mduell

That's contrary to my understanding of UA's statements and the comments in this thread. BE will always be available, but the fare will be a constant differential from the lowest fare otherwise available.

So at T-6 weeks it might be T at $200 and BE at $180; at T-6 hours it might be M at $7000 and BE at $680.

jsloan

Yes, that's exactly what I expect -- and, just like the current first-class fares, which are filed in conjunction with a wide range of coach inventory on the same route, I expect that they will have multiple BE fares in a market.

Exactly. If all they wanted to do was to be able to match ULCC fares, they wouldn't need the differential pricing or anything else. They could just introduce a BE "N" fare (without any additional inventory dependency), let RM manage the inventory, and be done with it.

Personally, I expect them to file -GN, -KN, -LN, ... all the way up to -YN. It doesn't cost them anything except the hit to their reputation when someone purchases a $1800 last-minute transcon in -YN to save $20 and then gripes about the outcome.

Lani1

One thing we can all agree on, this new service does not sound fun !

xliioper

That's quite a departure from the DL E fares which all require some sort of advance purchase from what I've seen. On routes with non-stop LCC competition it can be as short as one week, but most routes have a two or three week advance requirement. For routes with no non-stop LCC competition they will often also require a RT purchase with a Sat night stay. The underlying fare codes for DL E fares seem to be limited to their two lowest fare classes (X and V).

findark

Yes, the change rules almost always permit an "even exchange" where inventory is validated at the reissue date, and all other fare rules are validated using original issue date. This applies even if the original fare is no longer published. If an even exchange is possible, only the change fee is collected, and this is not a process which is necessarily possible via cancel and rebook.

Sure, but N > Y is still patently absurd and probably indicates they broke something with inventory control. The way N is set right now, it implies they would sell an MAA0AFBN fare but this would create really weird market optics. No one paying for an M fare is a target for Basic Economy, and all it will do is irritate HVFs. But I was proven wrong on the award changes last fall, so I really shouldn't be caught again underestimating UA's stupidity.

Yes, precisely.

jjmoore

Yes.... this is my understanding as well.. thinking the differential may be a constant % difference though... maybe like 10-20% less than the cheapest fare class. I would hope that your case is true... we shall see.

televisor

If they do end up following the ridiculous path of YN, it might be time to find another alliance. LH do exactly the same with their european fares: even if the base fare is hundreds of euros, you're still expected to play along with their light/normal rigmarole - frankly ridiculous.

That said I've not really compared with what other alliances actually do, I believe BA are similar to LH in Europe at least, but the american ones seem to be sane so far (with the exception of UA).

JBord

We'll see what happens, but I don't think % will work. I think it's going to be some sort of flat dollar differential. Let's say they use 15%. I don't think UA wants to give you $150 off of a $1000 M fare. They want to give you maybe $25-50 off so they can make it up in ancillary fees. They aren't competing with LCC's with their M fares, it's all about trick pricing to get you, in Expedia and the other sites, to see their fare as the lowest. Many customers still tend to disregard ancillary fees when they narrow their choices. Once you're locked into a UA fare you'll either pay ancillary fees, or you'll make a choice to buy up to the all-inclusive fare.

The critical factor to keep in mind is planes aren't going out with empty seats today. So there's no business incentive to offer a $850 ticket when they can sell one for $1000 (or $950 plus buy ups).

televisor

UA are already copying the LH/LX approach of a differential, so I wager that they'll copy the fixed differential.

Sykes

fwiw, it's not really a "new" development--I posted the same thing a month ago.

Having said that, I don't expect UA to actually publish BE fares at the higher fare levels initially. I would expect them to limit it to like G through S for a while to more closely match other airlines.

tonykline1947

from AC site:
"Effective for travel February 1, 2017 accrual changes for Basic Economy in Booking Class N:

- As of February 1, 2017, Aeroplan Miles earned in booking class N on all eligible United flights are not Altitude Qualifying Miles and will not count towards Air Canada Altitude™ status."

I guess that BE will be in N bucket only??

jsloan

Yes, that's the information that was passed along to travel agents, and that matches the anecdotal evidence we've accrued.

JBord

I was referring to the whole concept of BE fares at UA.

It will be interesting to see if they do limit to the lower fare classes. That would mean at some point they wouldn't have BE fares available. Seems to me that would be counter-productive, but we'll see what they do. I'm not expecting that they market these as cheap fares but rather as a discount to the standard price.

findark

Why? I don't think they're in range of selling clickbait to kettles when only M fares are left.

tannebil

I ran into my first BE booking today for a trip from Quito to Chicago in September. Flying with my wife and we are both United Gold.

I was offered a $199 bump to Essentials and $321 bump to Enhanced but no explanation as to how the "enhancements" interacted with my Gold benefits. It did not appear status was being taken into account on the displayed benefits so I just booked the BE fare. It let me pick E+ seats (exit row) and both the confirmation and baggage cost screen shows me getting two bags so it appears buying Essentials would have been a waste of $199.

As an aside, the BE fare for this leg was only around $350 so $199 was a huge upcharge. I didn't realize it was going to be that large. Is it a percentage of the fare, something based on distance, or a black box mystery?

Is the coordination of benefits clearly explained somewhere?

Am I in any danger of United clawing back my E+ seats and extra bag? The extra bag was in the receipt so that seems safe but I'd hate to be moved to E-