Often1

The YCA issue has raised enough hackles in DC that it will be dealt with early next year. The simplest solution will be for Congressional appropriators to ask UA to withdraw the -UP on YCA, which UA will do, and the issue will die.

There will also be increased Inspector General reviews of travel to make sure that YCA's really were only booked when they were the cheapest available. Most of the posts here about what various agencies will and won't do are all about what is done for worker bees. Senior people get taken care of just fine.

The difference between corporate and govt is that corporations are free to spend their money as they wish so long as shareholders don't go nuts. But, with the govt., it's taxpayer's money.

roadkit

As far as the OP's issue is concerned, I have same problem. As UA has gone quite a bit downhill since the merger IMHO, I'm seriously thinking of going for status on another airline just to see if the grass is any greener. Since I fly out of IAD and mostly international on government fares, that probably means DL.

sannmann

How so? I've not heard it mentioned in any of the local press. If it were raising "enough hackles," you'd think Politico or Drudge would be all over it.

halls120

If you mean Congresscritters, you would be correct. For other USG employees, including SES, travel rules have been significantly tightened over the past several years. The old "you can fly business if the flight is greater than 14 hours" or "I need to fly business so I'm well rested when I arrive" gambit have been replaced by "leave a day early, take a connecting flight, and we'll pay you an extra day's per diem to rest when you get there" rule. In our Department, travel authorizations are scoured by the Front Office, and if you can't justify YCA, you can't use it.

Do abuses happen? Yes, and when they do, Flag Officers get relieved of command - just ask GEN Ward.

MatthewLAX

The issue is simple. Should a gov't flyer, say a Premier Silver on a $300 IAD-LAX fare have priority over a 1K who pays $800 o/w for a U-fare on the same flight?

I think the answer is no. Yes, it is UA's business decision, but surely you can appreciate why some are outraged.

qukslvr619

Well as expected I never got a call back from UA, however Im happy to report that I they filed fares matching the contract carriers...at least in the markets I fly. They are now bookable in DTS...now I'm not sure if they matched a certain carrier in flow markets but the actual prices are not exactly rounded and a little screwy. Not that I'm complaining but trying to understand the logic...it appears they must have matched DL.

Clearly someone either goofed and didn't file (it happens I know I worked in pricing) or UA saw the value of matching fares. A bunch of FT's will argue that upgrades are being stolen or tax payer money is being wasted but that's not the case here. Gov fares are no different than corp fares. You can argue otherwise because I'm sure someone will say its my money, but is it any different than the money you pay to a large corporation for a service that ultimately has some exec flying on a corporate contract that gets upgraded. Irregular ops, TODs, etc there is always going to be something that will cause someone to miss an upgrade. If you want it buy it. Ultimately, a strong airline industry presents a competitive environment for all and in this case brings additional revenue to UA.

dayone

Government fares are discrete prices on specified routes. Corporate rates are usually part of much more complex agreements and may include negotiated fares, discounts based on class/route, free tickets/rebates and premium memberships and perks.

WineCountryUA

and guarantees on a minimum level of business.

LaserSailor

I'm still awaiting for the accumulated expertise of running UA that apparently seeps through my rear end over 1M BIS miles to reach my brain..when it does I will be sure to tell UA how they should negotiate both their corporate and government agreements....

busyexec331

Um, unless GSA has changed the rules, a simple "match" of the fare isn't enough: UA has to beat the fare. Otherwise, you must take the city-pair through fare. This is the intent of the city-pair program -- to capture all federal government travel between the two cities.

Were you using the term "match" loosely?

qukslvr619

UA or other carriers don't just undercut the contract carrier to "beat a fare". They match the contract fare. Whether they chose to match the _DG or _CA fare that is left to their discretion. Naturally a carrier would capture the bulk of a market anyways because they offer better frequency, nonstops, etc.

busyexec331

My point is that, as a federal government traveler, you're not permitted to use UA -- a non-contract carrier -- unless they beat the contract fare. Simply matching the fare isn't sufficient to permit you to evade the city-pair requirement.

njcommodore

not true:

from the GSA FAQ (#4)

Additional exceptions to the mandatory use requirement are contained in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR § 301-10.107):

Space or a scheduled contract flight is not available in time to accomplish the purpose of your travel, or use of contract service would require you to incur unnecessary overnight lodging costs which would increase the total cost of the trip; or The contractor's flight schedule is inconsistent with explicit policies of your federal department or agency with regard to scheduling travel during normal working hours; or Rail service is available, and such service is cost effective and is consistent with mission requirements; or Smoking is permitted on the contract flight and the nonsmoking section of the aircraft for the contract flight is not acceptable to you.

qukslvr619

In reading through the JTR, it is rather ambiguous. My understanding is if I am booking UA and its lower than the awarded contract carrier full fare, and I am not incurring baggage expenses, then selecting the actual contract carrier is not the most cost effective option.

Maxwell Smart

But I assume the outrage would be mitigated if the govt fare was $1000? Would that 'justify' the upgrade for the Silver because it's more than the 1K's $800 fare?

I assume the extra $700 in taxpayer money would not invoke any outrage?