findark

Well, that was fast. Since my post they re-filed the SFO premium fares at a $199 differential to the -EN price point. Definitely saw the cheaper fares even on .bomb earlier though.. ah well, SFO/MSP is a cakewalk of a CPU and abandoning that SY still believes in a $99 differential.

Completely agree. Especially when matching a B-EY fare with a B-BN fare costing $5 less. What on earth do they think they're doing

JBord

I completely agree it's offensive. This is exactly what I expected and noted in some of my earlier posts. The fare basis doesn't matter to UA. If an unknowing customer is buying a ticket and the only fare available is Y, there's no reason to not offer a BE-Y fare. The customer still has a choice. While we know the difference between a Y and K fare, the average customer sees a price to fly on UA and then a cheaper price.

They will likely make a LOT of money on this with the fare increases (as many had predicted). From the start, I was fairly certain this is a case of everyone loses but UA.

findark

But.. at the high levels it just seems utterly insane. Before today, a last minute flyer might get a $1,042 ticket SFO-MSP in B. Now they will have the choice of flying that same ticket, or a $1,037 Basic Economy ticket. So they risk angering a customer who would pay over 65 cpm for a midcon over a $5 ULCC-like product charge.

It's not even good clickbait.. a B fare on DL is over $300 less!

jsloan

This looks to me like a fare designed to fulfill a commitment somewhere -- to offer last-seat availability for BE -- while trying extra-hard to make sure that nobody purchases it. Given the prices for Y/B fares, I can't comprehend the situation where you're so certain that your plans won't change that it's worth risking the flexibility for $5 each way.

I can understanding purchasing a $160 RT fully-unchangeable roundtrip ticket (although I am a frequent SDC user) -- after all, why would you pay $200 to change a $160 ticket anyway? But I can't understand purchasing a $2000 RT B-BN fare to save $5 over a $2005 RT B-EY fare. There's not even a 1 in 400 chance that your plans will change? :-) (That's assuming, BTW, that you value the seat assignment, possible CPU, and PQMs at $0, which seems silly also).

milypan

Looks like that post by sykes in December was spot on.

You should lower your expectations.

JBord

Oh, I completely agree. The implementation doesn't match the advertisement. But I believe the advertisement was never entirely true. To me, this has always been about hiding an across the board fare increase. They disguise it by offering lower benefits at the original fare, which now will not make sense for many customers. It's all just a marketing trick, and as you, Kacee, and I have all agreed on...it's offensive to an informed customer.

If you're a once-a-year flier going to some important family event all you're looking at is $1037 vs. $1042 without any context. You'll likely read the restrictions and pay the $5. But you feel like you were given a cheaper choice when in reality you were only given a more expensive choice.

In a limited market, the 3 big players get away with this. I wish it would backfire, but I don't believe it will. Part of me is hoping that I see some screaming matches at the gate with someone saying they paid $1000 for a ticket and there's no way they'll pay $25 more to check a bag.

aCavalierInCoach

Put another way, this is simply about bringing more opacity to fares and extracting more of the consumer surplus that exists on capacity today. This isn't really something that can be regulated away at this point, but think this would've been considerably harder to implement if AA/HP hadn't gone through.

WineCountryUA

Agree, the BP should show the elites or credit card holder's BG regardless of fare. No need to have your card. Note occasionally this fails but generally it works.

Kacee

Where this gets really insane is the last minute purchase that's still subject to a corporate "lowest fare" requirement. Pax could be forced to buy a $1,037 BE Y fare that's not changeable or refundable (etc.), where $5 more would have purchased a fully flexible ticket.

It's really just unrestrained greed to make these fares available on anything over an S. And despite what Gordon Gecko said, greed is not good.

jmanirish

Looks like UA has taken a page out of the LH playbook this time with the way they price "light" fares (I.e can have full Y be a "light" fare and not get baggage).

Thankfully they didn't copy the whole book, and allowed for some elite benefits to still prevail.

jjmoore

I'm seeing that there are no EB fares available before April 18.

I'm also seeing that N is always available... even when the lowest fare class is considerably more expensive. For instance, on MSP-SFO direct flights with U being the lowest economy fare class available, N (EB) is STILL available at a $25 discount each way.

That tells me that UA is not likely to restrict EB to only show up when cheaper fare classes are available....

With this said, I am scared to see what the picture looks like a month from now when I have to buy a close-in ticket and I am forced to purchase a EB ticket that is potentially more than $100 cheaper than the M, E, or H fare class that is likely the lowest fare available.... A $900 r.t. ticket to ROC from DEN in N vs. a $1000 r.t. ticket to ROC in E..... I will have to break travel policy to book a non-EB ticket. I cannot see how this is good for UA in the sense that HVF's could be impacted negatively in this sort of scenario. I hope they address this potential scenario, or UA will see people flux towards flying DL (I already have a couple times this year) to avoid this.... DL's basic economy fares only show up when lower fare classes are available. Never have I seen them available when only higher fare classes are available.

jsloan

So far, we only have the set of data points ex-MSP, but the BE "discount" is never more than $25 each way. So, if your travel policy permits fares within $50 of the lowest fare, you'd be OK. You are correct, though, that UA has now proven willing to sell BE regardless of what the lowest available fare would otherwise be.

Everyone's travel policy is a little different. At my company, there's some "wiggle room" -- employees may use their best judgement, and may book a preferred airline if the incremental cost is reasonable. However, we're expected to book our travel through an online travel portal... and that portal does not allow fare class selection. IOW, I could book UA if it's $20 more expensive than DL, but I can't book UA class K if it's $25 more expensive than UA class N -- at least, not without calling the travel department and incurring an additional charge to my department.

That said, for me it's not an issue, as my company is filtering these fares out, as it does DL's BE fares (and, presumably, AA's, although I haven't bothered to check). However, I'm sure some people out there will find themselves in a situation where they would happily pay the extra $5* to book a regular B fare instead of a B-BN fare, and they won't have any good way to do it.

* An actual example at the top of the fare structure; see earlier posts in this thread.

rowenb

I work for a large professional services firm that uses American Express travel's online booking tool (iTravel). I decided to do a search tonight for an ORD-MSP roundtrip ticket in May.

Sure enough, the fare that comes up has the following fare basis:

TAA2AWBN/8N02

So, per this thread, it's a Basic Economy fare. And sure enough, I can't select a seat (although no indication is given as to why it is that I can't select a seat).

However, I am not getting any alarm bell warning inside the online booking tool that this is a fare for which no changes are allowed. Admittedly when I get to the final screen, it does say:

Please Note: NONREF/NOCHANGES/NOCBBG/NOASR

whereas for a normal non-refundable fare, it would instead say something like:

Please Note: NONREF/0VALUAFTDPT/CHANGEFEE

Now, it's only day 1, so I'm not panicking yet - but so far, not only did my corporate travel system not screen out the Basic Economy fares, they're not doing a particularly wonderful job of explaining to users what it is one is buying.

I also noted that if I make the ticket an open-jaw instead of a roundtrip - e.g., ORD-XXX / MSP-ORD - then the fare on the MSP-ORD converts from BN to EN, consistent with reports upthread.

eigenvector

Yes, I have the same problem. My company prohibits the booking of non-changeable fares, but I am still able to see these new BE fares on Concur without any indication that they are actually non-changeable. Only the usual non-refundable warnings show. For the non-FTer that doesn't know what fare class N denotes on United, there's certainly a chance to get bitten here.

ermintrude

Does anyone have the figure/source of what UA expects to incrementally profit from BE? I read somewhere $150 million/yr but can't remember the source. I've seen others say a billion without giving their source

I think BE is really just a sneaky way of up-faring, but BE will be a massive brand devaluation for AA and UA.

Also I think it will be interesting to see how UA deals with GS pax who (accidentally) book BE? forced manual upfare if requested?