No, today the RPU/GPU would be refunded if only the short connection was upgraded. Not sure where it is listed in the policy but has happened for me every time and many, many times. I have had up to 3 hour flights "refunded" when the longer (domestic) connection was not upgraded.

All of this is basically the same thing with a different name. The only part that interests me is finding out what the "skip the line" costs are. I have finished each year with over 30 certs expiring unused and unusable, so anything that allows them to be guaranteed is a good thing, but for those saying "oh, it will only be 2x or 3x normal price" are deluding themselves. United is not going to give me 10 free guaranteed Polaris trips per year

UA wants to make upgrades more difficult to get, so they're... giving more upgrades to people, in order to try to get other people to buy the seats that they just gave away? My head is spinning.

This is not some convoluted plan by UA to stop giving people upgrades. They don't need convoluted plans to stop giving people upgrades. All they have to do is continue to tighten PZ inventory, which they're already doing, separately.

The only way a Platinum will be upgraded over a 1K is when there is PZ space in advance. That can already happen now if said Platinum -- or Gold, or Silver, or general member -- uses a Miles + Copay upgrade. Sure, this may make Platinum members slightly more likely to use upgrades, but overall I think the effect is being hugely overstated in this thread. Yes, you can request an upgrade only on the long leg of an itinerary.

Not really much different than it has been every December / January, with expiring certificates. The only real difference is that people who don't travel internationally will have twice as many RPU-equivalents, and people who have leftover RPUs can turn them into GPU-equivalents.

UA can't really "increase upgrade inventory," since every J seat is available for an upgrade for people who waitlist. It's not like they're going to stop selling full-fare J in order to preserve some space for gate upgrades.

As already pointed out, this is bunk. A Platinum member will only clear ahead of a GS member when there is PZ inventory at the time of booking, which has already been the case -- forever -- if they use miles + copay. And there's rarely PZ inventory. When there is, it's a strong indication that UA doesn't think they can sell every seat, which means there will still be plenty of space available for GS members later. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

No, no they won't; not to any appreciable degree, anyway. If the flight goes to the waitlist, the 1K will be ahead of the Platinum. This only affects flights with PZ inventory at the time of booking, which everyone can access already.

It does not appear that there are any changes planned to the ability to clear an upgrade at booking when PZ is available.

That's specifically what they're saying it's for, and your last line is likely the reason why. The proof is in the pudding, but I suspect UA was motivated by complaints from people saying that they were tired of throwing away certificates every year. I suspect they were seeing a troubling trend in bookings from Platinum and higher.

There's not much they can do about that, and certainly not anything that would actually be flyer-friendly. I mean, there's the super-easy solution: "no more upgrades." UA already has the largest premium cabin inventory among the US airlines.

This is certainly possible, but there's no point borrowing trouble. If it happens, it happens.

The truth is, upgrades are hard to get because UA has learned how to sell the seats. I doubt that's changing.

It's not listed in the policy, because it's not the policy. You've gotten lucky. I've had it happen sometimes, and I've had it not happen other times.

This is really quite dependent on individual use; I still value a GPU at $1000/each.


To me those two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other.
The second part is not insignificant,
especially as many still have a ton of RPUs as they were still issued past 100000 miles for this program year.

For instance, on December 4th I will immediately have the additional option of 10 GPUs (using the old terminology) credited to my account to be used by January 31st.

(On December 4th I should have 760 correction: 840 PlusPoints!!! :eek:)

If you happen to have a family of five, no current plans, and a desire to spend $5000+ on travel in December / January, you'll find that useful. Otherwise, I suspect many of those will expire, or you'll throw them at SFO-LAX just to use them, etc. Just like people always have in December / January.

While I agree to my knowledge this policy is not written/"listed" anywhere I have NEVER been denied a return on a GPU/instrument when only my connecting domestic flight was upgraded (quite honestly paying W is penalty enough). I don't call that really "luck". I would like the hear from others that have been denied this refund of the upgrade instrument. .

No, that policy is listed.

If you upgrade a flight with a Polaris-marketed segment using a GPU, and no Polaris segment clears, the GPU will be returned, through December 4. That is definitely changing.

For flights without a Polaris-marketed segment, including the SAN-LAX-EWR example, there is no policy to return an RPU (or GPU, if that's what you used). It sometimes happens, but it's not in the policy and is best described as an IT glitch.

OK, so make it a ten-person family, then.. or a 5-person family, upgrading from a discount economy fare... but last (among the 1Ks) on the upgrade list. :)

I suspect most of these will expire unused, and/or you'll throw them at domestic travel, just as people always have. It's really difficult to get an upgrade to clear in January.

I don't remember seeing this question posted:

Is there a grandfather clause for GPU's which are applied to Polaris flights with short-haul legs? I applied a GPU to LAX-IAH-EZE on December 5. Both legs are waitlisted. If I clear LAX-IAH in advance on my GPU, and IAH-EZE doesn't clear, will I only get 20 Plus Points refunded...even though the GPU was applied well in advance of this announcement? It seems to me that UA should return the entire 40 points (i.e. value of a full GPU) if the GPU was applied prior to this announcement.

The inability waitlist short-haul segments on a Polaris itinerary without gambling 20 Plus Points is a downgrade I absolutely hate. As Kacee aptly pointed out in the locked thread which was started prior to the announcement: This is WAY too late in the year to be making such a significant change.

lol, I really need to rent me some bigger family so I can make use of all these PlusPoints! :)

Aye.

And my contention is that for January 2020 it just got a whole lot MORE difficult for Int travel (same number of seats but with more upgrade requests).

Predicted new thread title on December 4: "Attention 1K's: How Much Was Your SkipWaitlist?

Route:
Date:
Original fare class:
StW *Ps:

So, instead of 10th out of 50 on the waitlist, you'll go to 20th of 70. I don't think that's a meaningful difference.

From the original comment I thought you referring to international as well as domestic runs using instruments. Got cunfused with too many upstream comments on this topic. I might add I don't believe it has to necessarily has to be a Polaris marketed flight. I have seen refunds on for example SAN-LAX-CUN get refunded when only the SFO-LAX segment cleared. LAX-CUN is not by definition a Polaris flight.

The policy specifically calls out Polaris-marketed. If you got an RPU/GPU refunded on a CUN itinerary, it was a gift.

Skip Waitlist will make a difference for travel between Jan 3 and Jan 31!

All I can say is, that come Dec 4th, I'll be immediately booking ALL my remaining travel for this program year! ;)

Maybe. We haven't seen how it works yet. :)