spsf77

As with all previous changes UA made to their policies and fees there's always the differente reactions:

- "who cares? it doesn't affect me, I'm a 1K" (until you aren't!)
- "people were gaming the system, this is the right move from a business perspective" (naive in my opinion unless you're a major UA stockholder this will not benefit you)
- "this will allow them to lower prices and be more competitive, why should I pay for those few who use this benefit?" (answer: UA is a business, not a non-profit or cooperative; company execs/shareholders are the ones most likely to benefit, definitely not the customer)
- "all other airlines do it, so why shouldn't UA?"
- "50 is not much, I can handle it" (as in "I don't mind paying for something that has been free for so many years, I'm filthy rich!", that is until they increase the fee to 75 then 100 then 200 in an attempt to 'simplify' their fee structure)

I used to be bothered by them, but I got used to them and now see them as simply a from of denial that United and the US airlines in general have been working under a completely unsustainable model for so many years and that the house of cards is finally starting to fall before our very eyes. Pretty much like the rest of our economy...

Make no mistake, UA is once again screwing up their customers. So should you go to another airline? Maybe if it makes sense to you. But whatever you do, don't be surprised next time if your new airline of choice announces a new fee, all other legacy carriers will do the same, and then UA will follow and a bunch of UA apologetics say they actually like the move because it makes sense from business perspective and to protect the company from evil customers who game the system, as if they actually believed UA is well managed.

The fate of the US airline industry is clear and it will be like Ryanair or the financial sector (bait-and-switch with little upfront costs but ridiculous fees for everything), so soon we'll be able to purchase $20 tickets from SFO to JFK (yeepie!), but then you will have to pay for absolutely everything else including carry-ons (yes it's coming!). Then get ready to slide your credit card if you want to watch a movie, recline the seat, use the lavatory, plug your laptop or even use the FA button, by then they'll be called "flight consultants" and for every request you will be charged $5 (waived for GSs and 1Ks of course!). In the meantime, enjoy your current benefits because unless you keep flying more than you probably should every year, it's just a matter of time before you lose them.

smn

I wonder if this will increase the number of VDB opportunities? With less people taking earlier flights, will the rate that people show up for flights increase and lead to the overbooking amounts to be too high (at least in the beginning)?

mre5765

I hope so, and I think it is the death knell for DBC-free. I was in the DEN UX gate area recently, and my flight was next to one heading to YEG. Oversold by 2 last flight of the evening. The offer was a DBC-free. One taker. A half hour later still no second taker. The offer changed to a $400 voucher (granted only good in the lower 48). With the death of standby, there will be fewer takers suckers for DBC-free. ^

plj496

Even though this year I will not have to pay the fee, I am still opposed to it. I don't understand the logic that sends a plane out with empty seats versus filling them with a paying passenger (who would therefore open another seat to be sold on the later flight). I understand the chances may be small to actually sell that later-flight-seat again, but the probability becomes zero if the original passenger is made to wait. This fee is encouraging the passenger to wait for the later flight. To me, accommodating stand-by's is a 'bird-in-the-hand' situation, which benefits both the stand-by passenger and the airline.

NOTE: Continental expressly waives the stand-by fee at any connecting point. So, for example, if you allowed yourself 4 hours to get through immigration/customs at Newark on the way back from Europe, and it only took you 30-minutes, you can stand-by for the earlier connecting flight. I didn't see any such language in the UA policy. ??

MojaveFlyer

I remember when I was first hit with this on US years ago. Flying home PHL-BOS, hourly flights, just got to the airport in plenty of time. It seemed like a win-win for me to fly on an earlier plane if it was going to depart with empty seats - who knows what happens later in the day? But no.

Gosh, it was so long ago, but once even 1P's could switch to any other flight with seats on the same day. No three hour windows, no $$$ or refare. It really seemed like they wanted my continue business!

GrizShel

I don't change flights that often, but I still consider the free same day changes / standby a major elite benefit.

Been trying to decide whether to status match / challenge to United this year when I can only make it to Premier. With this announcement, I think I am off the fence - the benefits for status aren't enough to be worth the trouble (I'll get Economy Plus, the only significant benefit for me left, thru CO status later this year).

Flying is becoming more of a chore these days.

luv2ctheworld

This blows that 1P isn't considered exempt... 50K miles is a good chunk of miles.

John Thacker

I certainly don't think it will benefit me, but neither am I surprised that they would change a policy that they thought was being "gamed."

I'm highly confused. If the current system has been "a completely unsustainable model for so many years," why are you so surprised that it's changing? If something can't go on forever, it will stop.

Your predictions are probably reasonable, considering how most people shop for airlines based on headline fare alone and ignore fees. That sort of behavior definitely encourages using more fees. However, note that Southwest and JetBlue have relatively simple systems and tend to do pretty well financially. It does seem odd that the rest of the industry refuses to emulate them. (A lot of it has to do with hub-and-spoke systems requiring absurd pricing schemes.)

United, or any other company, doesn't adopt policies on the basis of being "nice" or "mean." They're always out to maximize profits. Sometimes greed causes them to be lower prices and fees, other times to raise them. They can always just raise fares instead of changing policies. As a result, most of the time any of these policy changes aren't in the long run a win or loss for all fliers, but rather wins for certain travelers and losses for others. (For example, with luggage fees of any sort, the end result is that people who travel light are better off.) This policy hurts anyone who likes to use standby more frequently than average, with the exception of 1Ks, who make out extremely well by having fewer standby competition from 1Ps and 2Ps. (Kind of odd, since 1Ks are more likely to "game the system" than anyone else.)

236Dakota

My quest for AA Executive Platinum this year is feeling better and better. I intended to qualify for at least UA 1P as well but the UA attitude toward their sub-1K elites is causing me to re-assess.

IADtoWhere

+1, if your not going to make 1K and you use standby, it really makes more sense to be a mid-tier elite on AA. At least Platinum gets you free standby! I might also enjoy making the much shorter trek to DCA than IAD.

jk5598224

Please UA experienced folks post the correct contact info to complain. I don't know what 1Kvoice is? Is there a 2Pvoice. I we make a immediate push to allow 2p/1p to standby for no fee it might work.

This is definately a deal braker. I can't finish up work early on a Thursday, then standby, pay a fee and start nickle and dime my customers $50 bucks here and there on expense reports.

UAPremierGuy

You have PM.

Wainwright

This is extremely disappointing. UA

hobo13

The part that the bean counters at UA probably failed to consider is that UA oversells far more than the rest of the legacies. They have the most aggressive inventory management in the industry. If you don't believe this, just go look at the VDB threads in AA (it's rare), DL, or CO. On AA, I don't even both to check the load, cause a bump just isn't going to happen. Contrast that with UA where you can get VDBed from any flight any time! (And a few of us have stats to back this up!)

What does this have to do with this policy? Simple. UA has been able to get away with such aggressive IM because they have counted on balancing the load across the whole day through people standing by. They knew they could over sell a BOS-DEN at 6pm, because a bunch of kettles were going to show up at 430pm and get that flight. Now, that just won't happen. Kettles won't pay $50 to change a flight, they'll just sit in the airport.

So I predict one of two things is going to happen, either a.) UA is going to have to scale back their IM, or b.) there are going to be more bumps. Either way costs UA money. Will it be balanced by the meager amount of people paying for standby? Time will tell.

spsf77

Thanks for your comments John; we're actually in agreement here, my message is about not being surprised anymore after so many changes for the worse and the news about new or rising fees all the time. For some time now it's all been about increasing or creating new fees, providing less FF benefits, devaluing FF miles; nothing surprises me anymore.

And BTW I don't think this policy change had anything to do with people gaming the standby system; you can still do it, it's just not free anymore but it may still be worth it in certain cases.

Agreed but a company can choose to maximize profits by either getting more customers (transactions) or by increasing the revenue per transaction. United is definitely not changing the policy in an attempt to get more customers and is trying to increase revenue by creating such a complex pricing and fee structure that it's literally becoming a bait-and-switch type of business. And a side effect is that its image is getting hurt, even among its own frequent flyers, and a lot of FFs like me are choosing not to fly as much anymore because of all the hassle with security, baggage, rude employees, so while the revenue may be up short term, United is bound to lose even more customers in the long run. But of course Wall St doesn't care about anything long term, they'll just keep increasing fees or creating new ones and flying fewer (packed) planes until they're no longer competitive or no one wants to fly with them anymore. That's what's unsustainable about this model in my opinion, you don't make a business more successful by pis***** off your customers.