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 29, 2020, 4:12 am
  #721  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Programs: Marriott Bonvoy Titanium; AS 100k; BA Silver; UA Silver
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by poohfighter
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...
Exactly my thoughts.
hyedmd is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 6:58 am
  #722  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by Boraxo
So I never really understood the whole PQP partner scheme but maybe someone can enlighten me.

Example 1: SFO-FRA-SFO on UA, RT fare in Z is $5k. This earns 5k PQP. If mileage is 5699x2 on LH, does this now earn 1139x2 PQP?
Example 2: SFO-SIN-SFO on UA, RT fare in Z is $7k. This earns 7k PQP. If mileage is 8446x2 on SQ, does this now earn 1407x2 PQP?

Even under prior system it appears that UA was the preferred choice for earning PQP on higher value tickets.
Example 1 (LH): Your calculation is correct for a P fare. It would have been 1.5 times that for a Z fare (1710 PQP) but instead is 1500 PQP now. Not a big change, IMHO.
Example 2: SQ would earn have earned, each way, for a Z fare 8446 X 1.25 / 6 = 1760 PQP. Like above, now capped at 1500 PQP each way and so also not a big change IMHO.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 7:08 am
  #723  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Mlife NOIR
Posts: 320
This doesnt personally affect me as a GS member, but its insane that they would implement something like this half way through the year. Really makes me lose whatever trust I had left in the program.
UAflyer93 is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 7:11 am
  #724  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 32,528
The 'per flight segment' changes everything. That is actually o.k. in my books. $1k PQP per segment is quite a good compromise
cfischer is online now  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 7:18 am
  #725  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by jsloan
There are so many things about airfare that "never made sense" that this doesn't even make the top 50.

If they were only interested in fixing that, they'd have just reduced the multiplier for AC P fares. I promise, they had the entire table in front of them when they made the original decisions. Nobody was caught off guard.

Again, this is the very same thing that DL and AA have been doing for multiple years.
Had they changed the multiplier for AC P fares, far more people would have been impacted than by this new cap. Every single AC flight booked under P would earn fewer miles while the cap only applies in a few circumstances.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 7:20 am
  #726  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA EXP+LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, Marriott PLT, Hilton DIA, Hyatt Glob, Avis CHM
Posts: 4,687
Originally Posted by cfischer
The 'per flight segment' changes everything. That is actually o.k. in my books. $1k PQP per segment is quite a good compromise
It certainly helps. Crazy how vague UA was about it.
ctownflyer is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 7:59 am
  #727  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: EWR and KGL (with occasional home/work trips to NRT/ITM)
Programs: MP MM 1K, Sky Miles, Emirates Gold
Posts: 708
I found it crazy and also slap on the face to the FF to introduce such drastic changes (including partner award miles) in the middle of the year, especially when almost no one could travel due to Pandemic.
If these measures are Kirby effect, I think UA will lose tons of FF, especially those who fly primarily international routes.
Atuchan is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:03 am
  #728  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,553
UA's routes are just about the ONLY thing left that makes them attractive for future travel.
Lets see if Kirby can destroy even that in the coming months...
narvik is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:22 am
  #729  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,840
Originally Posted by Weatherboy
But it's a UA program for UA flyers; I don't know why people who don't fly UA expect to be treated like royalty, or even as a 1k, for not flying UA. It's like flying Delta and expecting UA points.
Fine, if UA wants me to fly their airline, give a value proposition that actually makes sense. In my case, I have very little business travel, I have my choice of airlines, and I'm not spending $18K out of my pocket for 1K status -- especially if UA's competition has much less expensive paths to their equivalent status levels. The attractiveness of Star Alliance internationally is a big part of the reason that I fly UA domestically.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Example 2: SQ would earn have earned, each way, for a Z fare 8446 X 1.25 / 6 = 1760 PQP. Like above, now capped at 1500 PQP each way and so also not a big change IMHO.
SQ is a non-preferred partner, so it's capped at 1000 instead of 1500.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Had they changed the multiplier for AC P fares, far more people would have been impacted than by this new cap. Every single AC flight booked under P would earn fewer miles while the cap only applies in a few circumstances.
Thus making it even more valuable at closing this "loophole" that people have alleged was causing all of these major problems (despite being exactly the same as what AA and DL have). And I wouldn't say it only applies in a "few" circumstances. AC's cap kicks in for any flight over 3,750 miles long in P. (It's still much less bad than it was when they originally announced the cap, though).
jsloan is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:32 am
  #730  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B
While your question is common sense, UA itself instituted this new rule only in late 2019 presumably following a thorough review of its revised MP rules. As much as it pushes members to other airlines, UA must have had a specific intent in mind at the time or it wouldn’t have come up with a brand new rule. The question now is what conditions was UA predicting that are now giving UA enough qualms to rescind a rule that’s been in place for only six months?
I think the simple explanation might explain this the best. UA already had a system for crediting flights on non-016 tickets for mileage earnings. With the switchover to PQP and the expanded ways to acquire them, they used the existing system for mileage earning on non-016 tickets and declared for some airlines, we'll count that earning divided by five and for the others, we'll count the mileage earning divided by six. The advantage is it didn't introduce a whole new system for determining these PQPs outside of what already existed (as long as you could do simple division).

I'm sure they they knew how this would impact the PQP totals for people but that was based on how people bought tickets and accounted for their travel before this was implemented. They didn't have the data on how people might book away from UA based on what they were doing with PQP accounting which never existed in its current form.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:36 am
  #731  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by IAH-OIL-TRASH
I'd have to disagree. The change coincides with the reduced qualifications requirements (which was a result of COVID-reduced travel). I think they knew exactly what they were offering and had thought it though. The unanticipated situation has caused them to adjust, not correct.
I think they were aware of the possibility from the get go, then saw people were "exploiting" the disparity more than they expected, and then realized "crap, with reduced qualification requirements this is an even bigger problem than we thought based on the first couple of months."
drewguy is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:37 am
  #732  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,840
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
I think the simple explanation might explain this the best. UA already had a system for crediting flights on non-016 tickets for mileage earnings. With the switchover to PQP and the expanded ways to acquire them, they used the existing system for mileage earning on non-016 tickets and declared for some airlines, we'll count that earning divided by five and for the others, we'll count the mileage earning divided by six. The advantage is it didn't introduce a whole new system for determining these PQPs outside of what already existed (as long as you could do simple division).
There's an even simpler explanation: They copied exactly what DL did.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio
I'm sure they they knew how this would impact the PQP totals for people but that was based on how people bought tickets and accounted for their travel before this was implemented. They didn't have the data on how people might book away from UA based on what they were doing with PQP accounting.which never existed in its current form.
Not buying it. If this is true, it's inexcusable. Again, one look at the Premium Fare Deals thread on FT would have told them everything they needed to know,

I actually think I just realized the motivation -- UA's drastic route network reductions. They'd presumably been counting on their large array of nonstop choices to get people to favor them over the competition, and with that removed, somebody projected that more people will take advantage of these partner flights than would have done so previously.
jsloan is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:42 am
  #733  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by jsloan
...

SQ is a non-preferred partner, so it's capped at 1000 instead of 1500.
Thank you, I carelessly overlooked the SQ cap of 1000 and not 1500.

Originally Posted by jsloan
Thus making it even more valuable at closing this "loophole" that people have alleged was causing all of these major problems (despite being exactly the same as what AA and DL have). And I wouldn't say it only applies in a "few" circumstances. AC's cap kicks in for any flight over 3,750 miles long in P. (It's still much less bad than it was when they originally announced the cap, though).
If you look at all of the flights taken by MP members on AC (and credited to UA-MP), my guess is a rather small percentage of them are over 3750 miles. Every Canada transcon and transborder flight is under this distance. Even YYZ-LHR is less than 3750. YYZ-FRA is only 200 miles greater than the threshold so almost negligible when it comes to PQP totals.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 8:47 am
  #734  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,840
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
If you look at all of the flights taken by MP members on AC (and credited to UA-MP), my guess is a rather small percentage of them are over 3750 miles.
Great Circle Mapper

Every AC flight to Australia or Asia is longer than 3750 miles, as is HNL-YYZ. The impact of this change is much greater on travelers to Asia than on travelers to Europe. But, again, not nearly as bad as it originally appeared.
jsloan is offline  
Old Apr 29, 2020, 9:12 am
  #735  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by jsloan
Great Circle Mapper

Every AC flight to Australia or Asia is longer than 3750 miles, as is HNL-YYZ. The impact of this change is much greater on travelers to Asia than on travelers to Europe. But, again, not nearly as bad as it originally appeared.
Yes, a YVR-PVG flight with a P fare will earn about 67% than before the cap. My contention (only a guess) is this still will impact maybe 5% or so of those who fly on an AC-issued ticket and credit the mileage to UA.

The ones this will really hack off the most are those who intentionally book IAH-YYZ-GRU or some ridiculous route like that just to rack up miles.
JimInOhio 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.