Another "enhancement" for Govt Flyers
 

Well after shooting off an email to 1KVoice, and then a lengthy discussion with the Govt Fares Desk, United has basically indicated that unless they have a contract on a specific market, they don't want their business. Meaning if I want to fly UA on SANPHL, the only way I can do that is to fly SANIAD and then IADPHL. They indicated basically the way SHARES will price it out is the sum of two markets. And since this can only be done in SHARES or on the UA website, travelers using DTS will not be able to select UA since it will only return results that price SANPHL, not giving the option to price it out as two markets.

sCO policy around 2006 was that they didnt bid on contract fares, but at least matched OAL contract fares (I should know because I actually worked in CO pricing). So fast forward to today, SANPHL govt fare is $400-500 each way matching US, which is about $1000 RT. Compare this to the standard advance purchase fare which prices out at $450 RT. If this was an issue where UA would be losing revenue, I could see the justification. But in yet another way, UA has failed to communicate this to its customers. So I'm 4K short of getting to 1K and if I want to requalify the only way I could do so is to fly US....which is great except next year I'll have benefits on UA and be stuck flying US which doesn't even let you book an exit row.

Pretty bonehead move on UA's part...they are going to lose $20k/year revenue from me + probably $60k/year from my team just because they aren't going to offer -DG fares. (multiply that by every other dept and other sites I'd imagine the revenue loss is going to be substantial) We can argue the whole YCA issue all day long....clearly UA would rather offer cheap YCA fares with corresponding (supposedly unlimited) upgrades than match OA. And even to the fact if UA were to match with a $40 premium that might be ok...except for the fact that due to sum of markets you can only book via UA.com which travel policy dictates booking through CTO. I sincerely hope UA reverses this decision or comes up with a solution....they said they will look into it but we shall see. Guess I better start looking at AA/DL.

Anyone care to translate/clarify the actual problem? Last I checked, UA didn't fly SAN-PHL nonstop. They do codeshare with a US flight. Is the problem that their fares are too high, or that DTS (whatever that is) won't actually price a UA flight from SAN-PHL?

Look in a good way - Taxpayers' burden is lowered in this case.

Feel free to do so, fewer government employees on YCA fares stealing upgrades from taxpayers sounds good to me.

Even John Deere thinks this thread is too in the weeds.

OP says it's $20K of his money, but he's talking about govt. fares so it's my money. I'm tickled pink that UA is actually following the contract and saving me money. Hopefully they'll report the contact to the fare desk to the relevant Inspector General and that IG can track down the waste, fraud & abuse.

I'm confused -- as far as I can tell the OP is talking about UA matching the contract fare :confused:?
Not sure how that would cost taxpayers any more money.

What *would* save taxpayers money (generally) is dropping the requirement several agencies have of booking refundable fares. No matter how you look at it, the YCA fares are generally still more $$ than a non-refundable fare.

Clearly people assume everything is YCA=stealing my upgrades. That's not the case here.

So let me sum it up this way. US is the contract carrier for SANPHL. They have two fares $400 OW (limited avail) or $500 OW (unrestricted). In the past UA, AA, DL, WN, etc would match somewhere between the $400-$500 OW range. UA is no longer publishing govt fares for SANPHL except for a Y fare at $1200 OW. So if UA was cheaper than US fare of $500, I could book UA, thus saving mine/your tax payer money. Now the only option I have is to book US at $500; the only way to fly UA is to book SANIAD/IADPHL seperately......no one will be able to do that.

What you are assuming is that by booking UA on the non-contract routes it was more expensive, costing the govt more money in the process. Thats not what I am saying.....what I am saying is that UA not only is losing the revenue, but the govt will be incurring additional costs because the option to book a cheaper carrier, namely UA, is no longer there.

The number of govt flyers on YCA fares will remain the same, since they will still be flying on UA hub-to-hub and nonstops. What you wont see is anyone flying on W/U/T/S etc fares on connecting itineraries, thus equating to lost revenue to UA.

The only ones stealing upgrades from you is UA selling TODs. These YCA fares wont ticket until 3 days out, which at that point 1K, Platinum, Gold would have theoretically been upgraded. By the same token do you feel that a silver reaccom'd on a Y fare but was ticketed on a L fare is stealing? Cause guess who is going to get the upgrade? A 1K on an L fare or that Silver that is now booked on a Y fare?

:rolleyes:

Nice hyperbole. How exactly is this "stealing"? It's a United policy, United is apparently fine with it. If United has a problem with it, they are free to change it. And of course, you don't consider that govt employees are taxpayers too, right?

Do you feel the same outrage if it's a 1P flying on a discounted corporate-negotiated Y fare and getting an upgrade?

UA is making a business decision that they'd be better off selling fewer $1200 Y tickets than more $500 -DG tickets. That's their call, and they'll either benefit from or suffer consequences of that decision.

As a govt traveler, I just accept whatever situation there is year to year and travel accordingly. If there's xCA or xDG fares on my preferred carrier, great. If not, I fly someone else, that's just the way it is.

Yes, but how much margin are they going to lose? No sense in UA generating lots of low or unprofitable revenue.

Well LAXIAD YCA is $308, -CA is $214 and UA is the contract carrier. By comparison BURDCA YCA is $499, -CA is $299 and US is the contract carrier. So yes BURDCA is not a nonstop, but LAXIAD on UA permits connecting points. I would think that if UA was concerned about generating low/unprofitable revenue they would not be taking $308 fares on a nonstop transcon.

How much is SAN-IAD+IAD-PHL on UA? More or less than SAN-PHL on US?

Sarcasm ON

Because as a government traveler you must be a lazy, useless bureaucrat that can't get a job in the private sector and are sucking up taxpayer money traveling for unnecessary reasons. If you MUST travel for official business, some people will only be happy if you're relegated to either the floor or maybe the lav seat on an airplane. Receive some frequent flyer perks? The horror! You're stealing from the taxpayers!

Of course, if instead you're a mid-level executive with a large corporation that gets huge government contracts and you fly on expensive tickets and get FF perks, that's okay, since that's apparently not "taxpayer money".

Sarcasm OFF

If you're working within policy, and seeking out lowest cost options, you're doing things exactly right.

Are you comparing an unrestricted govt fare to a heavily restricted advance purchase fare?