HNLbasedFlyer

That is precisely the type of flier they want to keep out - you are making the business case.

Boraxo

Not everyone pays. Some have it bundled with their Chase cards, or in my case, an unpublished benefit for the JPM Reserve card.

I rarely use UC when flying WN as there are no UCs at OAK, BUR, SLC, MDW, etc. and not terribly convenient at LAX, LAS, etc. And not convenient for AS @sfo. So maybe this is a plus if it frees up space in the club, but I'd bet the effect will be minimal at hubs.

Kacee

The UC membership is the primary benefit of the Club card (ever notice its name?), which has an annual fee of $450. It's like buying a club membership at a slight discount.

findark

IIRC there were reports of them going after pax who had done it only once, but that was for the Polaris Lounge (bought refundable J ticket to use the PL). The lounge agent would get a notification if someone in the lounge canceled their flight.

coltonatx

They want to keep out the members that cough up $550 a year and visit every now and then instead of those who use is ALL the time... it makes no sense

I work nearby the airport; it isn't convenient for me to go home and drive back to the airport. So I generally, head to the airport and relax before my flight. The lounge made sense to instead of staying at work additional time or being in the main terminal.

Additionally, I can bring in my spouse when we travel together. That's $59 * 2 = $118 per visit.

Another instance is when I fly OS VIE-IAD-AUS. No UA lounge access on arrival at IAD unless I have my UA membership.

I will use the benefit as my membership just renewed; although, I do believe the number of paid members will thin out after Nov 1.

Boraxo

jsloan

Fair enough.

UA wants you to fly UA, even when WN has a nonstop option. Personally, I think I've flown WN twice since I moved back to Austin in 2012. The inability to reserve an extra-legroom seat is a dealbreaker for me. Still, you were wondering why they'd rather have a membership from somebody who visits regularly instead of a couple of times a year, and the answer is that the clubs aren't really a profit center for the airlines. They're trying to get you to fly more, and, specifically, to fly UA more. Anyway, you'll now have a choice to make -- connect on UA and use your club benefits, or fly nonstop on WN and wait in the terminal or at work.

It isn't, though. For $118, you could buy anything on the menu at any of the restaurants downstairs. Heck, you could even get a whole brisket to-go and still have money left over for a meal. I understand that UA sells one-time passes for $59, but that doesn't mean that they're worth $59. The street value of the passes -- check eBay -- is about $20-25. And I suspect that if you were asked to pay $118 to enter the club, you'd decline.

I imagine that their biggest target is probably one-time pass users who aren't flying UA, but, yes, there will certainly be a drop in memberships.

coltonatx

getting rid of free day passes would be a great thing to decrease overcrowding

lincolnjkc

I don't know how true that is -- given that they are a limited and exhaustible resource (IIRC, you only get 2/year and they expire within the year), and encourage more judicious use of the clubs. I can't imagine they pose a credible overcrowding source -- though if they were made non-transferable that would certainly reduce some uses.

That's contrasted to the current UC memberships (annual and lifetime) where the use is essentially unlimited at present and you have every motivation to use the club as often as possible. I know there are times I've popped into a club for a 15-20 minute visit that I certainly wouldn't have done if either I was paying the day use fee or had some limited number of chits to exchange for admission.

Xyzzy

I've popped in for 5 minutes r less at times ... that's one of the reasons I bought my membership lo these many years ago.

nachosdelux

I was spending $5-10K per year on UA.

Now it is zero, all because of this policy change.

BOSskier

My annual fee came due and I just cancelled the card after four years. It's funny, because I've hardly stepped foot in a club this year just because my travel has been down, which makes me precisely the customer they'd want to retain.

I'd have coughed up the annual fee if I knew I could still somewhat be a free agent (as needed) and still have the (few) perks that come with visiting a club, but reducing the benefit substantially while leaving the card's annual fee the same is an unpleasant move on United's part.

jsloan

threeoh

I'm not sure this is true. They even bent over backwards to create gate passes for club access for non-flying members once passing security required a boarding pass.

jsloan