jp12687

My only issue with the current scheme is that non elites can pay to upgrade cheaper than me. As an elite my price should be lower. Besides that I'm good. You don't get anything g for free. Also with the 200% PQM Bonus cheap buy ups are even more valuable.

rowenb

What this line of argument ignores is that a significant constituency for United are business travelers who are required by their employers to book their tickets through corporate travel services (e.g., Concur), and where the software is set up in such a way that the traveler is forced to book economy at ticket issuance, even if the traveler were willing to buy a business class fare and pay the difference out of pocket. So for many of us, buying front cabin at issuance is not an option; the existence of TOD and/or CPU is the only way for the airline to demonstrate some appreciation for our business.

But going back to the question the OP asked -

The one change I would make to the CPU system is to add some variability into the upgrade list prioritization. Today, the prioritization is fixed in stone. If a Plat and Gold buy the same fare class on the same flight every week, then the Plat will always be above the Gold on the upgrade list. Hypothetically, the Plat could get upgraded on that flight every single time, and the Gold could never get upgraded. I don't think that's the optimal result for United in terms of encouraging customer loyalty. (Think "surprise and delight".)

As such, what I have in mind is some sort of debit/credit points system. Your FF status and fare class equates to a default number of points, and the upgrade list is ranked by points; however, each passenger's points gets adjusted up or down based on his/her recent upgrade history. If you recently were very high up on the upgrade list for a flight without getting the CPU, you gain points; if you recently received a CPU, you lose points.

Under this scheme, people that currently feel like CPUs are a worthless benefit will get thrown one once in a while, while people who are getting CPU flight-after-flight-after-flight will occasionally need to sit in the back. I think those are reasonable outcomes.

Cheers,
Rowen

porciuscato

Totally agree. They have created a sense of entitlement among many of us, which has set everybody up for recurring angst, frustration, and resentment.

Sadly for UAL, I think CPUs on the whole have generated far more ill-will than gratitude.

samjnz

If I were in charge, I would also get rid of the CPU and perhaps focus elsewhere, for example, actual international standard lounges with free access to elites (a benefit one could take advantage of on every flight rather than anxiously hoping for an upgrade).

I'm enjoying the F pricing right now, in fact all my flights recently have just been revenue F tickets which makes me think, if there is such an availability problem (and they have cracked how to monetize the cabin), why not just add more seats?

JBord

This is a good point, and one I failed to recognize.

In my years as a 1K under the CPU system, I was upgraded over 60% of the time out of ORD. Some were short flights, but some were ORD-SFO. I was quite grateful for the CPU system.

Last year and this year, as a Gold, I've been upgraded maybe 7-8 times (3 this year already), all on shorter flights. I knew this was a likely outcome of my status drop and had few expectations for upgrades. When I was surprised to be upgraded ATL-ORD a few weeks ago, I was delightfully surprised, just for the benefit of a little more leg and shoulder room.

Your comment makes me realize that it's all a matter of one's expectations. This is not the UA or the airline industry of 10 years ago.

My expectation has changed from getting free upgrades to making a choice as a consumer on whether $100 more is worth buying a P fare or an upgrade.

The only time I'm frustrated with the CPU system is when it seems it isn't working the way they tell us it should.

ckjmglee

How about just using a random number generator?

Won't change things too much...

LondonElite

Maybe, but that's a discussion your need to have with your employer, not something the UA upgrade system (which affects all travellers, not just this subset) is (or should be) designed to address.

username

Require a certain % of PQM/PQS to be flown in the same class as fare paid for 1Ks A true 1K can take some Y flights and should not whine about not getting upgraded

The double RPU/GPU to confirm bmwe92fan mentioned is probably the simplest way.

Bruin1K

Love the current system. 24/26 on CPUs on N and K fares since October
As for people who say you want first buy first, you fail to realize many people stay loyal because of the CPUs among other perks. Take that away and I'll buy what convenient. Not only I travel united, I'm forcing my family to travel United too. The perks matter

Aspen

They have, it is called a 787.

prometa

The current system lends itself to opacity via obfuscation. You can upgrade via:
-CPU
-RPU/GPU
-Miles+Copay
-Instant-up immediately after purchase
-buy-up after purchase
-buy-up during check-in

And then, for many of those options, you end up on a waitlist with an ordering that is as clear as mud.

I don't really care how United decides to monetize upgrades, but it would be nice if they would, at the very least, make it more clear how upgraders arrived in those seats. But they don't do that--they hide information so that you can't determine whether the deal offered to you is a good one or not (except for the TOD check-in upgrades)

PremExecSNA

I'd suggest getting rid of the CPU's and issue a reasonable amount of upgrade instruments (meaning more than we get now). If you don't have one, you pay F or sit in the back.

Even in the comp upgrade scheme, a pledged upgrade instrument (i.e. miles, RPU) should always get priority over a CPU.

Artpen100

The fact that they have so many TODs and HODs I think just shows that they aren't pricing the business and first seats accurately in the first place. I would price international business closer to the corporate rate for everyone. Then they'd sell closer to all of the seats instead of (1) having driven those looking to buy business class cheaper to other carriers because they are unwilling to waitlist, and (2) then winding up with a bunch of seats sold cheap or for mileage upgrades at the last minute.

I'm happy to pay 4K for a TATL business class ticket. Not 7-8K.

oblisk

But then those corporate rate people will want a further discount. TATL Biz from East coast is already ~3k for advanced booking w/ a saturday stay in most cases.

sardonic

First principles:

1) On a per flight basis, United should try to maximize revenue by extracting the maximum amount of cash.

2) Generally, that means price discrimination -- discounting F cabin seats rather than letting them go empty while still defending the price of full fare F.

3) Even an optimal pricing strategy will lead to unsold F seats.

4) United should give away those seats rather than let them fly empty because the cost of a flight is relatively fixed, and the goodwill generated by an upgrade will exceed the variable cost (incremental food and beverage, etc.), particularly if that upgrade is targeted.

5) One main priority of a loyalty program should be to allocate unsold inventory in a way that maximizes the value of the goodwill generated by targeting the customers who will on average alter their future purchasing decisions the most as result of the upgrade.

6) [Controversial] United's actions lead me to believe that they do not believe that, on average, the goodwill generated even by upgrading an elite with an instrument is worth more than $x00. That may in fact be right or wrong, but it seems clear that that is the belief at least. Oscar's most recent comments may indicate some change in that thinking/analysis.

CONCLUSIONS/ASSERTIONS
1) CPU are largely a red herring.
2) The emphasis should be on instrument/mileage based upgrades.
3) This means that status should be only indirectly considered. It should matter only insomuch as people with higher status will also have more instruments and miles. Note that this only applies to upgrades -- other status perks might make sense.

PROPOSAL
1) The most theoretically efficient means would be an auction/bidding based system where anyone regardless of status can "bid" for upgrades on a waitlist basis. At some point before the flight when additional seats are unlikely to be sold (T-3ish?), the waitlist is cleared in order of people's bids.

In the interest of keeping the system manageable, you could imagine United allowing you to bid only at pre-set tiers, ie.:

any multiple of GPU
any multiple of RPU
any multiple of 10k miles

with some transparent conversion of GPU and RPU to miles and tiebreakers like time of check in or bid or something.

You could also imagine that with some data, UA could set some "buy it now" prices on a per flight that they are confident will be greater than the typical winning bid by a decent margin AND where the amount of work/margin etc that went into accumulating those instruments is enough to make it worth "forcing" or guaranteeing an upgrade.

After all, we can already guarantee a first class ticket with miles by booking one -- why should the ability to upgrade be any different? If I want to upgrade an econ ticket on PS from SFO to EWR, I can waitlist for R space for 30k miles or a GPU -- why not let me guarantee an upgrade for 60k miles (or some other number).