One step up and two steps back?
 

In addition to shamelessly borrowing a Springsteen line, the title of this post comes from the fact that we might have had some success in temporarily restoring CR1s, but UA management could still make that success nearly meaningless by restricting CR1 availability and/or expanding purchased upgrade opportunities.

More specifically, it's all well and good that 2011 will see the continuation of pre-75K CR1s. But the key here is not the UA policy but how it's implemented. If NC and NF availability is severely constrained for domestic flights, the policy becomes irrelevant. If buy-up opportunities preclude use of CR1s, the result is the same.

The advantages of UA taking this approach seem obvious. It doesn't offer a distinct policy/target for criticism, but rather the less structured but no less deliberate restriction of CR1 use. It might well trigger grumbling among FTers and other customers as the reality sinks in, but perhaps not the same outcry as an explicit policy. And it would be consistent with what the airline has done with SWUs at times and might yet do more of in the future--provide them, but make them tough to use.

So a very small pat on our collective back for getting UA to back down and a very small round of applause for UA for doing so. But the proof will be in the pudding of actual ability to use CR1s.

I apologize in advance for not having read this entire thread but does everyone realize that this Only starts in 2012 for 1ks and that for 2011 a 1K will earn 2 @ 75k and 2 more @100k and as well still earn 2 per Q that they fly 10k

so in 2011 a 1K from 2010 that will be 1K in 2011 and flys 100k in 2011 will actually net 12 CR1s if they fly 10k per Q thats 8 and 2 more @ 75 and the last 2 @ 100k. Only in 2012 will we no longer earn the 2 per Q that we fly 10k and will earn only 4 for flying 100k instead of the present 8 we do

so if planned correctly its possible to get some of teh extra 4 CR1s to be used in 2012 so you can get 8 for 2012 as well , which means its really from 2013 onward that we will be down to 4 only

Yes, those who read the thread know that UA changed the rules last night and reversed the cut-back of CR1s. :D

887 post and nearly 50,000 views and we were upset over NOTHING, damn what a waste of time.

- Sorry, I couldn't resist a little b*ll bustin' :p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Er, no...hardly. Those of us 1Ks who have been (often times painfully) loyal to UA and qualify on segments got asked to "tithe" 20% more next year.

Those of us who go out of our way to fly UA when there are many other choices out there, got short changed.

My observations so far is that UA looked at 1Ks on segs...and decided we were getting off cheaply.

As they say, all things (good or otherwise) must come to an end. I know this 1K won't be bustin' his b*alls to fly on UA next year.

My 1KVoice letter:

Hello,

I am writing to voice my dissatisfaction at your upcoming changes to the 2011 Mileage Plus program.
I have been a MP member since 1999, and a 1K flyer since 2005. I relocated from the Washington DC are to Sacramento, CA in 2008. At the time of my move, I was worried about maintaining my status level, being that my flight options on UA from Sacramento are limited at best. I was, however, very determined to maintain my status, despite UA's schedule deficiencies at SMF. Being that the majority of my flying is exclusively domestic, I look to the fact that for 2 years I've been able to maintain my 1K status as a testament to my UA loyalty. My flights are usually short distances, in to smaller airports. As such, instead of making 1K on mileage, I've been able to maintain my status for the last 2 years through segments. There have been many other options to my destinations served by both Alaska Airlines and Southwest, many times for less money...yet I "stayed United."
However, on the 16th of November 2011, you announced a fundamental change to your program. Now, instead of 100 segments, for me to maintain the same status that I enjoyed over the last 5 years, I am being asked to fly an additional 20%, or 120 segments. You're asking not your lower level flyers, but instead your "top tier" elites to give "more?" Why are you singling out your very best and most loyal customers for this new rule? I suppose it's nothing personal, eh...just business.
I have heard grumblings that your new 75,000 mile/90 segment tier was just "too close" to the current 100,000/100 segment level. And? Wouldn't it give those hitting 90 segments all the more incentive to fly an additional 10 segments to make 1K? Wouldn't that be additional money to UA's bottom line?
My bottom line is this: If I am being asked to contribute an additional 20 segments next year, I will not bother to continue going out of my way to fly on United. What's most convenient and least expensive will become my mantra for 2011. Loyalty doesn't seem to mean as much at United as I once thought it did.
United can look forward to not seeing my face or money on 100 + flights next year. It's nothing personal United...it's just business.

ExCrew
MP 1K 0305XXXXXXX

Not exactly nothing. Taking into account that the changes wont happen until 2012 will definitely change my 2011/2012 travel bookings.

I'm currently at 860k BIS UA lifetime miles and 500k AA lifetimes miles. A preference for UA over AA is mainly due 100% crediting of miles on all fares during my early business travel years (AA challenge only applied to more expensive fares when I asked to do it many years ago).

Post UA/CO merger and with the recent announcement to add in an additional level at 75,000 for UDU listings, I'm no longer interested in aiming for MM/lifetime PE status. For me a major benefit of being further up on the UDU queue just got taken away so PE lifetime is of little value to me from 2012 onwards. Airlines need to do whatever it takes to stay profitable so I don't harbor ill-feelings about the devaluation.

E+ for us is "nice to have" but not a "must" so if I ever drop to no UA status we won't be paying for E+. Most of our SFO-Canada-SFO trips are personal (to attend various family events) so without the old PE lifetime or 1K UDU chances (once my business travel slows) we will switch to Air Canada for those trips (usually the same routes price out about the same). We think Air Canada in Y is more comfortable than UA E- plus Air Canada has had 110v power ports in Y on the few flights we've taken to keep the DVD player going for Lainys Jnr.

Starting in 2011, I'm considering only booking SFO-JFK-SFO trips on UA if they have confirmable NC space at time of booking. If not it may make sense to take my chances with AA's UDU system and put those miles towards EXP qualification for 2012. Doing the AA challenge will help make it less painful. The bonus + for switching to AA would be that I would not need to do 100k BIS miles as I heard that credit card spending (on AA citicard) would count towards EXP. For me (with the ability to easily fly out of SFO or SJC) it's time to think about switching to the dAAkside (debated on another FT thread).

Again as other FT posts have pointed out, it's not just losing CR1s that pushed me to AA, it's a combination of past changes plus the recent devaluation of the benefits that apply to my own travel situation that tipped the scales in AA's favour. Of course it can easily tip back to UA if AA changes their program so we shall see.....

I guess my attempt at sarcasm failed - my post directed to the OP's not reading the entire thread and "correcting" us that the changes were in fact a good thing when in fact the changes to the changes were a good thing - well, for 2011 at least.

I guess with almost 900 posts on this thread (and as you pointed out almost 50,000 views) it's a topic that many FTers (like myself) are not able to joke about especially when those of us who have painfully gone out of our way to fly SFO-xxx-yyy-zzz-yyy-xxx-SFO for 1K re qualifications feel like we're getting shafted for our loyalty. Bottomline is that depending on your travel, UA loyalty means nada for some of us.

I suppose the one difference is still on p.s. flights. Since UDU don't apply to these, CR1 are still useful even for upgrades at the gate.

Again my point was missed. I agree with you 100%, I fired off a email to 1kvoice within minutes of receiving the original email and while it does not affect me I also commented on the 100-to-120 increase for EQS qualifiers - it is certainly a slap in the face.

My point to the OP (in a sarcastic way) was that he missed the unfolding of what ORIGINALLY happened with the CR1s and his comment was that we misunderstood what was happening and that the change is a good one.

Anyway, this has gone OT, 'nuff said.

Gee, UA threw us a bone, an we're lapping it up like good little pets. :rolleyes:

Seems to me a few of us saw this coming, including, well, yea, me. I for one don't like being played, including that "leaked" news from the super-secret private forum. UA still refuses to treat customers with any level of respect.

Just wanted to belatedly chime in and thank UA for listening to us and changing things for 2011. Much appreciated (for now!).

I still feel screwed
 

I make 1K on segments so the addition of 20 more segments really hits, but what keeps me there is the E+ I am 6ft 4 so unless AA starts to remove seats again I really feel stuck with UA. I am miserable on a AC US or other *A flight. E+ really makes a difference.

I can not tell you how many times I would be talking to a Pilot or GA or FA and tell them I make 1K on segments and I would get a "You poor .........."

Others have express real sincerity at some one that does that many flight....sad UA management never does.

Lose E+ and I am gone but stuck for now....

Exactly!
 

lainy - One of the more rational posts / responses so far! If UA has changed their incentives in such a way that they no longer have as much value as UA's competitors' incentives, then by all means switch to a new airline!

Airlines are going to behave in a way that #1) Satisfies their sharholders. When making their loyal elites mad causes potential shareholder dissatisfaction (through reduced revenue / profit), then UA will adjust their behaviour as they did in this case. Pleasing their elites was the secondary goal though. The real issue here was they saw that a proposed policy change could affect their bottom line by causing elites to seriously consider their alternatives. At the end of the day, UA decided that it was not worth the risk and changed the policy.

For many people in this thread and others, who have provided detailed descriptions of their flying patterns, I can not help but think that they would be better off on another airline! Or at least taking an open minded look at the alternatives. 1K is great and all (or so I have heard, I have not felt it yet), but other airlines out there are offering incentives that their loyal elites appreciate too!

As I have stated elsewhere, I am hedging my bets. I have 1K for 2011, but plan to only fly 75,001 miles (not 90 segments! :))on UA in 2011. The new 0P level looks pretty good to me as it has all of the benefits I really value.

I'm signing up for the AA Platinum Challenge and by Feb or March of 2011 I'll have Plat AA status too.

The remainder of 2011 will be a trial period for me to determine which company best serves my flying needs and wants. In spite of giving AA a try in '11, I still think I'll end up back on UA for 2012 (SFO is just a UA city...). But you never know - and if I never give AA a try I won't know. goldengate tells me I'll like AA and be able to easily get wherever I wish to go. We'll see about that.

See you around SFO sometime (I rarely travel via SJC) - I'll be the guy in the UA 1K line or the AA Plat line! :)