exactly what i was thinking. i find it disappointing they have not communicated anything extra to GS's

/i

As a GS you will likely be better off in the PointsPlus system for earning PointsPlus vs GPUs after the 1K requirements.

I agree, you would need to spend 24 cpPQM or above. But I think most 1K members, if they can meet the new 1K requalification requirements, will find themselves worse off. In 2020 you would need to spend $6000 to earn an additional 40 points. :)

Agreed. A $9K ticket EWR-LHR will earn the equivalent of 1.5 GPU under the new system, where it would have earned only .56 GPU (14k PQM) previously. Even SFO-LHR (22k PQM, or .88 GPU) earns considerably more under the new system.

I think a significant number, to make the new 1K requirements, that way UA intents will be near that number. (In the old system, perhaps not, but the core premise of the new system to reward the higher spenders.

In the extreme opposite, an approx $1k W fare ORD-SFO-SIN r/t earns 0.8 GPU now, and 0.16 GPU equivalent in 2020!😱. 4 GPUs every 5 r/ts vs 1 every 6 r/ts next year.
Just what UA wants.

Yes, it's a punitive system for 1K who are barely hitting the PQD numbers. But most GS will come out ahead. Same as they did when mileage accrual went dollar based.

But that individual is going to have a hard time qualiflying for 1K in 2020, so it may be a moot point.

It's already the case that if you fly on mostly Ws, you're not going to hit $15k PQD. And it's part of the reason many of us wind up giving most of our GPU to friends/family.

Somewhat ironic that if you use all the upgrade certificates (or points) that UA gives you for your own travel, you're likely not going to spend enough to requalify.

This had me only barely make 1K for 2020. I flew so much in 2018, that I had a bunch of GPUs which I successfully used this year (only one to go!).
Of course this made my spend lower/slower, so qualifying for 1K was later than ever.

Hope to use all remaining points in 2020, and move all remaining flights away from UA.

My situation exactly. I’ll be extending 80 Plus Points, if allowed, or I will try to find good homes for them, if not. Which means that after I use up the GPU’s I’ll earn from this year’s travel, I’ll simply be buying the cheapest discounted longhaul business class ticket I can find. It may be on UA. It likely will be on a *A partner. Or it may be on a non-* airline that I’d be eager to try.

I will suggest that you should also have a differential (a few hundred USD) in mind when evaluating 'cheapest'. UA is really bottom of the barrel when it comes to in-flight service, and if within the alliance they are having any fare competition, stay away from UA.

I'm leaning this way as well. I'm partially hub-captive in northern NJ, and will just squeak in as a 1k for '20. Most of my flying is paid domestic first, with a ton of <3hr flights. I'll continue to book UA for regional travel where I have little choice, but anything TATL or to the west coast will be wide open. It will be a drop in the bucket to UA, but my business will shift since I'll no longer have the bult in advantage of being 1K.

But $9K RTW tickets will potentially earn more GPU, right? (but earn the same PQD and RDM - 11x for 1Ks and GS)

So which is actually better? Earning points based on $ amount (fixed), or based on the old PQM - which is dependent on Fare Class and distance flown?

Note: This post discusses PQMs because it's intended to be a comparison between the current system and next year's. PQMs are going away as of January 1, so these ratios are hypothetical when referring to next year's travel -- think of them as (a) a way to look at this year's activity to figure out which system is more beneficial or (b) a way to map next year's programs onto the terms we're used to seeing.

For flights on UA metal, or ticketed on UA, it depends upon whether or not your PQD/PQM ratio is $0.24 or higher. If it is, the new system will generate more GPUs. If it's not, the old system will. (The new system is calibrated at $0.24/PQM: if you spend at that ratio, you'd earn 1K with 100K PQM)

For flights on another partner airline, ticketed on that airline, it depends upon the RDM/PQM ratio. For preferred partners, you'd need a ratio of 1.2:1 to come out even -- you'll get one GPU-equivalent for every 30K redeemable miles earned on preferred partners, not counting the Premier bonus. For non-preferred partners, you need a ratio of 1.44:1: you'll get one GPU-equivalent for every 36K redeemable miles earned on non-preferred partners. I suspect that these ratios will be very difficult to find in practice. AC P fares currently meet this description -- beyond the 18K level, you'll get one additional GPU-equivalent for every 15K miles flown on AC P fares, assuming they don't change the earning table. Previously, that would only have gotten you 22.5K PQMs, so you're coming out slightly ahead. You'd also come out ahead on AC TATL BE fares that are booked in Q, V, W, or G (??).

To answer your question directly, then: I suspect a $9K RTW ticket (J?) would probably come out behind in the new system. If ticketed on UA, $9K gets you as much progress toward GPUs as 37.5K PQMs would have this year, and I suspect that most RTW J itineraries would have resulted in more than 37.5K PQMs. And if not ticketed on UA, you'd need to be in one of the small number of earning classes with a good RDM/PQM ratio to come out ahead.