Jet'Dillo

Will be doing this next week. I'll report back on whether we can still get in or not on arrival. You should be able to because it's still going to be the same day(unless they're going to get REALLY pecuniary about red-eyes).

Most of the time, I will just head straight for baggage claim/curb on arrival and get going, but there have been times when it's been nice to pop into the Club and do as LASUA1K does. When I've got bags checked, the carousel usually hasn't even started yet for my flight by the time I get down there.

transportbiz

Of course you still will, these changes don't take effect until next year.

This change is to ONLY one thing, United will no longer provide gate passes to members who are not flying. That is it. That is the only change. United chose to commutate this in such a convoluted manner is why there is so much angst and confusion about what is changing.

I do the same thing with UA baggage claim at LAX, as it's often 30-45 minutes for the first bag.

minnyfly

It clearly goes beyond that "one thing", and that's why it's worded like it is. It's also the least invasive step UA can take to start dealing with crowds. Maybe people shouldn't complain as much about overcrowding. You get what you ask for.

transportbiz

How does it? It most certainly does not. It is ONLY about gate pass removal from the benefits. Period. That is the ONLY instance you'd gain access to the post-secure areas without a boarding pass. It will not make any difference in "crowding" at all.

Mikey

In regards to the statement someone made -- "I'd call them over-entitled too."

Sorry, but I use the club a couple times a year when I pick up folks. My lifetime membership has always allowed me to do that. Seeing this as a take-away in no way classifies me as "over-entitled".

I fail to see the logic in the "This does not affect me, so I dont care" attitude. This is the "race to the bottom" philosophy. If your neighbor is 1k and you are not an elite, would you tell them that they are over-entitled just because you dont fly as much as they do?

If they took away something important to the nay-sayers on this board, you would be screaming.

Wx4caster

I don't think UA necessarily does know, and even with a same-day, ANY carrier boarding pass they still won't know unless one believes they are going to record this info - my guess is it will be a quick visual check.


The proof of the very low gate pass access numbers may lie in the well known (on FT) reporting of agents' lack on knowledge of the gg checkpoint allowance for UC gate passes. Sure a few hubs or large stations (finally) have it down, but that's hardly the norm. I use gate pass access ~6-8 times per year, and have had more than my fair share of battling with reps to get a pass even after citing the very specific reference.`

minnyfly

I wasn't addressing you. But since you want it, I will. It's literally scientific proof that it will help. The control is no change at all. The variable is the new change. The variable does not increase access in any way whatsoever. So all the proof we need is that the change will reduce access. On paper it does, but that's not proof. We need evidence that people exist in the area between the control and the new variable. We already the evidence on this forum. Therefore no one can say that this will not reduce the number of guests present in the UC.

Besides, it's simply naive to think that we know how many people this does and does not affect. United knows more than we do.

Employees on duty are clearly excluded. I've heard of some employees considering club memberships. Crew rooms, if available, are not always the greatest. So with that alone, it clearly goes beyond gate passes.

goalie

MODERATOR NOTE

This is an important change made by United but discuss the issue and not each other with comments like, "please prove to me", "show me where" "you didn't answer my question" and etc.

goalie
UA Forum Co-Moderator

IAH-OIL-TRASH

You don't seem to understand the "changes you like" don't necessarily result in the change you expect. Your analysis fails to recognize UA's ability to add more people to the Club while excluding others with the new policy.

Some people are being turned away at times due to over-crowding. These people will now (well, maybe) get in. United/Chase is heavily promoting Club Cards - that is a growing number of members. Do they expand Clubs (big $) to include more Club Card members, or do they start winnowing access where they can? Your analysis is great for a closed system, but it isn't. Nice try, but flawed from the beginning.

"More exclusive" does not necessarily mean "less people". It could mean "only departing passengers" and include more people as more one-time passes and new Club members show up.

JBord

+1

And since we're discussing such tiny groups of people as those in the UC club at any point in time with only gate passes, I'll bring up one more.

I think the email (although I, as a UC member, haven't received it yet), may make people aware that they could visit a UC when flying another airline. There have been a few comments in this thread from people that didn't realize that. While I knew it, I never really thought much about it when not flying UA. So maybe crowding will actually be worse now.

If this is really about restricting employees from taking advantage of the clubs, it seems there might be a better way to do that. Perhaps add rules to the free standby travel benefit for example.

SS255

I'm a 7-year UC/Presidents Club member (and lifetime member since 2010), and have entered the UC exactly once when not flying that day. The one time I used the benefit was after a UA-sponsored event at LAX.

I am not losing anything more than perhaps one or two admissions per decade, but what upsets me about this change is the poor communication around it. Regardless of the truth, perception is reality.

Those of us who use the benefit the way it was originally intended (i.e. when at the airport to assist a friend/family member who is very likely flying on UA) are not abusing the system, should not be punished, and probably are not contributing in any meaningful fashion to the over-crowding.

I am 100% behind cracking down on abuse, but like everything else UA does, they cast a very wide net and a lot of innocent people get caught up in it. I suspect that there are more innocent members who will be harmed by this change than abusers, but the abusers are the repeat offenders, and they jack up the numbers which lead UA to conclude that the over-crowding is caused by entry by members who aren't flying that day. While that may be true, my answer to that is to punish the abusers and leave the rest of us alone.

My suggestion to UA is to allow a certain number of "anytime" entries per member per year to enable them to do their legitimate business at the airport with no loss of membership benefits. Those who are abusing the system will probably get a few freebies, but beyond that they will have to go through the hassle of purchasing and then refunding tickets -- and eventually UA will catch on to this and probably ban them or (if an employee) discipline them.

transportbiz

Employees have always been excluded. If the issue of overcrowding is the goal, this trimming at the superfluous edges isn't going to do a thing anyone will notice on a logical scale. Sure, if 10,000 visitors are reduced by 2 it's a technical reduction...and so what? That's like removing 2 buckets of water from a flooded city.

LegalTender

Hard to believe it is.

Given this is a full year out, it's plausibly a test run for barring those not holding a same-day UA (or partner) boarding pass.

Bonehead

Well said, and I would remind the people who are squealing that UA has the data regarding what percentage of people who now use the club will be excluded under the new policy, and we don't.

JBord

How would they have that data?

I sometimes use a club with just my membership card and ID, even when I'm flying UA -- but they don't know that today. If they're counting that as not having a same day boarding pass in their data, then they've vastly overestimated the expected reduction in visitors.

And they can't count gate passes, because there are still lots of legitimate reasons to get a gate pass. I left my jacket on a plane once after arrival and didn't realize until I got to the baggage claim, so I got a gate pass.