Good points. My original chart should've been 2P: $5000 - $9999 is 2P, 1P: $10K - $14,999, and so on.... The numbers don't really matter. The ranges can be adjusted according to averages and additional classifications can be added as necessary.

With regard to *A and partners... well, to draw a hard line, those flights would no longer count as we're talking $$ spent on a single airline for benefits on that airline. Yeah, that would suck for a lot of people but UA ultimately doesn't care how much money you spent on SQ or LX - they only care how much you spent on UA. If you want the benefits of 1K you should fly UA for them. I could be wrong but I don't think money spent on other carriers counts towards GS today so this would be no different.

Were CR-1's not give for CO or US or any other *A EQM in the past???

No, just UA metal.

I respect your opinion on a lot of topics but your math is way off base here.

Most segment flyers spend a lot more per ticket for multiple connections because they have to rather than simply adding segments for the sole reason of achieving status. For example, I did DEN-ORD-PIA-ORD-MKE-DEN because I had to visit customers in both Peoria and Milwaukee the same day not because of a $69 fare sale. (IIRC that trip alone was close to $900).

My own example: 104K EQMs and 104 EQS - qualified on both miles and segments. Number of tickets bought in 2010 was 30 (only 1 international) which is an average of 3.47 segments/ticket. My average ticket price however was $550.

From what I gather in this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...become-1k.html my total spend for the year looks to be right in the middle of the pack.

I did not go out of my way to tack on extra segments but I did add 2 PS transcons and a SYD trip which skews my EQM number higher than it normally should be. The PS flights were both sub-$300 and the SYD trip was a tware for $700. On a cost per mile basis, my trips are much higher than a discount flyer. I also think my travel pattern is fairly typical of the average business road-warrior type.

Excellent idea!!
 

I for one will be making the old pantomime "Sssssssss!" noise to see if anyone else in the cabin joins me. Come on FTers "SSSssssssssss" with me

Lurker :(

PS: first time on FT in almost 11 years I have not signed off with a ":)"

:td::td:United

Actually, UA did do a fare based on status in the past, it was a DSM fare, it was a test (this was a bit more than adecade ago) it allowed 2P and higher access to this fare and had a restriction on carry ons. For whatever reason, they did not continue the program after the test, but it has been done and can be done. Another example is NY space. When UA is unwilling to forgo a seat for XY, they allocate extra (most likely dillutionary) inventory to appease the 1k. I'm not sure about the Buy Y program, if that requires an elite status or not...I think I remember it did, but that may have been changed over the years. Don't forget about corporate volume agreements and negotiated fixed fares, including the GSA's YCA program. The tariffs govern the fares, but UA writes the tariffs. There used to be an AUAMP fare in the HI markets that was the exact rice of the BUY fare but required a MP number (not sure if status was required or not.)

And the only (2) metrics that count are RASM and CASM. A ticket issued does cost money. GDS fees, distribution costs, carrying costs, incremental fuel and labor.

1K Voice is NOT doing the math correctly! We now start to earn 2 CR1s each QUARTER with 10,000 BIS miles by qualifying for 1K flying in the PREVIOUS year. The new algorithm is that we do not start to earn any CR1s until 75,000 EQM for the CURRENT year, regardless of 1K qualification by flying in the PREVIOUS year.

I understand your math...not a biggie that people don't understand mine...you all are reading into it too much...my math is kindergarden. If you spent $500 for each flight and qualified on segments at 100, but not on miles, then for you to qualify on segments with a 120 segment min, you would spend even more. About 300 posts ago, I was pointing out many examples where segments to very populated cities with LCC presence could be very cheap, while acknowledging that in many smaller markets (i.e. PIA) it can be very expensive. My recently posted math makes no comparison of the sort, only the exact same flying, but with 20 more segments is > the exact same flying with 100 segments. It represents a 20% increase in spend. In every single case, regardless of what cities, as long as the person needs to do the same thing 20% more times to get the same MP designation. Also if you made it on segments, and you had to fly 20 more, you might still make it on miles before the segments, depending on how short you were on miles. That too, is addl spend, which is good for my employer and my stock.

On the good side, for those that need to fly more to hit status....just think, you will get 1MM faster and have more miles to burn, as well as get to hear me say "Thank you" 20% more times as I scan your BP! :D

I am sorry but my head is spinning and I have lost count of whether anyone received confirmation that Million Milers will continue to receive 2 CR!s at the start of each year.

I have already forwarded on my concerns to the 1K email address but I imagine they are snowed under at the moment so do not expect a response soon.

I too worry what further enhancements are coming for us .

I fail to grasp your point though. UA now wants 20% more flights from me for the same status as someone who will spend 20% (or more) less $$. Under the new rules I am now less of an elite than someone who spends as little as $3000/year??

... And I'm supposed to be happy about this??? :confused:

EXACTLY. The reasoning they keep giving assumes nobody has status at the beginning of the year and is working up to it for the first time! :confused:

Seems like there will be a lot of Q3 and Q4 expiration dates on CR1's as few people will earn any the first half of the year **not talking to you 200K+ earners out there ;)**

LOL, no, but UA's shareholders are supposed to be happy. No one said to be happy, except Bobby Mc Ferrin. I just don't think the sky is falling, although getting hit on the head with an acorn isn't good news. It isn't great news for those seeking benefits, e in the 75k-100k range and the 150k plus range (or 90-99 segment range, as well.) I hear you, it sucks, just as C-scale wages sucked for me when I did the same work for 1/3 of the pay as an A scaler, back during the esop. I choose to stick it out, because I enjoy what I do, and it is close to my home. If UA still provides you a value-proposition that based on schedule routings and price, as well as ancillary benefits, then it is in your interest to stay. If someone else can meet your needs better, than it is in your interest to leave. Just because it isn't as good as it was, doesn't mean that it is as bad as the other options. In Jan 2002 (was in mgmt at that time) I suggested we (my co-workers) take a 10% paycut and work a longer work week, and asked others in my dept to as well, as I knew furloughs would come soon if budgets couldn't be met. Others didn't agree, they sad "I will not lose anything!" Well, the dept shed over 10% of the jobs, but no one lost base pay or work rules for another year. Sometimes taking a small hit is better than the alternative, but that is an individual choice that needs to be made by each person or their corporation, when travel is dictated by corporate policy.

The much more practical way of taking revenue into account in awarding elite status is to offer fractional EQM and EQS on low-cost fare classes. Many other airlines do this already. For example UA could start offering 50% EQM and 0.5 EQS on S, T, K, and L fares. That'd really put a stop to people earning 1K for $4000. Of course, any such change would elicit howls of protest.

How well were United's shareholders treated when United went bankrupt? I have absolutely no doubt that United views bankruptcy as just another business strategy (mainly used to screw employees by invalidating labor contracts) and just doesn't care about the effect on shareholders.

Please, please understand that no major legacy carrier is run to benefit the customers, employees, OR shareholders. They exist for one and only one reason: to ensure that top management keeps getting those 8 figure salaries and bonuses, no matter what.

I think your perspective is a bit twisted. Why would UA's shareholders celebrate getting $3000 when they can have my $20,000 instead??

Are you seriously trying to argue that a steeply discounted 100K mile flyer is more valuable to UA than a full-fare 100 segment flyer? That is some contorted logic right there.

If this is UA's management philosophy then they don't deserve my business.

I dont disagree in my heart, and don't want to veer off topic too long, but prove this, and people will got to jail (and execs will be paying shareholder/employees out of their own bank accounts via the class action.) I would never make such an accusation in public, about the good people that lead our company. ;)

You are STILL missing my point. They would rather have your 20k, and then 20% more. Now is it clear? $24k is > $20k. I'm beating my head against the PC as I can't seem to use the right words to show you this. You keep trying to compare passenger a and passenger b. I am not doing that. I am comparing passenger a to passenger a with a 20% increase in passenger a's flying.