Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Earning Status (PQP) on non-016 Tickets and Partner Metal {Archive}

Old Feb 8, 2024, 11:23 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
This is an archive thread, the active thread is Earning Status (PQP) on non-016 Tickets and Partner Metal
Print Wikipost

Earning Status (PQP) on non-016 Tickets and Partner Metal {Archive}

Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:02 pm
  #601  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Personally, I don't really care because this was supposed to be my last year being 1K, as I was supposed to reach 1MM this year.

But I would have to say that it is unwise to change the program right at this moment. The actual pros and cons about PQP is not yet unknown. Because of COVID-19, practically all airlines are fighting to survival. And you attempt to implement something unwelcome at the practically the worst time for the industry?

FWIW - I would have to say it is foreseeable that Kirby will be forced to leave UA if this continues, maybe before 2022.
garykung is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:06 pm
  #602  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 5,098
Originally Posted by DJ_Iceman
.... It didn't make sense to me that in the latest program changes, United made it MORE rewarding to fly with their partners than on United itself. As a near-exclusive domestic 1K, I was scratching my head a bit. After all, here on FT it didn't even take a day after the new rules were released for people to "crack the code" and brag about how they'd be buying all their previous-United travel on partner airlines now.

In every scheme it seems like there are winners and losers. I guess I'm a winner because I buy almost only United tickets and fly almost only on United metal. But shouldn't the goal of United's loyalty program be to, oh I don't know, reward loyalty to United? And they can offer some side benefit to those involved in partner schemes, but those side benefits certainly don't seem like they should be more lucrative than the benefits to the core customers...
Surely this change doesn't come as a surprise. Why should UA encourage folks to fly PE on SQ or AC? But UA should have announced it when they introduced the new PQP program last fall. Of course in prior years flying on Star Alliance partners would usually earn zero PQD toward elite status.
restlessinRNO is online now  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:17 pm
  #603  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Originally Posted by restlessinRNO
Surely this change doesn't come as a surprise. Why should UA encourage folks to fly PE on SQ or AC? But UA should have announced it when they introduced the new PQP program last fall. Of course in prior years flying on Star Alliance partners would usually earn zero PQD toward elite status.
UA must have had a business reason at the time of its 2019 devaluation announcement for this seemingly foolhardy provision in its MP program, and surely this business reason must have somehow evaporated with Covid-19.
AirbusFan2B is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:18 pm
  #604  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,564
Originally Posted by garykung
Personally, I don't really care because this was supposed to be my last year being 1K, as I was supposed to reach 1MM this year.

But I would have to say that it is unwise to change the program right at this moment. The actual pros and cons about PQP is not yet unknown. Because of COVID-19, practically all airlines are fighting to survival. And you attempt to implement something unwelcome at the practically the worst time for the industry?

FWIW - I would have to say it is foreseeable that Kirby will be forced to leave UA if this continues, maybe before 2022.
This gives everyone a real impetus to start looking around for other alliances, programs, or just free-agency. It also assumes that Kirby wants to dramatically thin the ranks of the top level elites, basically pushing most of today's 1Ks down 1-3 levels, and making tomorrow's 1K a version of yesterday's GS, just without the same benefits - I believe he is sold on the goal of thinning the ranks substantially and pushing as many people out to the bottom with fewer benefits and lower cost. If he goes from, say, 8,000 1K members to 2,000 1K members, due to either lower levels or people leaving, I don't think he cares provided seats are filled with people who don't cost him anything. This is just a continuation of the march towards the "Spiritification" of United, where domestic non-transcon F becomes the "big seat", and the domestic coach product is indistinguishable from Spirit/Allegient/etc, while Polaris has already been dumbed down to such a degree that aside from the seat itself, it barely measures up to other *A Premium Economy products.

Let's face it - United management and its board are not interested in quality - there is a total disconnect between the United way of thinking and, say, how Delta and Alaska view their products and service delivery. United and American are blending into the same poor quality mess, and what do they have in common? Leadership trained by Baldanza.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:27 pm
  #605  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: YVR
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by bocastephen
This gives everyone a real impetus to start looking around for other alliances, programs, or just free-agency. It also assumes that Kirby wants to dramatically thin the ranks of the top level elites, basically pushing most of today's 1Ks down 1-3 levels, and making tomorrow's 1K a version of yesterday's GS, just without the same benefits - I believe he is sold on the goal of thinning the ranks substantially and pushing as many people out to the bottom with fewer benefits and lower cost. If he goes from, say, 8,000 1K members to 2,000 1K members, due to either lower levels or people leaving, I don't think he cares provided seats are filled with people who don't cost him anything. This is just a continuation of the march towards the "Spiritification" of United, where domestic non-transcon F becomes the "big seat", and the domestic coach product is indistinguishable from Spirit/Allegient/etc, while Polaris has already been dumbed down to such a degree that aside from the seat itself, it barely measures up to other *A Premium Economy products.

Let's face it - United management and its board are not interested in quality - there is a total disconnect between the United way of thinking and, say, how Delta and Alaska view their products and service delivery. United and American are blending into the same poor quality mess, and what do they have in common? Leadership trained by Baldanza.
Agreed. And with Alaska joining OneWorld, being based out of the west coast I may just give them another loook.
kevflyer is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:39 pm
  #606  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: FLL, MEL, SIN, WAS
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,470
Originally Posted by EWR764
Ouch. Cheap partner premium tickets were an easy and obvious way to exploit and circumvent the PQP scheme, for which United derived minimal benefit. I am not surprised to see this change, but the 1500 PQP cap (per ticket, per segment or per direction?) seems awfully stingy.
Originally Posted by restlessinRNO
Surely this change doesn't come as a surprise. Why should UA encourage folks to fly PE on SQ or AC? But UA should have announced it when they introduced the new PQP program last fall. Of course in prior years flying on Star Alliance partners would usually earn zero PQD toward elite status.
We can get all caught up on the timing of the announcement or fairness of this supposed to be a devaluation.
IMHO, these two posts above reflect the true issues of the change. I think we should throw out the loophole that was inadvertently introduced based on UA's blunder. The loophole is unsustainable so we need to be realistic that it would change.

We should be comparing the PQM/PQD program and the new PQF/PQP program post 4/20 or 7/20.

Prior to PQP is introduced, if flown on partner airlines (non-016 stock), we earned no PQD at all, but we earned PQM towards elite status and GPUs.
Post PQP is introduced, we earn PQP towards elite status and PQP will earn us Pluspoints for upgrade.

We probably don't have the time to figure whether 1,500/1,000 or 750/500 PQP is fair per ticket at the moment since the news just came in, but that should be the basis to conclude whether the change is a possible devaluation (or improvement).
UA_Flyer is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:42 pm
  #607  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, Hyatt Glob, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, Total Wine & More Reserve
Posts: 4,675
Originally Posted by gmt4
Not surprising. The outsized partner PQP seemed like a loophole that was bound to be closed at some point. Admittedly, the caps are very drastic though.
The same type of loophole has been around on AA (and I believe DL) for years.

Why couldnt UA follow DL for once?
econ is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:48 pm
  #608  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 3,053
Originally Posted by IMissThe747
This does seem to be extremely odd timing for a devaluation. But then again, what would I know about business strategy at major airlines anyways?
Originally Posted by ani90
Interesting how little I care about this right now - this COVID surely puts things into perspective. The thought alone of sitting in a stuffed airplane is such that I wont be getting much PQPs of any sort for some months....
Originally Posted by dkc192
Could there have been a worse time to announce such a devaluation? As far as I'm concerned, this undoes a lot (if not all) of the "goodwill" earned by their status extensions and what not.
Why the heck bother sending out negative news when no one is flying anyway? Who even cares? It just makes UA look tone deaf, self centered, and completely out of touch with the big picture. It is like deciding to downgrade the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Hey, UA!! We have bigger things to worry about than your damn little award incentive program quirks.
blueman2 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:51 pm
  #609  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 170
Guess I'm switching to American/Alaksa and southwest. Houston based, but I bet United shrinks this hub to nothing given the current oil/gas situation anyway...
poohfighter is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:53 pm
  #610  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,451
So now we have to find a way to combine separate tickets!
LondonElite is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 10:53 pm
  #611  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by UA_Flyer
We probably don't have the time to figure whether 1,500/1,000 or 750/500 PQP is fair per ticket at the moment since the news just came in, but that should be the basis to conclude whether the change is a possible devaluation (or improvement).
It took me about four seconds. Is it fair? Sure, it's their program. and if I'm going to complain about them changing the rules midyear -- which I normally would -- I have to admit that they already changed the rules in our favor by halving the requirements, something which was far more generous than I thought they'd offer.

Does it affect me? Not this year, no. Assuming that they don't rescind this for next year, then, I guess we'll see where they set the bar; if they go back to 18K, yes. My normal spending pattern isn't going to take me anywhere near $18K, I have 1MM, and Platinum status isn't particularly interesting.

UA has been trying to fire me for years. I'm just surprised that they're still trying to do it, and so brazenly. Messing around with the multipliers would have made so much more sense.

Last edited by jsloan; Apr 27, 2020 at 11:26 pm Reason: typo
jsloan is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 11:17 pm
  #612  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,451
Based on halving the PQP requirements this year, are we thinking the cap will double next year?
LondonElite is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 11:27 pm
  #613  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: Mileage Plus Global Services 2MM
Posts: 1,205
A few thoughts:
- This is exactly the time to make this announcement. People have far bigger issues to care about than this change. It's like "trash day" at the White House (Westwing reference, not a political statement). Trot out bad news on Friday because fewer people pay attention over the weekend.
- UA is fighting for their existence right now. Anything that motivates people to fly partner carriers over UA is counterproductive. Having UA motivate us to fly a partner to take advantage of the loophole is crazy.
- Depending on your predisposition, the loophole was either a) an oversight by dumb program planners or b) a way to help non-US fliers make status due to the shift to PQP's. If it's "a" that's why you never break the first rule of Fight Club. We know UA monitors FT and it took about 24 hours after the change to PQP's for the thread to show up about how to "game the system" by flying partners.
bluedemon211 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2020, 11:43 pm
  #614  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,160
Im glad tickets purchased prior to April 29 will get old PQP credit. Have a $2250 HNL-LHR r.t. AC Business P ticket booked for December. Thats 7700+ PQPs.

One day left to buy your tickets under old scheme!

Now that I think about it, I think UA is mainly trying to steer customers back to UA for long-haul segments (TATL, TPAC). Capping those longer OAL segments is the goal.

Last edited by IAH-OIL-TRASH; Apr 27, 2020 at 11:57 pm
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2020, 12:13 am
  #615  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by bluedemon211
- Depending on your predisposition, the loophole was either a) an oversight by dumb program planners or b) a way to help non-US fliers make status due to the shift to PQP's. If it's "a" that's why you never break the first rule of Fight Club. We know UA monitors FT and it took about 24 hours after the change to PQP's for the thread to show up about how to "game the system" by flying partners.
This wasn't a surprise to UA. I'm sure they monitor the DL forum too, even if somehow they were too daft to look at this and see what was going to happen.

Originally Posted by IAH-OIL-TRASH
Now that I think about it, I think UA is mainly trying to steer customers back to UA for long-haul segments (TATL, TPAC). Capping those longer OAL segments is the goal.
OK, but this was all obvious ahead of time, so I'm a little flummoxed as to why they had to backtrack now. The only thing that I can think is that there's some executive on the MileagePlus who has hitched his star to the PQP plan and is determined to let it play out, consequences be damned.

It might simply be the fact that somebody realized, "hey, we made the bar so low that you can make 1K with a couple of long-haul partner flights" -- although I'm not sure why they care if that person isn't flying UA anyway. So, maybe it really will be temporary, or will be adjusted up next year.

The timing is just weird, though. I understood trying to fire me last year, when they were forecasting ever-increasing loads and lots of people paying to sit up front. I don't understand trying to fire me now, though. My seat-filler type fares, unprofitable as they might look on a full plane, can make a big difference on an empty one.
jsloan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.