exerda

Personally, I think the number of 1Ks must have been way down this year for UA to do this to begin with--they've probably lost quite a few to AA and DL.

Given how poor my upgrade game was in 2015 with arguably many fewer 1Ks to compete with, I don't see it as possibly getting worse. Other factors are in play: cheap F fares (-UP/UPDI), TOD-esque buy-up offers, etc. I do think the change to the way non-1K, full-fare complimentary upgrades clear in 2016 may help slightly--as you won't be up against Silvers on Y/B fares during irrops or last-minute travel (though that will be a limited improvement).

For UA to raise PQDs to $20k, I'd darn sure want a commensurate bump in benefits, like better award & upgrade availability... and merely thinning the ranks will achieve neither.

restlessinRNO

I would walk from UA if they raised the PQD to $20k for 1K. AA has no PQD requirement, even with their latest devaluation. I think many on this board would reassess their FF program in these circumstances.

As far as upgrades clearing, as 1K in 2015, 7/8 of my GPU requests eventually cleared. That is with some planning, of course.

Jet'Dillo

I will be definitely looking at our overall spend this year on UA to see if there are some, um, "efficiencies" to be gained in our itins for next year

Jet'Dillo

Keeping the PQD Waiver intact is interesting(and something I'm certainly not complaining about). UA must be making some solid $$$ off whatever their arrangement is with Chase.

Is this about the predictability of revenue streams("We know N % of overall ticket revenue from UA Elites will come from a UA-branded card") or discounts on transactions between UA and Chase themselves ?

Just curious.

Hipplewm

That waiver only gets you Platinum

caiken

I would support this. $20k seems like a good number. Maybe $25k.

ani90

There is already an elite program - it is called global services

Why not 50K or 100 K or more? Where do we draw the line in a bid to create the super elite?

dergon darkhelm

The typical response to that question is "Right below me".

jjmoore

Status should strictly be measured by spend. The only thing BIS miles on UA metal should impact is LT status.

sapguy

+1

Agree with this 'enhancement' to do away with PQM altogether

goalie

TOPIC DRIFT ALERT

Please remember that this discussion is about earning more PQM's in premium cabin travel starting in 2016 but not a discussion about elite levels and/or the Mileage Plus program and its merits/demerits

goalie
UA Forum Co-Moderator

jjmoore

The one I purchased is refundable (for that price) in F class.

I agree that some conversations have drifted off topic... but am interested to hear additional perspectives about why the pricing system (with the new changes to PQM earnings) is quite skewed.... My example last week is one of many many many examples of how spend and PQM earnings are still very detached, and likely even more-so than they once were.

Two things I am afraid of seeing with these changes:

1) People like me will be earning far more PQM's on the same level of spend, which means more instruments for upgrades will be in play.

2) Many more people will be earning higher status - my better half is a great example of someone that will likely make 1K vs. G or PT since she has more than enough spend to hit the top status..... more competition for upgrade space as a result.

I feel like I am going to have a bounty of worthless PQM's and upgrade certificates that are devalued by surplus and (some) will likely go unused.

stellarlight

Have been happy with purchasing P fares to avoid CPU competition and this change makes me feel happier with doing so.

cfischer

makes me consider BOS-YYZ-IST-ZRH routings again Agreed, it just adds another little bit of incentive to buy P or higher.

aCavalierInCoach

+1. Will end the year with 16 instruments and frustration about the size of G1. '16-'17 are going to be considerably worse in this regard without meaningful PQD requirement changes.