mduell

I thought this was always the case. You get miles under the rules from when you earn the miles.

TerryK

+1.^ Much ado about nothing.

Some have mentioned contract laws and DoT. I don't think frequent flyer mileage accrual is part of your transportation contract; I don't think DoT regulate FFP mileage credit level either.

Often1

+1
1. This is nothing new. In fact, it's old.
2. It has nothing to do with UA and everything to do with the operating carrier and how it chooses to award benefits.
3. The terms of the program are fully disclosed in plain English.
4. Nobody seriously thinks that DOT is going to jump into the mess of regulating how FFP programs are run.
5. Be careful what you wish for. If these things really are some future contractual right, they're also taxable benefits. Anybody here want that?

cordelli

People here actually the DOT cares about the amount of miles somebody gets on a flight and will regulate it?

It's totally different than bag fees, where it actually can cost you money if they change the conditions.

I'm sure they will drop everything and get right on this.

Beerman92

It was a lousy policy then, its a lousy policy now. What's the real financial impact to United for allowing earning to be based on time of booking? What's the average time between booking and travel for a ticket? And the cost is some miles to United. Seems like the ups and downs in the bonus sign up miles for credit cards could be about the same order of magnitude.

The argument that its been going on for a long time and everyone else is doing it has been made about so many other failures across markets, governments and businesses I'm not sure why that's put forth here. Surely there are better arguments to be made in support of a policy like this?

Often1

The business case for the model has little to do with the fact that it's always been this way and everything to do with the nature of alliances and code-shares.

Miles are functionally cash to a carrier. They are carried on the books as a liability and they are. At the same time, there are only so many seats to be had. If every seat is sold on a revenue ticket, the awards are worth $0. Conversely, if every seat is an award, there is no cash revenue and the carrier soon starves.

So, there's a balance. And, it's up to the operating carrier to figure out how it rewards travel on its aircraft. While all of this looks seamless to the customer, behind the scenes, think of *A miles as their own currency which is used by UA to "pay" for a ticket on another carrier (and vice-a-versa for the AC pax flying UA).

There is nothing but cost and downside in an FFP which gives a pax more miles for flying another carrier than that pax would earn for flying that other carrier other than to shift less profitable pax UA's way.

There's simply no reason to change the current business model and, with the US acquisition of AA, there will be even less. I would expect all three alliances to reduce even further the earnings from discounted fares.

blug

All companies that have loyalty programs write something like "we can change the rules at any time without notice" in their terms. Why are you guys only bashing UA?

craz

I hate to say it but I understand it. If a partner decides to dump its seats and afterwards decides not to allow its own members to earn any Miles on those fares why should we be able to earn any on UA

UA cant control that say TK decides that going forward that all K fares purchased already or that will be purchased wont earn any Miles, = they wont pay UA for those who decide to credit their Flights there . Seems all UA is saying is if the Carrier flown decides for any reason to no longer give Miles for certain of its Fares, then UA wont be crediting the Miles to your acct = UA wont give you credit unless the Carrier Flown does and Pays us for those miles

weero

1. I am certain that neither you nor an other here can exhume a major case where this purported rule has been applied. LH E class e.g. has been handled in favour of the customers
2. It has absolutely nothing to do with the operating carrier. UA alone credits you MP miles and decides how many it wants to give you.
3. Somewhere on some changing website. That does - at least in Europe - not overrule goods promised in a contract. LX had issues with this when its web engine announced too high (but not grotesque) earnings and they had to honour it despite the generic disclaimer.
4. Here I agree.
5. This is the case in most countries and it makes it a lot easier to demand "equivalent value" from the airlines. The US is rather an exception here

Maybe, as a not-so-subtle-hint because this is the UACO forum?

Other carriers traveled that road and also faced resistance. LH has lived through lawsuits over this in 2004 e.g.