gglave

Like Air Canada did with "Tango" fares, I expect the first "international" flights you'll see it applied will be Canada <==> USA.

Again, like with AC, "true" international will follow after that.

It's too bad, as a Canadian business traveller it means my loyalty to UA will be forced to come to an end.

Kacee

Classic reaction to a failed fare increase. Roll it back. Usually the airline raising fares figures it out before they take a material hit to revenue. UA did not.

emcampbe

gglave

I fly out of YVR, mostly to the USA - Couple of trips per year overseas, usually TATL on UA via ORD.

Once it's BE on UA out of Canada, going forward, I'll just fly whatever's cheapest / most convenient - So if I'm flying to DFW I'll just fly AA instead of routing through IAH or DEN. If I'm flying to MSP I'll just fly DL as opposed to backhauling on UA from ORD. NYC I'll fly AC's nonstop to EWR. Europe, whatever nonstop from YVR works.

If every airline's base fare has no incentive for me to pick them over a competitor I'll just go with whatever works.

It's a pity - I'll miss UA, but I'm "only" a 65K flyer so I guess they're not interested in hanging on to me.

(Same thing happened to me with AC - It's why I left AC for UA.)

emcampbe

Not sure why you would take it so personally. Honestly, if you're a 65K a year flyer, then you can have your choice of paying the fare that makes sense to get you benefits, or choosing a hodgepoge of carriers based on each destination/going on BE-type fares and not getting those benefits. It's not they are throwing you out, which is what you make it sound like. The game has certainly changed, its up to you how you remain in it (or if you do).

I realize this is probably playing into their hands (in this case, UA, but could easily be DL or AA....or even AC to an extent), but I'm not going to be buying BE (at least most of the time). I know that's what they want. But I typically travel in a party of 3, including a toddler, and potentially sitting away from each other just doesn't work (I know most times, I could probably convince a seating shuffle to get this, but just not worth the risk or hassle). Even without that, the fact of having no option to change/cancel (despite the fact it only happens once or twice every few years) isn't something I want to take. Still get boarding priority and carry on bag as an elite...the latter might be more of an issue if I wasn't. Depending on the trip, the lack of miles may or may not be a factor. The point is, its not a fare option I really consider as meeting my needs most of the time....I can see a limited set of circumstances where it might be ok...but given it doesn't really meet my needs, I kind of ignore it (while realizing that it may meet other needs). If it did meet my needs, I'd probably be looking at other LCCs, where I can at least buy the stuff I need (buy access to a seat assignment...buy access to bring a carry on, etc.), but even at that, its not generally a compelling proposition because then you're pretty much paying the same as the UA regular economy fare once all is said and done.

Of course its up to to you, but you can just ignore BE (or equivalent on other carriers) if you don't think it meets your needs. I'd rather pay a bit more to get what I want/need then get what to me is a subpar option.

gglave

I apologize - As I posted on those threads when I went through this with AC a number of years ago, I don't take it personally at all. Sorry if it came through that way. Airlines are businesses - They are of course welcome to do what they want. If I had to choose an emotion I think it would be I'm "disappointed" that the era will come to an end. But c'est la vie.

Those are business-travel miles - Like many on this thread, and many on FT, I am required by my employer to book low-price fares. Unless I want to pay myself I don't have the 'choice.' Today, the price difference between E and BE (mostly) remains small, but if UA takes a page from AC's playbook it will eventually be a difference of hundreds of dollars, which is a no-go.

Personal travel is almost always on points, but like you, were I take to out my credit card I would not book BE with my family. However, I'm talking about business travel here.

Boraxo

Maybe I have been looking at this the wrong way. My original reaction was anger because UA was taxing me with a higher price in order to receive my elite benefits, i.e. assigned E+ seats, EQM etc. But now I think I should be grateful to UA for putting pricing pressure on WN. The more seats that are offered at LCC and BE fares, the more likely that WN will be forced to reduce its high fares in competing short haul markets. I will then save some coin flying WN as I don't plan to fly BE anyway and never expect free upgrades anymore on UA even as a 1K.

zrs70

I can understand if full Y is more than restricted P/Z fares. But what is the motivating factor to purchase a Basic Economy Fare if the Z fare is less?

mahasamatman

Looks like a fat-finger fare to me.

Kacee

N=M. They weren't supposed to be doing this anymore.

jsloan

Kacee

They are backtracking on one of the very few sensible changes they made to their BE fare structure (limiting BE fares to deep discount classes).

They don't seem to realize the negative reaction it sparks when prospective purchasers see a $459 BE fare SFO-SAN.

DELee

or sell BE RT tax to folks who don't know the difference.

David

jsloan

Kacee

They get zero sympathy here. It's a "problem" entirely of their own creation.