This is a new one. UA just tried to sell me a TOD upgrade at booking for a Nov 27 flight from EWR to ATL.

I am a 1K and booked a flight for around $450 RT (S fare). I was offered an upgrade for $79 each way (would be a total of just over $600 for First in both directions.)

I was startled, so I went back and searched for the lowest possible coach fare for which I would be upgraded at booking (M) The fare was $1100.

Has anyone else seen this???

P.S. I took screen shots of both screens, but am technically incompetent and dont know how/if I can post them here.

Update:

I went back in to view my reservation through the website. Now I can upgrade for $330 each way. That is in line with the M fare differential.

I'd like to know where the $79 pop up came from. Maybe a glitch- as a 1K, Im sure Im not supposed to see that ;)

The cheapest M fare doesn't necessarily matter. It's the cheapest -UP or F fare that is important.

However, how did it change from $158 to $660 in less than 5 minutes?

Not to mention the $79 each way is far too convenient a number to be a real fare difference.

OP - What was the cheapest FC fare (anything which books into F) at the time you booked? This doesn't sound much like tens of dollars, but rather the post 3/3 system in which the UG cash offer is approximately the difference between what you paid and the cheapest FC seat on the date offered and then discounted by status from there.

I don't have access to historical fare data, but what you were offered sounds to be approximately what the UG should cost.

What's the concern? That UA ought to give away that much revenue?

Lowest is V-UP at $1059 base

I saw this same behavior when I booked tickets on United.com back on Oct 9th, so this functionality isn't brand new. I too am a 1K and was offered discounted $149 upgrades from G fare on TPA-EWR-TPA. When I later visited the Upgrade Reservation page it quoted $365/$265.

Youre right, forgot to put that info in my first post- the cheapest F fare was also around $1100 (just like the M fare)

My issue is the devaluing of CPU. If this is the way UA plans to operate, they need to be honest about it. Mine is the same concern that has been voiced ad nauseum on this board.

What about from JFK or LGA (or HPN)?

Thought that UA Insider noted that was the loophole they closed was ex-EWR pricing as ex-NYC?

The concern is breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and false advertising. UA has to give benefits to existing elites under the last years T&C's (when the status was earned).

Yes, she did... But if the JFK or LGA fare happens to line up with the numbers here, then maybe it wasn't.

"subject to availability." If UA chooses to sell F seats for $1 and they get snapped up by people with a 2012 birthday on a Tuesday, UA is fully covered.

Is it really surprising that UA is phasing out CPU's given capacity cuts, -UP fares, paid F and pre-departure discounted FC sales?

Wrong. Subject to availability is not a license to do whatever UA wants. If one follows your logic, then UA can simply take away all the miles, and upgrade instruments because it can also change T&Cs at any time. But it's highly unlikely that that's how even a very conservative court would construe MP T&Cs. So, nice try, but no.

EDIT: Also, you are conflating the issues. Nobody is saying that it's surprising that UA wants to phase out CPU or that UA can't phase out CPU. The issue is that "phasing" CPU out in the manner UA chose is unlawful. And too bad that FFs are too busy to sue.

Not in the least.

Nor is it a surprise that financial performance is lagging competitors. CO management has it all "figured out". So they think.
Except that, IME, they don't.

Dave

This is not new! Im always offered a cheap upgrade at booking then it doubles or triples.