bwiflyer01

I thought that was the case as well. My understand is that we're not allowed to buy -DG (non-contract government fares). We're allowed to buy non-contract fares, but they must be available to the general public, which -DG fares are not. OTOH, airlines still offer -DG fares and I imagine they wouldn't offer them unless people used them.

orff

Was the policy not previously that you could buy DG fares, and this changed? just trying to get my bearings

drewguy

You can use them, but you have to justify the purchase, such as reduced travel time or scheduling convenience. Different travel departments have different standards of strictness on this.

It's different because you're traveling at government expense based on government contracts. A corporation might change it's travel contracts, and you could end up in the same boat. Only people who pay their own way can be assured of being able to stick with a given airline.

FWIW, I work in a government department that does a decent amount of international travel. Obviously having status for those flights is particularly nice, whether E+, lounge access, or better chances at upgrades (paid for with miles). UA had most of the routes in FY12, so we have a few Golds and Plats. FY13? Delta has the routes, so they're all back in the back of the plane now. I doubt they're happy, but that's life with the government.

qukslvr619

And PQM on US works fine...It could be a good backup but it remains to be seen whether AA/US will merge. In any case I'd be more apt to jump to US so at least I would have some chance at an upgrade or ability to get a better seat.

CLD was always a backup...although its harder to justify these days because the cost is so much more than SAN. I think this is also because they are applying the sum of two markets with CLD now. CLDLAX on top of LAXZZZ

And to that extent you are correct....the travel has to be looked at as a benefit not necessarily a right. Where my frustration stems is that the additional revenue I gave UA throughout the course of the past two years above and beyond business travel. If I could have split business to DL, personal to UA maybe it wouldnt have been so bad because I would have had benefits on both. I just got so entrenched with UA Club membership, credit card, etc that I'm in a situation where its kind of hard to easily jump ship.

bmvaughn

Wow, yeah.. I totally agree!

GBadger

Yes, but unfortunately "cheaper" doesn't come into play here. It doesn't matter if the combined SANIADPHL is $2 and the contract US SANPHL is $8000... It's not allowed. The only way that you're allowed to combine contract fares is if there is no contract fare in place (this means on any airline, not just the airline of your choice...).

qukslvr619

Well it may not be allowed, but clearly UA is selling them thinking that it satisfies the requirement for offering GOVT fares in connect markets. So bottom line is that either UA is going to match or needs to not offer combined fares as an option because they aren't in line with official travel policy and won't be bookable.


And yet again, this is total ignorance. Please read through this thread because clearly you have missed the fact that
1) UA hasn't stopped selling YCA fares
2) The YCA fares are not instant upgrades
3) There is no stealing upgrades going on

Stealing would imply that somehow a benefit was given/taken by a person who but somehow took a seat out of inventory that they didn't have ability to upgrade to because either their fare class or lack of status would have prevented the upgrade.

But then again I'm sure you don't consider it stealing when you are rebooked in Y during IRROPs even though you were on a cheap fare and now all of a sudden you are #1 on the upgrade list whereas before you were #10.

halls120

In our Department, the use of the cheapest fare is required. If the cheapest fare is DG, that's the required fare. If the penalty fare is the cheapest fare, and the penalty fare plus a change fee is still less than the cheapest reimburseable fare, that's the requirement. No special justification required.

halls120

So, a quick out and back december trip to Seattle has appeared on my schedule.

out of Dulles, UA has the contract. The YCA fare is currently 1323.60 for the nonstop. the penalty fare on UA is 887.60 for the nonstop. The cheapest fare out of IAD is on US, an IAD-CLT-SEA routing, for 293.70.

out of Reagan, AS has the contract. The YCA fare is 489.00 for the nonstop. There is DG (refundable) fare on AA for 411, connecting through ORD or DFW. The penalty fare is 251.20 on US or F6, on a connecting flight.

As of today, over half of the seats on the UA nonstop out of IAD are unsold. Same for the AS nonstop out of DCA.

I guess UA really would prefer that I fly AS out of DCA!

drewguy

Well, yes. AS presumably is more willing to guarantee seats at a low price on its SEA nonstop than United is willing to do for its nonstop to Seattle. There are lots of oddball fares in the GSA city-pair system, just as oddballs appear in regular fares.

fieldeng

It sounds like the issue is this:

1. UA Changed their pricing around for Government fares.
2. UA Loyal flyers in SAN (in this case) are now "stuck" flying another airline because of this

If you were a kayaker who didn't care about which airline you flew with, then this wouldn't be an issue. It sounds like the issue comes into play when you are forced to make a decision about your FF loyalty that you'd rather not make.

Does that sound right?

halls120

Setting aside the city pair issue, since we are no longer required to use the contract carrier - United's pricing is just strange. Given tight federal travel budgets, what traveler is going to take a $521 non-refundable (available on UA.com) connecting fare out of IAD when AA offers a $411 refundable connecting fare out of DCA? My office is in downtown DC. Do I schlep out to IAD and pay $100 more, or enjoy the convenience of DCA? UA can't really believe that IAD is a better experience than DCA, can they?

Not really. The issue is this - UA's current pricing for government refundable AND non-refundable travel takes them out of the mix for any government traveler obeying the rules in DC going to SEA. The last time I checked, they have the same problem with IAD-SFO right now as well. I guess they are fine with giving that business to their competitors.

fieldeng

Back to my point though, the non-loyal flyer (kayaker), shouldn't care here right? It's the loyal UA flyer than really is being burned by this policy.

I'm ignoring the taxpayer aspect because, while I care about that, I don't want to dig into that mess. I'd rather talk airline stuff here not politics or judge people on that.

MSPeconomist

UA might have more frequent flights at more convenient times. In fact, due to the perimeter rule, the AS nonstop exception might be only for one flight daily.

Sykes

I'd be hard-pressed to call IAD-SFO a problem for UA. Given that as a 1K there are regularly 20+ people in front of me in line for upgrades for this route, I'd surmise that they're having no trouble filling those seats with high-yield or government flyers.