Oct 22, 2018, 3:44 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
GS Qualifying for 2019 Discussion
This will be a discussion thread, for discussing the needed qualifications and timing of notification.
For posing formal notifications (but no discussion), use this thread Global Services 2019 Notifications (ONLY)
2019 GS Timeline
First requal notifications came out on 6 Dec 2018
First-time notifications started about 3 Jan 2019
Numerous reports that all regular notifications will be out by 11 Jan 2019
Initial successful reconsideration appeals reported 15 Jan 2019
First reports of challanges15 Jan 2019
For discussion of GS benefits, please use Consolidated Global Services Thread: Benefits, Questions 2018First-time notifications started about 3 Jan 2019
Numerous reports that all regular notifications will be out by 11 Jan 2019
Initial successful reconsideration appeals reported 15 Jan 2019
First reports of challanges15 Jan 2019
For 2017 qualifications, see the 2017 thread and for 2018, see the 2018 thread
To find your PQDs if >than $12K
Go to
MileagePlus activity since my last statement and it is in the "Account summary" table at the top of the page.
Note this is not just the UA operated PQDs (which is commonly believed to be what matters for GS) but rather your total PQDs.
Definitions
BIS is actual scheduled flight distance (Great Circle Mileage Distance -- GCM) between airports with 500 mile minimum for elites. This is the standard used for Lifetime miles also. Those flying mostly sub-500 segments sometimes prefer to not use the minimum rule.
The definition for CPM is a bit vaguer, especially since CPM is used in multiple different situations.
Believe for the purpose of this thread, GS qualification, folks are using
PQD CPM = UA PQDs / UA BIS
Note there is no direct evidence UA uses this CPM number for GS Qualification but it is a number FTers like to use.
As for BIS, UA does not report this number your account and it needs to be manually tracked.
One way is to make use that PQMs are based on BIS but there may be a multiplier / bonus for high end fares. If always in 2x PQMs, you could divide by 2 to get BIS.
rwsteelers had a good method for determining UA BIS -- the change in Lifetime Miles from the first of the year.
Hello:
To help with collection of qualification metrics for global services, I created a Google Doc. This will be useful for future members. For ease of use, I created a form which feeds into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet and form does not require a google account and is free to use.
Similar spreadsheets were created in years past, so I'm hoping to continue this tradition. Please take the time to enter your stats into the spreadsheet. Many thanks
LINK to entry form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SYm...xRKZ_EUD8/edit
View responses here ( read only ):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
To help with collection of qualification metrics for global services, I created a Google Doc. This will be useful for future members. For ease of use, I created a form which feeds into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet and form does not require a google account and is free to use.
Similar spreadsheets were created in years past, so I'm hoping to continue this tradition. Please take the time to enter your stats into the spreadsheet. Many thanks
LINK to entry form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SYm...xRKZ_EUD8/edit
View responses here ( read only ):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
GS Qualifying for 2019 Discussion / Questions
Jan 24, 2019, 11:23 am
#751
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,029
Jan 24, 2019, 11:32 am
#752
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EWR
Posts: 894
Not to make light of your data and very informative post but I clearly fall outside of every of the above data points. Also, although I have never been GS I have to believe they looked at my 3-4 year spend which had trended down recently and perhaps felt throwing me a bone of GS status would keep me loyal. Look obviously I can't be certain of anything regarding how they dish out the invites but my case I guess would demonstrate that "it appears that there is no absolute minimum spend" is indeed true.
New GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $36,347
Requalifier GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $54,324
This is statistically significant at the 5% level. And the difference is huge, almost $20K. So this clearly means that they are more forgiving for first time GS in the 3 year spend. But it also means that once you are invited to GS, they have higher expectations on maintaining that PQD spend to requalify.
Jan 24, 2019, 11:59 am
#753
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA MM Plat, UA 1MM, Hilton Lifetime Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold, CLEAR, AS MVP Gold
Posts: 3,621
Sorry for being unclear. I didn't mean to say that 3 year spend is unimportant. It is clearly important, for both first time GS and re-qualifiers. However the data shows that the 3 year avg PQD is considerably lower for new GS invites as compared to requalifiers:
New GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $36,347
Requalifier GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $54,324
This is statistically significant at the 5% level. And the difference is huge, almost $20K. So this clearly means that they are more forgiving for first time GS in the 3 year spend. But it also means that once you are invited to GS, they have higher expectations on maintaining that PQD spend to requalify.
New GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $36,347
Requalifier GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $54,324
This is statistically significant at the 5% level. And the difference is huge, almost $20K. So this clearly means that they are more forgiving for first time GS in the 3 year spend. But it also means that once you are invited to GS, they have higher expectations on maintaining that PQD spend to requalify.
Jan 25, 2019, 3:34 pm
#754
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EWR
Posts: 894
Some more interesting insights. I became curious about the % spend required on UA metal. Of the 200+ people who qualified for GS, about 130 of those also entered data for their yearly spend (PQD) on UA metal. So I calculated a ratio (percentage) of UA metal PQD / Total PQD for GS qualifiers. While I knew the ratio would be high, I never expected it to be so high. The GS group are so loyal, that their % of UA spend for total PQD is above 98%. This is astounding. I was expecting a ratio in the 70-80s.
Furthermore, it appears that GS requalifiers have even a higher ratio than new GS:
% Spend UA Metal PQD of total PQD (New GS): 94%
% Spend UA Metal PQD of total PQD (Requalified GS): 99%
I can see now why United loves this program. Once people get a bite of the GS bug, their spending increases, and they spend 95%+ their fares on UA metal. This makes complete sense from a marketing point of view. The lack of a spend threshold leaves people guessing at the end of the year. Because of this, people continue to spend their air travel dollars on UA.
Furthermore, it appears that GS requalifiers have even a higher ratio than new GS:
% Spend UA Metal PQD of total PQD (New GS): 94%
% Spend UA Metal PQD of total PQD (Requalified GS): 99%
I can see now why United loves this program. Once people get a bite of the GS bug, their spending increases, and they spend 95%+ their fares on UA metal. This makes complete sense from a marketing point of view. The lack of a spend threshold leaves people guessing at the end of the year. Because of this, people continue to spend their air travel dollars on UA.
Jan 26, 2019, 7:48 am
#755
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Somewhere in EWR
Programs: UA GS, HH Diamond
Posts: 858
I can see now why United loves this program. Once people get a bite of the GS bug, their spending increases, and they spend 95%+ their fares on UA metal. This makes complete sense from a marketing point of view. The lack of a spend threshold leaves people guessing at the end of the year. Because of this, people continue to spend their air travel dollars on UA.
Jan 26, 2019, 7:56 am
#756
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: ORD | LGA | 2E
Programs: UA GS 1.6MM UC | AA CK 0.7MM AC | Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist | Hertz PC
Posts: 1,054
I can see now why United loves this program. Once people get a bite of the GS bug, their spending increases, and they spend 95%+ their fares on UA metal. This makes complete sense from a marketing point of view. The lack of a spend threshold leaves people guessing at the end of the year. Because of this, people continue to spend their air travel dollars on UA.
Jan 26, 2019, 9:43 am
#757
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA MM Plat, UA 1MM, Hilton Lifetime Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold, CLEAR, AS MVP Gold
Posts: 3,621
GS is the only reason 99% of my annual travel is on UA as opposed to a 50/50 split between UA and AA with the occasional random DL. Even the Continental-heavy management team post merger admitted that the UA GS program was a huge value proposition over the rest of the industry's efforts to take care of HVFs..
Jan 26, 2019, 11:30 am
#758
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: DYKWIA, But I'm a "Diamond Guest" UA 1K/2MM
Posts: 2,258
Sorry for being unclear. I didn't mean to say that 3 year spend is unimportant. It is clearly important, for both first time GS and re-qualifiers. However the data shows that the 3 year avg PQD is considerably lower for new GS invites as compared to requalifiers:
New GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $36,347
Requalifier GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $54,324
This is statistically significant at the 5% level. And the difference is huge, almost $20K. So this clearly means that they are more forgiving for first time GS in the 3 year spend. But it also means that once you are invited to GS, they have higher expectations on maintaining that PQD spend to requalify.
New GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $36,347
Requalifier GS (3 year Running Avg) PQD: $54,324
This is statistically significant at the 5% level. And the difference is huge, almost $20K. So this clearly means that they are more forgiving for first time GS in the 3 year spend. But it also means that once you are invited to GS, they have higher expectations on maintaining that PQD spend to requalify.
I appreciate your efforts and I don't mean to be blunt, but despite references to P values, t-statistics &etc., your method is statistically invalid. The averages you are using are not the average of what it took to get in to GS; they are the averages of people who happened to get in -- which is a very different thing. Just a few people with big surpluses over what was actually required to get in (say $80K or 100K PQD), easily skews the average higher. Likewise, if there is a large contingent who just barely made the requirement, the average would be skewed lower. Either way, they are useless averages.
This is akin to trying to compare the freezing points for different liquids by averaging the temperatures of different samples you happen to find in a liquid state. All you know is that they are above the freezing point; but you have no idea by how much.
Last edited by porciuscato; Jan 26, 2019 at 11:48 am
Jan 26, 2019, 11:56 am
#759
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: IAD
Programs: UA GS, 1MM; Marriott Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 561
I think for new GS members three year mean is pulled down by year -2:
2016 $5000 -$15000
2017 $50000
2018 $50000
When one renews GS, the low first year drops off and the mean should be pulled up. For me and others getting GS was the result of a huge uptick in the type of travel we were doing, and as a consequence, I consolidated travel on UA because of the GS benefits, and increasing the chance of future renewals.
For new members (Like AugustusM) it may be more illuminating to look at the low end of the 2-year mean to see if there is a threshhold. For me, my two years GS-1 and GS Qual were $45000 and $36000. I fell into the AugustusM experience where a decent high year wasnt enough on its own, but two year spend of $80000 clearly was (from IAD, anyway).
T
2016 $5000 -$15000
2017 $50000
2018 $50000
When one renews GS, the low first year drops off and the mean should be pulled up. For me and others getting GS was the result of a huge uptick in the type of travel we were doing, and as a consequence, I consolidated travel on UA because of the GS benefits, and increasing the chance of future renewals.
For new members (Like AugustusM) it may be more illuminating to look at the low end of the 2-year mean to see if there is a threshhold. For me, my two years GS-1 and GS Qual were $45000 and $36000. I fell into the AugustusM experience where a decent high year wasnt enough on its own, but two year spend of $80000 clearly was (from IAD, anyway).
T
Jan 26, 2019, 4:39 pm
#760
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: United Global Services, Amtrak Select Executive
Posts: 4,098
I appreciate your efforts and I don't mean to be blunt, but despite references to P values, t-statistics &etc., your method is statistically invalid. The averages you are using are not the average of what it took to get in to GS; they are the averages of people who happened to get in -- which is a very different thing. Just a few people with big surpluses over what was actually required to get in (say $80K or 100K PQD), easily skews the average higher. Likewise, if there is a large contingent who just barely made the requirement, the average would be skewed lower. Either way, they are useless averages.
This is akin to trying to compare the freezing points for different liquids by averaging the temperatures of different samples you happen to find in a liquid state. All you know is that they are above the freezing point; but you have no idea by how much.
This is akin to trying to compare the freezing points for different liquids by averaging the temperatures of different samples you happen to find in a liquid state. All you know is that they are above the freezing point; but you have no idea by how much.
Jan 26, 2019, 8:27 pm
#761
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: SFO
Programs: United
Posts: 2
Well, with $64K in international business travel last year I really though I would get a GS invite. Nope. Just 1K again. I sever asked for an account review and received notification that I didn't qualify. Pretty surprised and disappointed
Jan 26, 2019, 8:57 pm
#762
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA MM Plat, UA 1MM, Hilton Lifetime Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold, CLEAR, AS MVP Gold
Posts: 3,621
All UA metal??? Harsh and surprising!
Jan 27, 2019, 5:31 am
#763
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: BOS<>NYC<>BKK
Programs: UA 4.3MM LT-GS; AA1MM; Amtrak SE; MAR LT TITAN; PC Plat; HIL DIA; HYA GLOB
Posts: 4,393
Was all $64K on United metal booked on United ticket stock (016)? If not, how much?
Jan 27, 2019, 3:07 pm
#764
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EWR
Posts: 894
I appreciate your efforts and I don't mean to be blunt, but despite references to P values, t-statistics &etc., your method is statistically invalid. The averages you are using are not the average of what it took to get in to GS; they are the averages of people who happened to get in -- which is a very different thing.
Jan 27, 2019, 5:19 pm
#765
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: DYKWIA, But I'm a "Diamond Guest" UA 1K/2MM
Posts: 2,258
You have completely misunderstood what I've tried to do. I'm not trying to compare $$ spend for GS qualifiers vs non-qualifiers. This would take a large sample of people who did not qualify for GS to submit data. Instead I compared new GS qualifiers vs requalifiers. Similarly I compared GS from hub cities vs non-hub cities. The parameters I compared were drawn from a convenience sample: PQD,PQM, UAPQD, 3 year PQD, BIS, CPM, PQS and others. The sample sizes were sufficiently large, and the distributions were close to normal. I also took a close look at the residuals and q-q plots. So because of this, I felt comfortable using a parametric test such as the t-test. More sophisticated modeling could be done, but for the purposes of this simple question, I didn't think it was necessary.
Actually I do understand what you tried to do and my point still applies. A comparison of average PQD for GS qualifiers vs. re-qualifiers only compares the relative spending behavior of these two pools (and that's only based on an extremely tiny sample). It tells you absolutely nothing about the qualifying requirements for these two categories and it tells you nothing about why the behaviors might be different.
Suppose the average PQD for re-qualifiers is 10X the average for initial qualifiers. Does that mean it's harder to re-qualify? Or easier? You really can't tell, because the averages tell you nothing about what the minimum is for either group.
All you can tell is out of the small sample who answered the poll, the re-qualifiers were bigger spenders. That could just be because re-qualifiers who aren't huge spenders didn't bother to answer because it's not that big a part of their life. LOTS of possible reasons. And you have absolutely no statistical basis for selecting one over the others.
Unfortunately, confidence in the mathematical minutia of statistics tends to go hand-in-hand with poor modeling technique.