Often1

Taking a fairly harsh approach is also warranted because I doubt that UA catches a substantial percentage of the fraud which is committed. Thus, deterring it is the only way to be effective. If it is clear that getting caught means losing one's account, people are less likely to defraud the program.

ani90

It is not though a deterrent. A deterrent would be if UA sends periodic mailouts or such stating that n number accounts were closed last month for violations. As it is currently no one knows about these account closures except for the occasional posts on forums such as this, which can't even be verified. Typically, it happens quietly, no one knows about it and thus it deters no one. It may deter the few MP members who come to FT and read this thread, but otherwise for most it is not the case.

Often1

UA (as well as other carriers) does a good job of leaking this stuff to its captive clickbait bloggers. This is a targetted audience who often look for workarounds and need to know where the line is drawn. On the other hand, the commercial miles broker fraudsters (which includes upgrades, certs and other associated products) know exactly what they are doing wrong and don't need warnings.

ani90

Leaking how? Can you give few examples? Maybe actually some of these accounts we read in this thread could well be false and UA is just planting them to scare people - possible?

kettle1

You prove these are false??? It happens daily on all carriers, it is just not reported on social media, FT, TA, etc. Take a look on eBay for some "deals". UA and other carriers are also looking.

ContinentalFan

If I were United and it was clear that somebody’s account was hacked or there was another acceptable explanation, I’d let the person off, restore his or her account and status provided they signed a non-disclosure policy. I’d want an appearance of zero tolerance. I changed my password a week or so ago when I read this thread.

kettle1

I am sure UA uses common sense on these matters, like every other carrier.

polarbears

The site just gives an SSL error now...

As others said I don't think that's the rule exactly. My children have accounts and ... uh, don't know it. I'm not sure if we're violating rules for that; they aren't old enough to enter a contract I don't think, but United obviously let them have an account knowing their ages.

WineCountryUA

Broke out a long side discussion as a separate thread, Does UA creates confusion of benefit "ownership" by making offers to "sell" miles?

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

kettle1

Yes, UA, DL, AA, WN, etc all monitor this.

lovestache

Another one bites the dust (actually summer of last year).

The trade of GPU RPU's has been going on for a very long time. Infact I have emails buying these off craigslist back in 2006- and I'm sure it was going on long before then. I always assumed that because of the free advice thing, United was ok with these kind of transactions.

Quite frankly, I tried to sell the GPU because these typically go waste and I never seemed to get upgraded on my flights (SFO LHR etc) despite being 1k.. and also because everyone else seems to be doing it. Infact, I've seen GPU's listed for $99 in Jan timeframe when they are expiring at the end of the month. Instead of policing, wouldn't it have made sense for United to fix the problem?!

ok, I 'fess - I tried to make a few bucks instead of letting the GPU go to waste (why anyone would pay money for such a low probability to get upgraded was beyond me). If United was so concerned about sale/transfer, then wouldn't it make sense or them to a) reduce the number of GPU issued to say 4 like AA b) introduce a clause that they can only be used by the member or 2 pre-defined family members? I just did a search and can still see 10-20 ad's on craigslist trying to sell their GPU RPU. Is policing the solution - is policing working? If it was working the problem would have been solved and there would not been no more ads for these on craigslist. United should work on a solution that works.


Also, as others have mentioned, canceling the account is a very harsh penalty. Can't United pose a limitation that the GPU/RPU can only be redeemed in the name of the account holder? Most of us have been loyal United members and have been getting revenue to United (atleast $12k per year to be 1k) - in my case I have made several business trips just to earn miles.

I had over 1 million miles in my account - I never sold or attempted to sell any miles (my account balance wouldn't have been this high otherwise). I was saving these miles so I could enjoy them later .... now it feels like my retirement fund has been taken away.

TomMM

There's nothing preventing you from using your upgrades on family members.

lovestache

Well with my account locked, I don't have any upgrades. My point being that if United is so concerned about upgrades being sold, then they could impose conditions instead of leaving things open ended.

paperwastage

Plenty of examples here, where people upgrade coworkers/friends (more than 2 different people), so lastname/address/phone# won't match
Not sure what is the problem? Loads are high, so fewer cleared upgrades? Are you asking them to stop selling seats/TODs and make less money?

They are adding more premium seats (Polaris density) and raising PQD to 24K spend to get fewer 1K members

lovestache

United 1k and GS members continue to sell these on craigslist. How does it matter to united if the gpu is given away vs cash?

Do a search on craigslist - there are about 20 loyal members selling GPUs. And this is just in one metro area

Shouldn't united be focused on making money by keeping their loyal members instead of canceling their accounts? Also, the increased spend to police the program. Instead, wouldn't it make sense to create a program that doesn't require policing?