fieldeng

This really backfires if that's the real thing because every program will go for it so it comes down to which program offers the best benefits to the high end flyer.

alex_b

But I still think those people are at the margins. To go to the effort of setting this up it has to be about a larger trend that UA are trying to kill off where a lot of people are paying UA much less that 10 cents per PQM. My suspicion would be people who split their travel domestic UA, int'l *A; or leisure UA and business *A. Although large volume, discount corporate travel might also be part of it (perhaps where they have large corporate contracts and they give GS/1k to a few higher ups and the rest will no longer have status).

The only thing that confuses me is why DL did it first, the ST network is too poor to have the kind of distorting effect that *A business travel has on UA? Perhaps my second explanation is more likely?

UAL4life

LOL this is the funniest statement ever. What's the point of status if you don't fly?

jlivengo

Correction, every domestic program may eventually go for it. I don't believe foreign carriers will. They base their FF program's on fare class and EQM. UA is forcing HVF'ers to choose between UA & the world, not between other domestic carriers.

However, MR'ers are now being forced to consider you statement above.

BH62

Very clever. Oh BTW, Michigan (UofM) football games are played on Saturdays. And yes, I've noticed some inconsistent UA fares depending on whether I'm logged in as myself or just doing a (hopefully anonymous) web query, aka, you can run but you can't necessarily hide?

waxearwings

I basically agree. The ticket stock requirement is a sea change here because it alters the relationship between miles earning and status on *A. The big goal here is to increase the UA spending of *A flyers along the intensive margin. The gamble is whether that increase will override the revenue loss from current/potential elites unwilling to pay a loyalty premium due to not hitting the PQD marks. This gamble looks much more attractive in the current consolidation environment and the defection of US to AA (due to lack of FF program competition from a US based *A alternative). As I wrote in a post on the bigger thread, the design of their program makes me think they are underestimating the potential negative consequences of introducing so much uncertainty.

Boghopper

"a lot" is in the eye of the beholder, but typical MR fares are not the ones they want to be selling and the would be probably be happy to reduce capacity and eliminate them if they could. I think of MR fares being the seats they put on sale when they realize their otherwise going to go empty.

So I don't think they're worried about losing MR purchases. Right or wrong, I think they think those fares aren't worth selling in the first place and they have no interest in attracting anybody who makes a practice of pursuing them.

LaserSailor

Apparently enough for people to pay 2-3 cpm for miles worth <1.5cpm

Obviously the status "means something" to those making this deal

vandrei

Those "business travelers" are playing with OPM.

I wanted to visit the Pacific Northwest this summer for a week or two. I considered buying a $500+ transcon fare with my own money. Then, United offered $193 MR fares. Which one do you think I took?

ColoBill1

What a stab-in-the-dark comment. Some people have absolutely no clue.

alex_b

But if they wanted to reduce capacity and raise fares they could do so without introducing PQDs. They are trying to drive a behaviour amongst a segment of flyers that they can't achieve by changing their underlying fare basis. Eliminating $193 trans-cons has no connection to PQDs that I can see.

I'd be amazed if the guess of 100 MR per day is off by more than an order of magnitude and that still wouldn't be a noticeable number of passengers for UA.

jlivengo

I should also add that I believe UA is trying to entice the MR'ers to sign up for a Chase CC as well. Between the HVF'ers, the expected growth of the UA Chase CC base, and the exclusion of foreign based flyers, the risk seems to be justified.

Not that I agree with this new policy, I think this will be a win for UA. At the moment I'm unaffected, easily spend 10K and required to buy through a US based carrier. However, I don't like the erosion of benefits and I doubt this will be the last reduction in service we'll see. No idea where the bottom might be since the merger.

AlreadyThere

You really think so? After hearing in these forums from the number of 1Ks looking to "top off" their miles esp. towards year end, you think 100-1000 TOTAL in the system is about right? Even if you're just counting "pure" mileage runs, not discretionary trips that wouldn't have been taken except for the mileage, I'd say that's low. In December, WAY low.

But I agree with the posts that say that MR folks are not the main targets of PQD, but rather people flying *A partners and crediting to MP. Currently they get the full benefits of the UA program while sending profitable premium cabin money elsewhere (and, dare I say it, occasionally getting slightly better product in the bargain ).

LilAbner

Never mind!

RNE

There are 365 days in most years.* If we have an average of 100 mileage runners per day then we're looking at 36,500 mileage runs per year. That seems low to me. However, if we have an average of 1000 mileage runners per day, then we're looking at 365,000. That seems high to me.

But even at that high mark, mileage runs constitute a drop in the travel bucket. And with United's "encouraging" mileage runners to acquire UA-branded credit cards (with high minimum spends), that enhanced revenue will further blunt any impact mileage runners may have, be they numbered in tens or hundreds of thousands.

RNE, opining that United is not an airline, but a fulfillment house for Chase.

*Once I ascend from demigod to god, I'll slow the Earth's orbit to 360 days composed of twelve 30-day months, and make life easier for everyone, especially the Babylonians.