|
I'm considering match over to AS MVPG75K in July & completion of challenge to change my alliance.
but being based in NYC, needing to do a layover in West Coast to reach Florida just doesn't make sense to me... Any AS MVPG75Ks out there? How has your experience been? As far as my flying patterns are concerned, I rarely fly OPM, usually do several transcons a year, 1 - 2 TATL and 1 - 2 TPAC each year, cutting it very close to 75K miles a year. |
I voted stay with UA. I’m a 15 year 1K, and based on this year’s flying I would already have qualified under the new rules (>$19K and 59 flights so far). With at least two long hauls to go (and probably three) I could hit $24K. Around $10K of that spend is on the company dime and $9K on me.
In fact Im looking forward to trying other *G airlines in J if there’s a good deal that could get better PQP for less personal spend, but it’s not essential. If my business flying collapses I’ll have to re-evaluate and may go unaligned, but right now that’s not the plan. |
I'm staying. I'll end this year at about 80 PQS and $22K (and 175K PQM). Last year was about the same. That doesn't include upgrades and some *A flying that probably puts me pretty close to, if not over, $24K
If I am understanding the plus points earnings correctly, I'll get the equivalent of 6 GPU and 4 RPU when I hit the segment minimum and $18K, with the equivalent of another GPU at $21K. So based on that, I won't earn quite as many GPU equivalents, but otherwise it's about the same for me. |
Originally Posted by j2simpso
(Post 31617736)
Jeez this is a tough one. I'll hit 100,000 LT miles with UA by end of calendar year, having flown nearly exclusively UA this year. I was really looking forward to hitting 1MM flown with them. However, with UA now penalizing us for flying with them by forcing PQD down our throats I'm not so sure. I'm internationally based, and have the luxury of selecting any number of airlines (UA being merely one of them). Whilst UA is often the cheapest in terms of fares, the reason I choose them is mainly for the Premier benefits I can use on the flights such as extra baggage allowance. Checking my MP dashboard thus far I've got $1,059 in PQD which per the new system wouldn't even make my a Silver never mind the fact I flew 44,000 PQM across 15 segments of revenue travel.
As others have pointed out, now may be a time for me to go free agent and just choose whatever fares are the cheapest and get me the most status. Living in SYD starting next year and having to do a number of inter-continental trips, it's time for the airlines to make the case for me to spend money with them rather than me being blindly loyal to one! Thus far I'm looking at AS, OZ and A3 but would love to hear folks thoughts on which status is the easiest to get to and offers the best benefits. I'm inclined to stick with * if possible but am open to new possibilities. Safe Travels, James |
Being based in SG, will probably switch to Krisflyer. I travel to Europe, Australia, and US 2-3 times a year each. I was already taking the non-stop SIA flights (except to west coast/central US), but crediting to UA for the GPUs. With the new points, would be about 10,000 short based on this year’s numbers (and that’s flying paid business/first fares 75% of the time - just really cheap ones :) )
|
I for one welcome this change.
I fly quite a bit - I will be at 31 segments and $9.5K spend at the end of this week, with more travel to come this year. However, only about 22-23K PQMs at the end of the week. Because I travel to a lot of small markets that are one hop from ORD, I have to grind and grind to only make silver. The other day I did my computation, and I'm at $0.39/QM flown. However, someone who flies deep discount economy cross country a few times, maybe mixed in with a solo TATL trip can easily meet or beat my status, when I am likely a higher revenue passenger, and definitely more of a loyalist / frequent flyer. If I have a similar level of travel next year, I'll be Platinum. This is truly a change that helps the frequent flyer, not just the guy who puts more "... in the seat miles" by virtue of where he or she lives. |
Reluctantly staying for a few more years. At just over 1.8 million LT miles, I'll go for LT Platinum* and then go free agent. UA doesn't need me. I've been a 1K for years, spending less than $5,000 annually. So be it.
* but possibly extending my self-imposed deadline of mid-2021. |
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
(Post 31637859)
Am I reading this right... 44,000 miles, 15 segments, and only $1,059 spend? If true, I can see why UA wants you to "go away".
When this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere, that will be $1059 of incremental revenue that United doesn't have. |
I'll stay. Overall this works out well for me in the sense that I suspect there will be fewer 1Ks chasing GPU-style upgrades.
|
Originally Posted by porciuscato
(Post 31638542)
That's based on the fallacy, which I see repeated throughout this thread--that people on low fares represent a "loss" for United. The reality is they fill seats that would otherwise be empty. As long as the marginal revenue for that seat exceeds the marginal cost (i.e. the fuel cost for an extra 180lbs, the cost of printing the ticket, serving the extra soft drink, etc.), it makes sense to sell him that seat. And I'm pretty certain United always prices seats above marginal cost.
When this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere, that will be $1059 of incremental revenue that United doesn't have. |
Originally Posted by porciuscato
(Post 31638542)
That's based on the fallacy, which I see repeated throughout this thread--that people on low fares represent a "loss" for United. The reality is they fill seats that would otherwise be empty. As long as the marginal revenue for that seat exceeds the marginal cost (i.e. the fuel cost for an extra 180lbs, the cost of printing the ticket, serving the extra soft drink, etc.), it makes sense to sell him that seat. And I'm pretty certain United always prices seats above marginal cost.
When this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere, that will be $1059 of incremental revenue that United doesn't have. So, I think the fallacy you may be falling for is not recognizing that UA (or any other business) can move pricing along the supply/demand curve as necessary to meet business requirements, but also not necessarily view those customers as valuable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, at the lowest price points, those seats will get filled, so even when "this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere" it will likely not be very hard for UA to fill that seat. They don't have to fill it with a 1K FTer... Regards |
Originally Posted by porciuscato
(Post 31638542)
When this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere, that will be $1059 of incremental revenue that United doesn't have. |
Originally Posted by dinoscool3
(Post 31638573)
Not to mention, my fellow (relatively, I'd hardly call spending a thousands of dollars "low") low spend high mileage fliers are often ones who will stick through UA during economic downturns. Since I'm not flying on OPM, as long as I'm still getting a pay check I'd still be flying, when many corporate contracts will dry up the second the economy starts looking bad (which it will soon). But now I'll be taking my business elsewhere.
|
Originally Posted by porciuscato
(Post 31638542)
That's based on the fallacy, which I see repeated throughout this thread--that people on low fares represent a "loss" for United. The reality is they fill seats that would otherwise be empty. As long as the marginal revenue for that seat exceeds the marginal cost (i.e. the fuel cost for an extra 180lbs, the cost of printing the ticket, serving the extra soft drink, etc.), it makes sense to sell him that seat. And I'm pretty certain United always prices seats above marginal cost.
When this guy takes his $1059 elsewhere, that will be $1059 of incremental revenue that United doesn't have. |
Originally Posted by LondonElite
(Post 31638562)
I'll stay. Overall this works out well for me in the sense that I suspect there will be fewer 1Ks chasing GPU-style upgrades.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:40 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.