012 was maybe 20% of my total miles, and I knowingly spent more on every personal trip vs. the competition in order to enjoy my benefits as a UA elite. I would not have done that under your scenario.

And with what I've suggested, that 7K spender would most likely have status, possibly 1K if he/she flew the miles and/or segments. It's the ultra low spender that would be left out, such as the 3K spender I mentioned.

Again, I don't know what the specific value points should be, but I'm guessing someone at UA with the detailed info can figure it out. I don't think it's if this happens, but when, and not for UA alone, but for every airline program. I'm betting even hotel programs are looking at this.

this is me. i spent about ~5k personally on tickets last year on US and UA combined, plus another $3-4k of employer's money. probably 2:1 for UA over US.

i am now mulling a status match to an airline where my tickets will almost certainly cost more, but the benefits at my level of spend and PQM earning are better. i am willing to take a ~20% increase in my personal spend to be treated better and for work i will continue to fly what is cheapest (usually UA/US).

UA is working themselves into a position to lose A LOT of pax like me with the de-value of mid-tier status. $7k here and there isnt much, but it adds up, and as we all know UA's financial numbers have not been stellar.

For the leisure/self-funded traveller/flier - UA's frequent flyer program is the only thing that keeps them competitive IMO. Lets face it, its not the onboard product or stellar customer service :p

I do strongly believe, that even with recent devaluations, United's FFP is amongst the best.... I dont really care I have to board in zone 2, that doesnt affect my bottom line, or cost me money, I dont schlep 3 rolling bags onboard like the typical Joe domestic salesman/consultant "business" flyer, but start adding YQ on my awards, or go back to starnet blocking, and I am gonna be upset.

And of course it throws out the concept of Star Alliance out the window. They ve already punished those who buy premium fares on partner airlines.

Its easy for something like WN to have a spend system, or a hotel chain, but with dozens of partners - this would be very hard to implement for an airline that calls itself a GLOBAL AIRLINE.

I'm not familiar enough with any specific requirements with *A, but is there not the potential for each partner airline to set different requirements to reach certain status levels?

What I mean is that if I fly 100k a year, and only 30k of that is on UA metal (which is pretty close to my numbers) - I would be noone in UA's revenue based system - rendering Star Alliance partnership useless.

Thank you for completely misreading what I wrote. My world view is that there is a symbiotic mix of travelers across the spectrum that needs each other so that we each get something close to what we want. My 150cpm fares balance the thrifty vacationer's 5cpm fares to keep the planes in the air and the airlines out of bankruptcy (mostly).

The business traveler wants frequent and direct flights.

The leisure traveler wants cheap and convenient flights.

The LT provides the mass of bodies to justify bigger planes and frequent flights. The BT provides additional revenue to allow the airline to provide cheaper fares for the majority of customers.

Both parties win in this arrangement and neither party is less valuable or more valuable, both parties are required (as well as everyone in between) for the average group of us to each get what they desire, even though those individual desires may actually conflict other members within the group.

Given that, I would suggest that any loyalty program that was pure miles or pure revenue would be wrong. Most other loyalty programs (hotel, car rental) factor multiple desired behaviors into their program. Many hotel programs allow qualification based upon nights or stays. Hertz specifically qualifies on rental instances, days or dollars (40 rentals, or 120 days, or $7000 for PC).

How about an airline program that recognized both desired loyalty outcomes, miles and dollars?

How about a program that says fly 100k PQM or 120 PQS or spend $30k (before taxes) and we'll recognize you with this cool "1k" status?

Such a program would reward flight loyalty (PQM, PQS), and high dollar premium fare (MBYJCFA) loyalty. It would reward both types of travelers and make the program more appealing to a broader base of customers. We both win.

Thats the best solution by far, and solve having to account for revenue on partners, as it would count for mileage, but not for spend.

If anyone spends $30k purely on United - hell, of course give em 1K (if they havent earned it by mileage anyway)

It alienates noone, and makes happy that poor sap that has to fly on an ERJ between IAH and XXX,TX every week on $1000 last minute fares.