entropy

Despite ToD, I find that on a lot of domestic routes these days, the price of F is only marginally more than the relative coach price. So is it better if people pay cash for it (on equal footing) or play a lottery that most people won't win?

"Back in the day", F was 4-5X discount Y, today its often 20-40% more. I'd rather have access to that on a day-to-day basis and a free, reliable fallback to E+ as an elite.

Even on international, J is (with Advanced purchase) often 50-100% more than discount Y. Again, if the option is playing the odds betting with a GPU or miles+ cash, for suboptimal routing, I'm thinking paying a bit more for a much better experience is a good call.

In many ways, its analogous to the way I used to look at spending miles, I'd never spend miles on Y internationally when I could do so in J, where J would be priced at 5-10X Y on a cash basis. But now the cash differential is the same or less than the mileage difference, with much greater latitude on inventory.

drewguy

You mean like now with TODs?

caverunner17

Uhhh what? You can frequently find <$1000 TATL and TPAC fares (often <$600-800, during the off season). I have almost never run across <$1,500-2000 J fares.

Lori_Q

I think "N" is a variable for "some eligible fare", not an actual N fare code.

FlyingIsCool

On UA Airtime, the comment is:

"When flying internationally, I notice that sometimes a business class seat sits empty. Why not implement a bid option at check in, where passengers can choose how much they are willing to pay for that seat and, at the end, the highest bid wins?"

Internationally, if everybody has been upgraded, and there is still open seats in biz class, then why not offer a bid option. Instead of offering a buy up at checkin time, let that be a bid.

But again... only after everybody has been upgraded and they basically know for a fact that business class seats will go out empty.

I've seen this happen a couple of times. I would have liked to bid for them.

Why is this a bad idea?

docbert

Because you're presuming that it will be done AFTER all upgrades have been done. If that is truly how it's done then I doubt most people will have an issue with it.

But if there's any chance that it's done before upgrades, either now or at some stage in the future once UA realizes there's more money for them in it that way, then...

FlyingIsCool

Yes, that is my assumption. That was also the airtime comment.


I completely agree. If it's done before, then its unfriendly United skies

goodeats21

United has a track record of monetizing upgrades to non-elite fliers over their premier members. No reason to think bidding scheme would be any different.

No idea if it will happen, but you can be assured it will be to the detriment of frequent fliers if it does.

Kacee

If UA were to implement this, does anyone really think they would not sell the seats out from under waitlisted 1Ks? Because they absolutely would. They're already doing it, just not through a bidding process.

Boo_Radley

The idea that they would clear the ug list before accepting bids is hilarious. Luckily, since the technical hurdles are almost certainly insurmountable for UA, I'm not concerned about this one.

exerda

Unless they held off until right before departure (say, at the start of boarding), it would also devalue SDC and flexible J fares. On routes with more than one a day options, I've used SDC on paid international J flights several times. If those seats are gone due to a bid-upon upgrade, that's annoying to me as a paid premium cabin customer, too.

And given I still use GPUs on most of my TATL traffic and half the TPAC, and book C award tix for my wife, I'd doubly hate the fact that those two options would be inevitably reduced.

FlyingIsCool

I'm curious to know how often a TATL or TPAC flight goes out with empty business class seats.

Those shouldn't go out empty. I'm sure somebody in the back would be willing to pay some last minute $ for that.

NH_Clark

most often filled by NRSA pax

Mike Jacoubowsky

Nothing to see here, move along?

I don't see how this changes anything domestically. UA has complete control over the selling price of upgrades to F already, via the TOD F upgrades offered on-line and at check-in. They can easily figure out what price it takes to move those seats already.

But if this is all about International, then you've got a slightly different story. It's not in United's interest that flyers know how cheaply they might be willing to sell an empty seat. Presently, you're looking at $700-$900 for a cash-only upgrade at the gate, at least for the flights I've been on. At that price, many seats in C have still gone empty. Maybe it's possible they'd be willing to sell those seats for just $500 and come out ahead? They could rationalize this wouldn't devalue the worth of that seat because the type of person bidding for a shot at an upgrade is not the typical biz class flyer, who wants more certainty.

I agree that, for international flights, it would be a travesty if those bidding for an upgrade could get put in line ahead of those upgrading with instruments. Presently that's not how it's done on COPA; they claim all upgrades are processed prior to allowing any bid-for seats to be processed.

tuolumne

Because it would cause an absolute mutiny from the employee groups. Word of this has been floating around for the last week or so. I'm not sure if it's a trial balloon by management, but it will absolutely not fly with UAL's front lines, who have intl. premium travel as of their last worthwhile benefits. It's a very quick way for Munoz to wipe out a substantiative portion of the goodwill he's fostered over the last year. I don't think he's negligent enough to ever green light something like this.