My bet is "retained thru 2011" then after you folks have skin in the game they get rid of it. CO sucks, by the time they are done: your swiss cheese will become one slice of hole with a sliver of cheese around the edge. Perhaps you can put it on your cheeseburger meal in FC aka The e-COli patty

I'm 0/4 on UDU's into and out of Hawaii this year (KOA and HNL)... udustats is not reliable because it only details what a few users bother to enter... I'm doing two more runs next month and am not holding my breath.

Assuming there are 8+ elites on the flight still seated in Y CO will either upgrade them or "upsell" to non-elites. But those upsells are based on the fare difference between the originally purchased ticket and a fare that gets them into the F cabin. For non-elites that would be Z or higher. Those customers are basically buying a seat in F, just in two transactions rather than all at once.
Actually the post you quoted is about collecting CO SWUs and it is only for folks who cross the 100K EQM/120 EQP threshold on the CO side. It has nothing to do with UA SWUs.

Sad but true. Airlines are out to make money for shareholders. I don't think we can begrudge them that goal. But to be honest, I think many Elites give themselves to much credit for contributing to the bottom line. Clearly only ranking miles is a very bad indicator, so is pure revenue. What really matters is the revenue contribution attributed to specific flight for the benefit of the network. The unanswerable question (at least as we know) is what does matter most to an airlines' bottom line.

Have you ever considered that if a 1K leaves UA for AA that someone else will just as easily fill that spot? People's travel patterns are erratic and cyclical. I may be PrePlat today, but tomorrow I could lose my job or get sick. Do you think UA really cares? How much slack are they going to give me to retain my loyalty?

This is classic Revenue Management and it is not nearly as simple as you imply above. So they forecast for 8 empty F seats, but they are likely to a
also consider late Y or B class demand and preserve those seats for the comp upgrade (as they rightly deserve). If they don't materialize, who cares, they'll EUA all Elites at the 24 hour mark. Once all Plat, Golds and Silvers are accommodated that are already booked, then the offer the buy up at check in to anyone. Joe Schmo hasn't taken anyone's F seat unless you truly are a go show within 24 hours. In that case, blame the demand forecast.

But prove that the once a year to mom (and their collective ilk) aren't ultimately just as important as a 1K. They may be discretionary but they still contribute to the bottom line. And they may BOB ($), pay for E+ ($) check a bag ($), get a day pass to the RCC ($), etc. Look at all that add on ancillary revenue that no 1K will ever pay. Multiply that by thousands per day, every day, on every flight. That's likely some serious extra money.

Just a thought.

You'll get your SWUs on January 1, 2011. When qualifying for 2012 status in 2011, you'll get your 6 SWUs as soon as you hit 100K EQMs in 2011.

If you are paranoid about your 6 SWUs for January 1, 2011, you can request early deposit. http://www.united.com/page/article/0...Fearlyupgrades :

I think it's in United's interest, and ours, to let them know what we think of their policy in real time. It doesn't serve UA to have a lot of pissed off high-revenue/high-value customers and not know about it.

I have choices, and I have spent more money on UA than was otherwise necessary in order to make 1K. I've also taken flights that were less convenient, or that involve a change in planes, in order to fly on UA. The change in policies, and the "gut sense" that UA isn't making it worth my money and time, certainty affect my decisions starting right now, not a year from now.

I honestly can't believe there are people arguing that because UA chose to extend the EQS requirements for 1K to 120 that this means UA "crunched the numbers" and found that EQS fliers were bringing in less revenue.

Unless you live on a route with connecting service on UA and nonstop service on a LCC, chances are you pay significantly more as a EQS qualifier. The sorts of hub-to-UX-market and v-v flights typically cost 1.5x to 2x what a cheap transcon IAD-LAX does. These are typically the flights of business travelers, too, not Ma and Pa Kettles, when they're flown as O&D traffic.

If you ask me, UA decided they could thin the 1K ranks a bit, and save on SWUs (perhaps collecting more in miles + copay for those 1Ps wanting to upgrade internationally), save on other benefit-related costs, etc. Never mind that the folks they're cutting out probably generate more revenue than those they're keeping, by and large.


I've seen it happen, too, on more than one occasion. And on at least a couple, I was offered upsell at check in (which I declined) and subsequently didn't clear my instrument-supported upgrade. Yes, this has been rare, and as a 1K, I've cleared nearly every upgrade... but the "no, they always clear all elites before offering upsell" folks aren't correct IME, either.

So I got an email today with answers for me to give, when at work, as to some of the changes. Q: why now 120 EQS? A: with 1p plus (the higher 1p status) at 90 EQS, 100 is too small of a tier qualification jump.

My own number crunching says if u made 1k at 100 segments and 70k miles, you paid less that the same flying with 100k miles, as you had to buy more tickets and more segments to hit the 100k miles. That math is irrefutable.

+1

Crunch it when 50 segments are COS<->DEN.

1. Not having to sweat it even for somewhat long flights, especially meals (convenience, not because they are gourmet offerings). There are also other coast to coast flights that are not PS.
2. Mrs. MMProfessor will never get UDU. So, when I travel with her, I need the CR1 or else I will be in the back of the plane as well.

There really is no other logical conclusion to draw. Why on earth would they single out a group of more profitable customers for benefit reductions? They know their numbers, and that's the reality of how these break down - no matter how many example scenarios are cited to the contrary. Those people paying a lot for their segments of course exist, but they aren't the norm by comparison. Simple math is hard to argue with.

But my heart goes out to segment runners ... I absolutely remember my early days when I was burning segments also.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Haven't we seen plenty instances of $200 transcons and $500+ sub-1000 mile flights?

You're assuming UA raised the EQS to 120 merely to eliminate less-profitable fliers; I'm questioning that very assumption, as it just doesn't seem grounded in reality.


Wouldn't be the first time they've done just that...

I said "the same flying". I am comparing your individual spend against the same spend, but with more of the same. 50 cos-den < 100 (or 120) cos-den.

But I regress, the reason UA sys is because 90 to 100 is not a big enough jump. They say nothing about revenue, it is due to the higher tiro 1p level.