TIMOS

for the markets i fly - LAX-SYD and LAX-Brasil - W fares are $500 - $1200 above cheapect coach

Why not vote for option 3 "both systems" - if you dont want to deal with copays - you wouldn't have to. Buy the W fare.

WineCountryUA

They are a couple of problems with the options
- as mentioned a number of times, copays are many times are not reimbursable for (corporate / institutional / government) travelers
- refunds are difficult for many corporations to handle and rarely get back to the original corporate account
- those presently OK with W or higher (some corporate purchasers) don't want more competition

but most fundamentally, any system that decreases the revenue to UA is not going to be well received.

Do many flights go TAPC, TATL with empty seats and no upgrade waitlist? Unless that number is significant (suggesting not enough W or higher purchasers), UA would be foolish to drop the requirement.

Even implementing a sub-W copay option & none for =>W, might encourage lower revenue.

So until a revenue neutral / positive option is present, this idea is dead -- and option 4 is the only one that fits.

Changes need to be framed in how is this a win for UA, otherwise .... forgetaboutit

chinatraderjmr

Good point. I have never flown UA to OZ but have heard the W fares are much more expensive then other economy fares (I think I heard that from you as we'll)

But Brazil??? That's where I use most of my GPU's now. We did one trip from FRA-RIO via IAD but that was w a D fare upgrading from D-O so does not count (except it was a great biz class fare (1/2 of the LH non stop & only need 1 GPU for both the FRA-IAD & IAD-GIG (same day conx)

HOWEVER

our 2nd trip was from W-R (LAX-IAD-GIG) and the difference between W and whatever was cheapest was about $100. That's acceptable to me ( as long as we cleared at booking). Maybe it's the season or where you are beginning the GIG trips. LAX-GIG via IAD in W was CHEAPER then NYC-GIG via IAD in K which makes No sense. ??????

unavaca

I think we were all happy to get GPUs as soon as we hit 100k. We were less happy about them expiring 1 year from the date we got them. To UA's credit, they solved this by having all upgrades expire in January the year following. The best of both worlds ^

TIMOS

Well there goes ANY suggestion we all ever make o FT...

Aren't we always all saying UA needs to put customers first, and the profit will come.

dinoscool3

How ironic, all the choices are about even. Sometimes, things aren't as clear cut as we wish them to be @:-)

I can't vote as I don't get GPUs however.

TIMOS

OK, so go option C - both systems. Use the one you want.

Again, use the one you want. Corporations can use the W fare buy up system if both systems operate side by side

That argument can be countered that those buying their own W fares (leisure flyers) DO want the competition

Revenue will not be reduced that much. Half the cabin will likely be the corporations paying W fare buy up. The rest of the cabin will be leisure travelers buying up with co-pay. The only "lost" revenue UA has to refund is those who did W buy up or co-pay and did not clear.

And that is revenue UA should not have in first place. If UA is not providing the product (BF class) than they should not be receiving the money.

Would you cal refund of co-pay on a miles and co-pay "lost" revenue too?

WineCountryUA

I think the math is wrong -- only those using copay that are upgraded will pay, so UA loses the revenue of the non-upgraded copay option. And you have the cost of creating a new option and the CS issues of dealing with the added confusion / complexity.

Also, I very much doubt that half of those using GPUs are leisure travelers. My guess is 10% maybe 20% max at peaks (including normal business travelers on vacation). The leisure HVT is a much smaller community and is not really UA's (or any major airline) targeted market.

they have the revenue today.

Not the topic and for a variety of reason would not fly for that user group.

-- I wouldn't have an issue with UA making this change for GPUs but I will ask again -- why would UA do this if the business cabin is going out full most of the time and people on the waitlist as is??????

What is in this for UA? What compensates UA for the revenue lost??

FreFly

A problem with the first option is that rules for the original fare basis and W may be different. Which rules apply in the event of change or cancelation? One can specify those, but the rules become quite complex.

TIMOS

If the cabins are going out full now, they would go out full under changes too. UA should make this change for one main reason: people who fly 100k a year are being forced to play the upgrade lottery under the current system - and being forced to payup to $1000 more for an economy ticket simply to wait list. And if it doesn't clear - you just threw away $1000 extra to sit in coach. That is flat out wrong.

What's in it for UA? It keeps 1Ks happy. A group that has been leaving UA in droves. Keep your best customers happy. Stops them going to AA who offers 8 GPUs with no buy up (10 now with new elite benefits programme) UA is not competaitive at all in this area - far behind AA

Lost revenue? How bout the $300 fare change fee just announced. Bingo $50 milion extra in revenue

Michael D

The point as I read it is that they are not seeing a significant drop in 1Ks or that the drop in 1Ks is not significant to their bottom line, people unhappy or not are paying the extra $1000 to spin the wheel (sts); they need the money.

BH62

Excerpted from my post yesterday (#3756 in the "simple Question" thread) where the W upfare difference is $416 *if* you have two GPUs, otherwise (as I said yesterday):

"Looking at SEA-NRT-SIN & return for dates this Fall. Fare classes are SEA-NRT in K & NRT-SIN in W, $1184.; or if W on all legs, $1600. Now consider upgrading strategies: Scenario 1: with no GPUs available, this seems to be simple, just buy the $1184 tkt & apply $600 plus 30k miles each way. Scenario 2: Now suppose I have 1 GPU (which may be the result of having applied 2 GPUs to an upcoming trip, but only 1 has cleared so far & the other is chancy). Apparently I’d need to be in W for the SEA-NRT leg, so buy the $1600 tkt, apply the GPU outbound & for the return pay $550 + 30,000 miles. Total Cost: Scenario1: $2384 + 60,000 miles. Scenario 2: $2150 + 30,000 miles."

Apparently the value of a GPU is $550&30,000 miles so assuming $02/mile, the total is $1150 ... Huh? I'm open to any criticism of that logic

GBadger

$1447 is not "very high" for summertime TATL travel, at least not in my experience.

I agree that the cost difference is not that great and for those of us who sometimes do not meet the "saturday night stay" requirement, and therefore are buying W, H, etc. anyway, having the ability to upgrade those fares is a nice bonus.

I just don't see these other options working out. As mentioned, companies can't accept refunds very easily and it becomes a logistical nightmare. I'm ok with the current UA system.

WineCountryUA

I get $234+30K miles and @1.5 cpm, $684 got the delta between S1 & S2 (w/GPU).

Ari

Bingo.