Majuki

I'm definitely not trying to be pedantic or start a quarrel with this one, but rather giving some context as to why there was some contention between those who fly primarily on OPM versus those who have mostly personal travel. Furthermore, I would say that someone with 10% expensed travel could make up that difference on personal travel, so the amount of flying on OPM in that case is immaterial.

Objectively speaking, those who spend > 18 cpm on average will come out ahead under the new earnings and those who spend under 18 cpm will come out behind.

rankourabu

Because you would be hard pressed to find anyone who spends >18cpm on personal travel and flies 100k+ miles.
Because it would be very easy to find same on OPM.

The point of contention is/was the numerous posts when OPMers are jumping for joy that they will greatly benefit from this change.

I dont think anyone is arguing that the majority is getting screwed here. Or like someone said, why would UA do this?

Those thinking that this will somehow result in a net benefit are dellusional, with the glut of CC manufactured RDMs increasing annually.

LaserSailor

There is a fundamental difference between the business and leisure traveller.

Notwithstanding the valid point that this is not a black/white split, the business traveller's plans are not optional - its part of work. I think that part is lost on the crowd crying "OPM fouls"

Im sure some might enjoy single swinging lives on the road, but the vast majority I know tolerate it, but don't relish it.

If the leisure traveller gets tired of traveling, you just stop.

Because spending is not evenly distributed, the benefits are not evenly distributed. It really is simple, I think. "Getting screwed" is the view on the opposite side of 'enjoyed a great ride on the backs of others for many years' of course. Ive been on both sides over the years.

LarkSFO

I was trying to avoid pedantic-ness myself, but clearly this is a tricky topic.

Without even getting in to the 'yes I fly on OPM, but I am away from home/family 120 days a year so deserve some benefit or reward'.

Overall, I think you are right in terms of defining the reason that there is contention on the topic.

CashN

I spend about $25K a year if you include the surcharges so this is a mild benefit to me. However, the devaluation of miles completely nullifies any benefit.

Not a single good thing has come out of the merger for 1Ks.

* GM members with credit cards flood group 2 which can cause unnecessary blockage and congestion for us in group 1
* Instruments are completely worthless unless flying at obscure times
* Virtually no R space even several months out
* UDUs don't exist during the week
* Reward miles completely devalued
* TODs for nothing
* PS flights value $279 over clearing 1Ks

AAExPlat

lasersailor. You strike me as a very rational person in general, but It seems you are rationalizing several issues here.

1) There is no more privacy in F than Y in my opinion. The guy/gal next to you can see your screen just fine if he really wants to. Secondly, if you have a privacy screen over your laptop, the neighbor in Y will not be able to read your screen either. So in my book, there is no real productivity issue between Y and F based on privacy alone. If you want to argue that you are more motivated to work in F, I might agree.

And of you fly in Y sometime when F is not abailable, are you saying that you would not work in Y and bill the client?

2) What makes IBM "typical" is that it and other firms like it employ the vast majority of frequent business travelers. If you give me 10 firms with similar policies as yours that add up to a total of 5000 employees, I will counter with most of the fortune 100 which employ millions. The reality is that for everyone that gets a deal like you, there are a hundred of the rest of us. Not to mention that most small business in this country is local to begin with. That's what makes IBM and its peers typical in its travel policies. Again, I wish everyone had your deal, but that is a pipedream.

LaserSailor

If I'm rational, than I should be rationalizing, right ??

I love the English language.

No offense meant and none taken AAExPlat.

We bill travel at a flat rate regardless of whether we work, but of course we try to catch up on reading etc while in air. I do find it is much easier to book window first in last row and secure my screen than in Y. I physically can't use my computer in Y, especially if seat N-1 reclines....ggggrrrrrrrrr

I'm not willing to grant your second point yet. I think the Big guys move more people around, but not necessarily more working upper management than SMB. It has certainly been the trend in technology that the dynamics are in small biz over the last 20 years, IMHO.

I don't have the data to back this up, to come clean. It will be fun to gather this up....until then I'm confessing to living in the bottom of the triangle of logical rebuttal. Okay, maybe not that low since I didn't call you any bad names, AAxPLAT.

Gates Foundation is an example of a charity that uses the four hour rule in the employee handbook. It's a lot more common than BigBlue HR wants you to believe.

Crap...looks like we have some work to do...

rankourabu

Wouldnt that make them NODs?

Majuki

One argument is that leisure travelers can stop anytime - I keep telling myself I can quit anytime I want - but business travelers have fixed schedules.
Since business travelers have little choice in where/when they travel, they should be rewarded with more benefits compared to the low fare leisure traveler who travels at the time and place of his choosing.

Even as a mostly leisure traveler, I don't have an issue with this viewpoint. However, there is an unclear outcome among those even those who fly OPM. Even if you fly primarily on OPM, you might come out behind under the new system. There are some OPM travelers who are hub captives or booking last-minute or monopoly routes that tend to guarantee a high average cpm. In contrast, there are other OPM travelers whose schedules are known far in advance and where the employer has an all-coach-all-the-time policy on the lowest logical fare.

So it's great for those business travelers with generous travel policies or those who get an e-mail saying to book IAH-COS three days out. However, for those business travelers who have a project in Asia with a fixed travel schedule known 4-6 weeks in advance and the company only pays for the lowest coach fare, they're coming out behind on their SFO-TPE r/t relative to the old system.

It's also unclear even if people who collect more redeemable miles under the new system will truly be ahead of the game since there are many credit card offers with huge signup bonuses. What is clear is that the opportunities for arbitrage, at least from earning RDM via flying, are going away.

Perhaps we could call them Zeroes of Dollars (ZODs).

gongteng

This was really new to me, and this is the most significant change in United Mileage Plus since it started, in my opinion. I was on the program around 20 years....

A couple of thoughts:

- In many cases UA offers cheaper tickets for one-stop or two stops even when non-stop flights are available. I considered & actually took it as it was beneficial for both of PQM and RDM. However now it is less attractive. I think balancing loads by attractive ticket fares are a good idea but UA seems to give up this?

- Flying UA metal always gave me more RDMs but with this change non-UA metal could be beneficial in some circumstances?

flyhighajw

Thank you.

UA-NYC

You just made the argument for the opposing POV :-:

For the marginal, discretionary dollar, that's why loyalty programs DO exist.

Why should a business traveler flying EWR-IAH, with no other options (and thus, married to UA and monopolistic pricing) reap the maximum amount of awards?

UA1KPHL

yup so after new rules i will get only 6,000-10,000 RDM for a ticket to Asia which i currently get 32,000 RDM.or 24,000 if gold after 2015. If they would lower the award miles redemption it wont be any big deal but.. So 10-20 years ago it was better to be loyal to the many different airlines but now its not with only 3 airlines?? This is what competition was supposed to help after deregulation??

Majuki

The business traveler on this route reaps the maximum amount of awards because UA has decided to de-emphasize BIS miles in favor of spend. Are you trying to say that UA shouldn't offer any miles at all on any routes where they have a monopoly because some people would book it anyway? I doubt they'd be able to get away with that one even though they probably want to be as stingy as possible with issuing miles.

You're right that loyalty programs exist as an intangible fudge factor, but the value has now become fixed for RDM earned through flying. While there are still opportunities for redeeming, these awards will become so out of reach for many people to the point where they will just book based on which airline has the best price/most direct routing.

What we don't know is how customer behavior will change with the changed RDM earning structure. There will be those who will remain captive to UA such as hub captives or those whose employers have UA as a preferred airline. There will be some leisure travelers who will still prefer UA due to lifetime status so they want to use the benefits or those who prefer the service/schedules out of their home airport with UA vs. other airlines. There are the people who use the OTAs and fare shop, and their behavior won't change.

The biggest unknown is what percentage of UA flyers only fly UA because of MileagePlus? That is to say, what percentage of UA flyers would not fly UA if not for MileagePlus? Those in this category who come out substantially behind under the new system will be the ones to bail, and this is where UA stands to lose. Whether or not this category of UA customer makes up a material percentage of UA's customer base is unknown, so it'll be interesting to see how things play out.

rankourabu

And clearly, the people in this group are not important.

Its all about the generous work policy OPMer, and the pay-per-bag kayaker.

Everyone in between apparently is not important as a customer.