ManSeekingMiles

I'm writing this mostly for United (since I think maybe they read this). So everyone else can just ignore my rant since I'm not saying much different than what's above. But as a San Francisco hub captive person with United Gold, I don't get BE. I'm pricing flights up and down the west coast and United is giving me next to zero incentive to fly with them. I can either pay the same for a Southwest or Alaska flight and get not EQM or PQM or fly those other carriers and get something for the money. Add to it that I have pretty strict work price constraints so even if I wanted to pay more for the same flight to get united points, I can't. For example SFO to LAX or BUR is $59 on Southwest or Alaska/Virgin. What is it on United? $59, but only in basic economy. It's $79 if I want points and status. Not to mention that I can't justify that kind of cost difference to an employer. For the same price as United BE, Southwest and Alaska both give me points and status as well as some measure of refundability. The story is basically the same anywhere else in the country I've been looking (Chicago, NYC, DC). There is always another airline offering me points and status for United's basic economy price. I really don't get the business model here. I've been pretty happy with United in the past couple of years - I feel like they've really been turning things around. But this just doesn't make sense. Fewer purchases and more upset customers? If they are going to offer less then charge less. Offering less for the same price is just plain stupid. Sorry United. I may still fly you on miles but my revenue flying with you is coming to an end this year unless this gets fixed.

findark

I think Kirby pretty much out and said the business model is "hope everyone copies us"

Often1

The market is simply that UA -- just like AA & DL -- focuses on large corporate customers who receive significant discounts. Particularly on the micro-hops you describe, service differentials don't really matter.

Your experience is likely different than most. BE is a lousy deal for a business traveler because it is inflexible, not because it lands you in a middle seat next to the lav. Therefore, most businesses do not permit BE bookings. All it takes is one cancelled trip or other change in schedule and the ticket has to be replaced, sometimes at walk-up prices.

Conversely, many larger corporate deals do permit tickets to be reissued in another name so that if you can't travel, the company can send me instead.

Only time will tell, but inflexible tickets are nothing new and I don't expect them to go away.

Liquid_G

Anyone else get this awesome email?



Dear Mileage plus member, we want you to be aware of a fare option that is useless to you if you'd like to earn miles.....

What a joke.

Kacee

Part that caught my eye was "If anyone books United tickets on your behalf, you may want to share these details with them . . . if there is a Basic Economy fare available, we will also offer the standard United Economy fare option."

Translation: "Don't book this fare, and tell others not to book it for you."

NgatesSEA

I have searched but cannot find a recent report. On Basic Economy reservations, does United make an exception to the Basic Economy rules to allow small children (under 13?) to sit with their parents? How does United handle this? All the news stories related to this (here, e.g.) refer to the law congress passed, which directs the DOT to create a rule to allow children to sit with parents, but I see no evidence of such a rule being published yet. Thanks.

emcampbe

United is very clear that buying a BE fare - you will not be able to sit with your family or group. It's not always going to be the case, of course, but this is their way of saying don't expect it.

there is currently no DOT rule on seating with children, though there will be. Likely, you can get something to work out, but UA is basically saying don't expect to sit with those on your party if you book BE. It doesn't specify children, but it's the same thing. They tell you what to expect with BE, and if the things that are restricted are important to you, buy regular.

I have sympathy for those who want to sit with their kids, especially as a father of a toddler. And there are many, many cases where I would accommodate that if someone asked. Two cases where I definitely wouldn't is if someone assumed/demanded it, and the other is if I knew someone bought BE (i.e. tried to save a few bucks and is trying to make other people 'pay' for that). Want to sit next to your kid - absolutely - then buy regular economy.

spin88

United, the airline that hates kids...

hell of a marketing pitch.

p.s. and leggings, dogs, guitars, Asians, mothers with 2 year olds, and unaccompanied minors.

emcampbe

Oh right, it's UA only, right.

So when DL and AA do this with their basic economy fares also, that's ok. When LH charges to assign seats in advance - i.e. make sure you have seats together - on all flights worldwide now, isn't it - they must somehow be better, right? (because paying extra for seats separately has to be better then just paying the same amount in a higher fare, since we should all be about slamming UA only for everything. BA - Same. AC has had Tango for years - and you guessed it - extra charge if you want to get seats together in advance, or take what the computer gives you. Don't even get me started on Indigo which has banned children in several rows of its planes it designates as 'quiet zones' (forget the fact that there are many a DYKWIA pax that are louder than most kids I've been in planes with, including my own). And what about WN - if you don't check in right at T-24, or pay for early boarding (hey...what's that...oh, pretty much the same as a higher fare) or you get what you can get when you come on board.

But no, there's no reason anyone could ever criticize other carriers for it - only UA, right?

spin88

I was responding to your advocacy of requiring people with kids to pay an extra $20/leg to avoid BE. Delta's use of BE is far more limited than UAs (fewer by far fares, less restrictions) AA's is in between. I think these fares have their place, but mid-level fares are not that place.

e.g. I decided to fly up to SEA with the kiddos in two weeks, rather than drive as we traditionally due due to time constraints. United wants to sell me a BE for the same price as DL/AS, that is $20x8 ($160) to fly UA vs. OALs, These are not ultra cheap fares. So I guess it is not only a "loyalty" tax, but a "family tax"

minnyfly

When have kids turned into business travelers booking close-in? A significant percentage, if not majority, of DL bookings are subject to BE pricing. People traveling with kids are likely booking with some lead-time, before DL's BE disappears (which then means you're paying inflated prices anyway). That means their travelers are too by-and-large facing the "kid tax".

emcampbe

Sorry, if your berometer for airlines hating kids is there is no seat selection at booking, so no guarantee of seats together unless you pay extra, UA (and the US airlines, in general) are among the last of the major carriers to show they 'hate kids'. Go book a fare on an EU carrier - yes, even long-haul - and see what happens with this except for on full or very high fares. Go to an LCC - anywhere in the world, and see what you get. Fly on ACs lowest fares. I flew on a CX flight in January in what Id consider a fare class in the middle grouping - not lowball for sure, and certainly not full fare, and even with a 2-year-old, that's right, no seat selection (not to mention no mileage on AA - elite qualifying or otherwise). That's not pretend UA is some outlier that is doing all it can to get kids not to fly. They are just dealing with the realities of today's competition. You certainly don't have to like it. You can certainly go fly DL, and praise them for doing essentially the same thing that UA does, but that doesn't make it anymore (or less) right. No one is suggesting that you have to like UAs fare structure, or BE fares, or their onboard product, or the boarding process, or IRROPS handling, or whatever.

mherdeg

Yeah this is a great point.

Sounds like it would make a lot of sense for Congress to say -- "we are proud to announce that America's remaining flagship legacy carriers, UA/AA/DL, have caught up with the international standard of competition from LH/CX/AC/QF/DY. Now that they are all caught up, we are going to negotiate things so that UA/AA/DL can operate intra-Europe and inter-Asia flights, and in exchange, we're going to allow those international carriers to sell flights entirely within the US." That sounds like a win-win-win for consumers right? Extra competition will make things fantastic?

3Cforme

I do not believe that such a rule has been published or implemented.

goalie

Yup (received it) and yup (what a joke )