AlexM125

This isn't a "squeeze." This Basic Economy fare is giving people the opportunity to not have to pay for things they don't use/want to pay for. It makes complete sense, and I do not understand why so many people bash the fare. If you don't want to deal with the add-ons, buy the normal fare we've all bought for years.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

You've bought UA's spin, which they're counting on. The fares aren't going to be any lower than they are today. They're just taking away stuff. To "deal with the add-ons" (which are already included in the cheap fares), you have to buy a higher fare. Here's how it works if you pay attention and ignore UA's b.s. spin:

Current low fare buyers will 1) pay the same and get less stuff or 2) pay more to get what they're already getting.

Noone is getting a break here.

Often1

{The} UA's website which makes crystal clear that the carry-on which OP uses will continue to be permitted him on a BE ticket (must be capable of fitting under the seat).

As the BE description makes clear, if you purchase a BE ticket, unless you are "elite" you will be limited to one personal item, e.g., the smaller piece capable of fitting under the seat in front of you.

CurbedEnthusiasm

United has already told the public to expect Basic Economy fare to be comparable to existing low fares. At best, we'll pay the same and get less in return. I call that a squeeze.

Michael D

I've tried to do a dozen dummy Basic Economy bookings on Delta since this discussion began and didn't see/didn't know how to recognize a Basic Economy fare.

Does the warning only show when you are paying?
Are they not so common?

B_Rosenthal

I'm so confused now. If someone buys a BE ticket, will he/she/other be denied boarding at the gate if bringing a standard size carry-on case(which won't fit under the seat).

mduell

No, they'll be charged to check it.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I'm guessing this isn't going to affect me hugely. Primarily on short hops like SFO-LAS which are often subject to fare wars with Southwest... I can't see a $99 r/t as being profitable but rather a way to keep people from feeling elsewhere, and those fleeing won't be upper-level elites. I mean, 414 miles in F... that's a coveted upgrade! :-)

I generally fly domestic routes at about $.08/mile and those fares aren't likely to be targeted for BE. If I had more flexibility and could take advantage of the occasional $<200 TCON, maybe that would be different. If I was into domestic mileage runs, those might be hit hard. But that's in my past.

Main thing that might kill me is my yearly vacation trip with my wife. The $800 SFO-SIN fare... would that be a candidate for BE?

It's curious that, unless I missed it buried in here (easily done due to the length of this thread), nobody's looked at this from a CPM standpoint. That could be a really simple way for UA to identify flights that might "benefit" from BE.

There remain very good reasons for loyalty. United is simply making it far less easy to get the rewards without contributing more-positively to their (United's) bottom line.

Let's face it, the year I made 1K... I was not worthy. United (and other airlines) were using elite status to fill seats, period. Double and even triple EQMs? I mean seriously... it's a very different ballgame today. The airlines will continue to refine their reward system, fine-tuning to get the maximum average CPM possible. They can afford to risk some degree of alienation at the moment because planes are flying quite full and their competitors are playing the same game.

The whole thing falls apart when the economy hits the skids.

I can talk about this from a somewhat detached viewpoint because I've given up; this is the first year in ages where I'll see a decline in my elite status, from Plat to Gold. I don't have the financial means to "challenge" that change, so I'm actually kinda grateful United has helped put temptation behind me by making it tougher to fly more than I can afford to.

B_Rosenthal

My house came with a trash compactor which has never been used. Perhaps I should look into having my non-breakable stuff compacted into a backpack size block?

RandomBaritone

That is false. UA executives said precisely the opposite, that existing economy fares are not expected to increase, and that BE will be priced below them.

Perhaps you're mistakenly referring to the excerpt from the Yahoo! Finance article that was circulating earlier in the thread? Several people misread the piece and believed it to be a quotation from a UA executive, but it was not.

I realize many people here loathe UA, but let's stick to the facts. Who knows -- UA may in fact raise fares around the time BE is introduced, but we will have no way of knowing if it is in response to market conditions or part of the nefarious scheme that so many on FT are expecting.

Baze

Who is supposed to enforce those people on BE fares not tossing their personal item in the overhead?

RandomBaritone

UA has made no mention of disallowing BE customers from using the overhead bins for their personal items. Besides, without any roll-aboards in group 5, there may well be plenty of space for smaller items.

Michael D

You won't have to gate check because there is no bin space is the idea I think.

Baze

Ah, by those people put their roll aboard in the bin and their personal under the seat. Now they will put all their personal stuff in the overhead. Hey, just playing devils advocate here.

Baze

Do people really think there will be that many BE fares bought it will have that big an impact on freeing up bin space. So many reports of people saying group 2 sometimes has to gate check.