A W or V is not a "highly discounted fare."

You're late to this discussion. Suffice it to say that only flyers who average 18-20 cpm are breaking even or doing better under the new scheme, the number of such flyers is relatively small, and the overall number of miles being awarded is reduced significantly.

I guess it sounds to me--maybe incorrectly--like people think this is an unwanted unexpected side-effect of UA's change in policy, as opposed to an intentional expected outcome.

I think people are just surprised to learn how dramatic the difference is, particularly when they've purchased a W or a V at a substantial premium over the cheapest available fare.

While it's hard to dispute that the prior scheme was economically irrational, it seems to me UA has swung too far in the other direction by placing the new break-even point well above PRASM. This new scheme is a net takeaway from pax, but that doesn't seem to bother most of the relatively small number who are actually benefited by the new earnings.

While no one doubts the majority has seen a decrease, the "relatively small" may leave the wrong impression.

-- UA's revenue per passagner mile is roughly 16 cpm, so the 18 cpm breakeven for 1Ks is higher but not huge gap.
(BTW, due to the competitive pressure for HKG, the 9 cpm or so for the OP's fare is unusually low for W/V. )

-- Using the only "published" report to use as a benchmark, AS's study suggested 1/4 or so would have would have received the nearly the same or better -- believe AS stated 73% would be measurable worse off. Note: AS's revenue per passagner mile is less than UA's.

So making a guesstimate of 70/30 split help places the issue in some context. Still a 2:1 split but "relatively small" might suggest a worse situation.

More discussion on this occurred earlier.

AS found that only 5% would do materially better under a revenue based plan and that 73% would do materially worse. Airline runs numbers - shows nearly all customers lose under revenue based FFPs.

The results do not translate directly to UA because UA, with its international network, has a much higher end to its fare structure.

Nonetheless, I stand by my "relatively small" statement. Think about how fares are distributed. You have the bulk of pax buying at the low end, between say 4 and 12 cpm and a very small number at the very high end, say 40-80 cpm. This puts the mean substantially above the median.

hence 27% do better, the same or nearly the same.

The fare distribution of UA is something neither of us know. All we can use is the data we have and then make our individual guesses. But to get the average 16 cpm, your model will have have to be quite lopsided and that does not fit normal realworld data.

2015 MileagePlus Program Updates Announced (Master/Consolidated Thread)
 

Of course the bulk of passengers are at the low end - that's the way the pricing has worked for years. Essentially these passengers (myself included) were getting a great deal for many years - fly 5 transcons @$200 and attain Silver + a free domestic rt flight. Same deal on WN - buy 16 cheap $29 or $39 flights and get a free system wide flight (even better during frequent 2x credit promos).

Those days are officially gone (or will be when AA follows suit). As are the Mileage upgrades on cheapo fares to Europe.

Unfortunately the only way to game the system now has nothing to do with flying. Churn credit cards and manufacture spend. And how long do you figure that will last?

And only 5% do materially better. I would call 1/20 a relatively small number.

I wouldn't call this a guess, at least not at the 30,000 foot level. We have a strong indication from AS's numbers how cpm distribute across the population of frequent flyers. And while those numbers won't translate directly to UA, I would be very surprised if the distribution was dramatically different. (And I would be particularly surprised to find a comparatively higher percentage of very HVF on AS, which suggests to me that if anything the UA figure might be less than 5%.)

And I would call 27% doing better, same or nearly the same as not a relatively small number. It's all a matter how you want to view / position --- if a 1/4 to 1/3 passengers are positive to neutral and some portion of the lower fare passengers are not accumulating or really caring about miles creates a different image then saying only 5% are substantially better.

You lumping in the "neutrals" muddies the argument - the better analysis is how many are doing worse vs. how many are doing better. The ratio is roughly 16 to 1 per AS.

There are multiple ways to look at this and as with most sets of stats the "truth" can be interpret in different way depending on the point you are trying to make. However when folks talk about how many are "hurt" by the new system and that hardly anyone is not negatively affected, the estimate that 25-30% doing better, same or nearly the same creates a different image.
No one is stating the majority are not taking a hit, but the number not taking a hit is likely higher than the impression one would get from the discussion here.

I've been wondering what program changes are in store for next year, specifically the PQD requirement. Historically, haven't they announced the "big changes" like this in June? I'm waiting to book anything, because if it goes up to 16K, I'm out. I'll become a Kayaker and buy business class on whoever's the cheapest.
Any speculation?

What changes has Delta ann;)unced?

Delta made some program changes on 7/15....so far UA has not copied them...

75k award mile max
 

The 75k award mile max seems to be per ticket. I was just bought a C class ticket for work that cost close to $9k. Leaving lot of miles on the table due to that max.
What would have happened if they bought 2 one ways (assuming for business that the cost is same which it usually is)? Would I have earned up to 75k max per one way? Wouldn't have earned whole max but potentially been 11X (as 1k) times $4.5k each way

Will they see 2 1-ways as 1 ticket even if 2 different ticket numbers or is this way to get around 75k max?