cfischer

It'll probably work out great for me, but this is now so complicated ... I need to see what if anything changes with this. Great to earn from partner flights, but I guess it is not consequential is it ... Will have $50k this year and likely a bit less next year. Unless UA changes RDM earnings it probably won't affect me.

gsalem94122

We have a number of European flights next year, purchased on 016- too. Would have been cheaper on LH, LX and have gotten more PQPs!!!!

What a rip!

Kacee

Only if you consider 18 cpm "cheap." That's about what I'm averaging, and it won't be enough under the new system.

JimInOhio

I think the point is if you book a deeply discounted partner ticket, such as this mythical $500 fare from New York to Tokyo, don't expect to earn some windfall in qualifying points. You're not getting it on a $500 ticket.

cfischer

why would that be the case?

VWang1111

While I understand why UA is incentivized to kick out high PQM, low segment, low spend flyers, this is a really heart wrenching change and really makes it extremely hard to advocate to others about why they should direct their spend towards UA for their generous FFP program for most leisure flyers. This change is great for large spenders but the marginal cost of adding a flyer with high PQM on deep discount fares is extremely small especially with load factors not at 100%. It will be interesting to see if load factors start materially changing due to high PQM, low segment flyers not being incentivized to take extra flights to qualify by PQM.

glasman19

I’ m still recovering from the shock of the United Club prices. ...now this. Need to figure this out and fast.

CO_Nonrev_elite

I’d rather have 4 that clear than 30+ per year that do not.

UA Insider

We disagree. This change aligns the way our members qualify for status by not biasing qualification towards long-haul travel and instead recognizing the value of paid tickets and flights taken. Many of our members were meeting the spend criteria for 1K, but falling short of status because of the length of haul on the routes they travel. Taking away distance as a qualifying metric doesn’t mean the new program is transactional, but it does mean that our short-haul travelers will have as much opportunity to earn status as members that fly primarily long-haul.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Flight requirement will disproportionately cull hub-captive flyers from 1k ranks, unless they decide to start doing inconvenient connections to where they're going into instead of taking available non-stops.

Flying out of Maui, I almost always am making a connection to where I'm going (LAS, IAH, EWR, LHR, etc). Four flights a month, minimum, so the 54 flight requirement is already in the bag. I'm just facing a $3k hike in PQDs, although paid upgrades (I'm assuming HoDs?) are now enticing.

FTLexMUC

I keep a pretty detailed spreadsheet of my flights this year and running the math under the new program nothing really would change, neither in terms of status nor timing of when I re-qual for 1k. I might actually come out ahead 20 PP given the $3k thresholds vs 25k PQM.

But then again, I fly a lot of paid OPM business class TATL and spent $60k with UA this year...

BBSHOPSINGER

Where did you find this? I can't find the CC earnings anywhere.

Kacee

UA is showing many decades long loyal flyers the door in favor of customers who will buy maybe three or four tickets the year. That is certainly UA's prerogative, just as it is ours to move our business to carriers that provide a better product at a better price.

gcashin

This makes UA far less attractive for anyone living outside of the US. It's more difficult to rack up a high number of segments when traveling internationally (vs. domestic short-hauls). On top of this, as the UA credit cards are not available in most foreign countries, there's no option to earn some additional PQP's through credit card activity. This change seems to make it easier for a US domestic traveler to get status, but makes US far less attractive for international or overseas customers that may not be a natural UA customer.

AC seemed to have a reasonable balance in their program with a reduced spend requirement for those outside Canada (e.g. SE100K is $20K CAD, but $10K CAD for foreigners), recognizing that it's often less convenient to rack up miles and $ traveling on a carrier based in a different country. AC actually made this change after the program was announced a few years ago in order to retain their foreign customers.

If UA keeps the PQP requirements the same for foreign customers, but it's also much less convenient for them to rack up spend/segments on UA, I'd expect they're going to see a significant dropoff in their foreign customer base.

jsloan

Kacee is definitely correct. You were confusing PQM and RDM multipliers. NH got 100% PQM on discount fares, but not 100% RDM -- not in years, if ever. (The foreign airlines gutted rewards for economy travel much earlier than the domestic carriers did).

The loophole definitely exists, but it's mostly in PE/J/F.

Precisely. That's why this change is beneficial to me personally, but isn't good for most people.

Yes, I believe you're correct that 70% is the max. Even 60% would be grand, but I don't think NH runs many fare sales on A fares.