OP

This was a decent idea 4 years ago. MileagePlus has been so diluted by now that for me, it really doesn't make any difference if these yet creepier changes come. The miles are worthless anyway, so if we earn a bit less, it won't impact us in real life.

UA has jumped to 100% onto the corporate band waggon. With TODs and HODs as ancillary income.

As long as UA can outshrink the loss of loyal customers and going from Airbus to Embraers on mainline services, they will never listen to individuals.
Why play the attaboy for an airline that has clearly gone rogue???

I understand if one adheres to the church of capitalism as you put it earlier then anything is permitted on the side of the airline ... critique on a message board not so much that isn't part of the sermon, it seems .

+1 You lost me by including the word "greed" and the tired cliche, "see us as dollar signs rather than customers."

Management's objective is to maximize shareholder value. It would be much more effective if you could present a rational argument (there may be one) as to why their strategy is not the best one than to just whine about reduced loyalty benefits.

These corporate executives are business people. You would have a better chance of getting through if you spoke to them like a business person.

Cringe. Vicarious embarrassment. Cringe again.

Not "has jumped". "Has always been"

Threads like this just diminish the value of FT. There isn't an airline in the world that cares about you other than as revenue source. Even SQ.

That is indeed the truth. Complaints like this don't even break squelch at the executive level of any business.

Maybe what one should do is some analysis for different levels between all the airlines and publish it. For example, if you think you will only fly this much, then you are much better off with American or Delta's program. If you fly this much, you are better off with United's program.

or post on FT>

No. That is simply not accurate.

UA used to be an honourable airline back in the day. They did not sell away your upgrade away under your behind for TODs and corporate super cheapo tickets.

I very clearly remember the old UA, heck I still have all my boarding passes from 16 years of flying. No amount of rationalisation will 'fix' this.
How so?

The real killer for FT are the endless same-same newbie question regarding trivial stuff, the flood of corporate propagandist who are not given so much space on FT, maybe the Wiki dogma that follows reality with a large lag ... but complaint threads are at least entertaining and show a sense of community.
I believe that you believe that. But there is no way this can be backed up nor does it address the way the airlines go about it.

UA turned dishonest. It tricks customers and doesn't adhere to its own rules. That is a big thing IMHO.

+1. Although I fear that lost revenue from those of us who are bailing has already been baked into their plans.

It's not dishonest. It delivers on what it promises, you buy a ticket and it gets you from point A to point B. Anything else where you think they are being dishonest is you being too vested in the relationship. I assume you are referring to MM benefits etc.

I did not claim that UA lies about everything they sell you.

UA has made clear promises regarding the upgrade process which are no honoured. I am not talking about 'relationships' or 'expectations' here.

+1^

During the past 3 years, more than a few dishonest (I'd argue fraudulent) practices have been introduced. For example, the practice of selling a seat in F, charging an F fare, and then claiming that Y was purchased, and throwing the pax into Y is something I've experienced and read a lot about here during the past 3 years but do not recall reading about, and had never experienced, in the 10 year period preceding that.

This is an example of a widely reported dishonest practice that any reasonable person would characterize as same. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being vested in a relationship. It has to do with expecting to be given what was promised in exchange for compensation taken.

The notion that the pax is not paying for a seat but rather is paying for transportation from A to B, at the sole discretion of the airline, regardless of what was promised at time of sale, is a CO "innovation" that one can reasonably characterize as fraud, even if the CoC allows them to do it legally.

+1000

I live on the left coast and I can hear the laughter from the executive suite at the Willis Tower from here.

Juvenile letter that will have zero effect and the planned "withholding of business" the same.