|
Originally Posted by adambadam
(Post 15221889)
I just want to point out one thing that has been bothering me. A lot of people are saying that any of the caps whether it be 25/50/100 EQM or 30/60/120 EQS are all rather arbitrary numbers to cut off when recognizing your loyalty, and that the switch to 120 EQS was to align with the 30/60 levels established at the inferior ranks. The only problem I have with that is that to me the only number out of all of the numbers that ever totally made sense was 100 EQS. That was the number for all the travelers out there that 50 weeks of the year, without fail, they do one r/t. That takes some dedication and some persistence. It also means that pretty much 100% of their flying is on UA. At the lower levels I think it is more fair to justify 30/60 as it helps UA retain fliers though one you pass 100 EQS it just seems hard to speculate that a flier is going to jump ship very easily. It is a shame that UA is making it hard for that category of traveler to qualify for 1K.
And just for example, who is more loyal in the following scenario, you decide:
Who is more "loyal"? Not the one who gets his goodies and then runs to someone else. That by no means fits any definition of loyal. The 2nd guy shows his intent, beyond the qualifying miles, of flying on AA as well to use those. Again, "self serving" and "loyal" are not on the same side of the spectrum, but more opposites. If by "loyal" you mean "profitable", then without knowing cost to UA and cost to passenger, as well as displaced revenue of others that may have booked had someone not flown, we can never tell. We need to separate the term loyal from the term profitable, or the term self serving. They each have unique meanings, but what should an airline encourage more, loyalty, or profitability? I say profitability. The Saudi prince that buys 1 F ticket from BJS to ORD may not end up with any status, but he is most likely more profitable than most of UA's "elite" flyers, and more than many "loyal". |
Originally Posted by SunLover
(Post 15219957)
Would you like some cheese to go with that whine... :D No wonder there is so much hubris amongst the tulip crowd; it must be the DEQM promos that make so many think they are king of the world ala Leonardo DeCaprio in Titanic... :rolleyes: If 33% of a UA 1K's flight miles were taken during a DEQM promo, their butt in seat miles were the same as a CO Plat.
SunLover |
Originally Posted by adambadam
(Post 15221889)
The only problem I have with that is that to me the only number out of all of the numbers that ever totally made sense was 100 EQS. That was the number for all the travelers out there that 50 weeks of the year, without fail, they do one r/t. That takes some dedication and some persistence.[/LIST]
Originally Posted by adambadam
(Post 15221889)
And just for example, who is more loyal in the following scenario, you decide:
|
Originally Posted by Beerman92
(Post 15222861)
Good point and I think someone who flies one RT a week on the same airline for a year deserves top flying tier on that airline
You asked us to decide and I decide that the person who flies either pattern consistently is loyal. One roundtrip a week on a midcon would get him 1k status on miles. 1 roundtrip a week, shorter haul, taking 3-4 weeks off for vacation, would not on segments or miles. Either of them could be paying $30k to UA, or 10k to UA. Both will get their bag fees waived, free E+ UDU if they can clear, but do they both "deserve" SWUs, CR1's access to NY space? To some they do, to some they don't. The system doesn't reward people based on what they deserve. That would be far too labor intensive given the current environment, and those that felt they deserved but didn't get, well, they may go to a program that rewards frequency over revenue. The system isn't equitable, but it is fair. The program rewards for the current travel are known, and the value proposition is there for each to make. A merit based system for profitable behavior with proportional rewards is too uncompetitive. It takes "the masses" as well as the big hitters in order to pay the bills, but perks do dilute revenue. While airlines create new revenue streams, those that would contribute the most to them are exempt at even a relatively low level of frequency. I have no idea the number of "elites" but how many industries give perks like the airlines do to hundreds of thousands of individuals? I would say only the travel industry, and maybe the credit card industry, with the possibility of the auto industry when you consider some of their "repeat customer" incentives. |
Originally Posted by fastair
(Post 15222002)
Who is more "loyal"? Not the one who gets his goodies and then runs to someone else. That by no means fits any definition of loyal. The 2nd guy shows his intent, beyond the qualifying miles, of flying on AA as well to use those. Again, "self serving" and "loyal" are not on the same side of the spectrum, but more opposites.
When it comes to airlines, yes we get our goodies and move along. Very very few people who travel frequently will be blindly loyal to an airline. It's just too difficult/tiring to be a frequent traveler for work purposes to not care about how you are treated. If you are onn the road 120 nights a year, a third of the year airports and airplanes become your office. Hotels become your home. So basically what I am loyal to is my comfort and sanity when on the road. I won't put any particular brand above that. It's not loyalty, just like you say. It's a business transaction, period. Loyalty is (should be?) more blind. A business transaction requires evaluating a value proposition. Seems like people toss around loyal to this and that when maybe really they mean they prefer or currently favor brand X? |
Originally Posted by adambadam
(Post 15221889)
And just for example, who is more loyal in the following scenario, you decide:
|
Originally Posted by MMProfessor
(Post 15225729)
My calculator says you only need 28 rt SFO-ORD for 100K BIS miles.
|
Originally Posted by MMProfessor
(Post 15188490)
After reading the whole thread, I wrote to 1KVoice and am repeating my letter below. Instead of complaining, I think concrete action items are more effective, especially if "from a business perspective" is included in the wording. My 2 cents.
************************************************* Dear 1K Voice: I want to voice my strongest objections to some of the proposed changes in the mileage plus program. I have been a loyal United customer since 1984 and have continuously achieve 1K status for the past many years, accumulating more than 2.6 million United lifetime miles. 1. There is a devaluation of my status - Even though I will still be a 100,000+ mile flyer in the foreseeable future, my LIFETIME PREMIER EXECUTIVE status has apparently been DEMOTED because a new tier at 75,000 miles has been created. I understand you have to merge with the Continental program, where 75,000 is their second highest status level. It is however not fair to have my MM benefit reduced. *** I respectfully request that my MM LIFETIME status be put at the equivalent of the proposed 75,000 level. Indeed, even if you stay with the 50,000-flyer LIFETIME status for 1-million mile flyers, I should get SOMETHING for flying 2+ million miles and be awarded LIFETIME status of a 75,000-flyer, in view of the fact that 3-million mile flyers get LIFETIME 1K status. From a business perspective, you will have extra incentive for people to achieve 2 million miles.*** 2. There is a decrease in CR1 awards - For people with 1K status going into a given year, they will not get any CR1 until 75K miles and then only 2 at that time. That means for a traveler with a schedule evenly spread over the year, there will not be additional CR1 until the THIRD quarter. Furthermore, at 100,000 total miles, there will only be 4 CR1 as compared to the current 8 CR1. *** I respectfully request that for those ALREADY QUALIFIED as 1K from the previous year, they start receiving 2 CR1 EVERY 25K miles, with no maximum. For those who have not yet qualified as 1K from the previous year, they will start receiving 2 CR1at 75K miles and 2 more every 25K miles. From a business perspective, people who fly more than 100K miles per year will still have your intended (new) incentive of 2 additional CR1 every 25K miles. There will also be the additional threshold of 75K miles to encourage loyalty.*** 3. There is a devaluation of SWU - If 6 are deposited immediately after one achieves 1K status, they will expire much earlier than now. I understand there is advantage for some to get the SWU early. *** I respectfully request that the 6 deposited for achieving 1K status have expiration dates extended through JANUARY of the following year. This will be similar to your present policy of allowing requests for early deposits of SWU, but without the penalty of early expiration. This also parallels the award of status levels through January of the following year. From a business perspective, since these are capacity controlled, they should not have a negative effect on your revenues. On the contrary, SWU encourages people to buy W and higher fares to increase your bottom line.*** 4. I just made my 175,000-mile level Elite Choice award (one day before your announcement of changes) to gift the Premier Executive status to my wife, thinking it will be just ONE level below 1K. Now, it seems the 1P is TWO levels below 1K. This is a devaluation of the award and constitutes FALSE ADVERTISING. *** I respectfully request that those Elite Choice awardees for 2011 be given the 75,000-mile status.*** I recognize that you have reasons for proposing each of those changes. However, the above details are unanticipated consequences that should be corrected. I believe almost every elite member of Mileage Plus have the same concerns and will agree to the above suggested modifications of the proposed program. Sincerely, MMProfessor ********************************************* |
Replace current system with weighted spend
Originally Posted by bucktown5
(Post 15226538)
Spot on!! Here, here! This is not only reasonable and rationale, but well put. Please keep us posted on any responses.
It would certainly make it a lot more difficult to plan, but in terms of worth to United, it would be a lot more transparent. |
Originally Posted by MMProfessor
(Post 15225729)
My calculator says you only need 28 rt SFO-ORD for 100K BIS miles.
|
With all this talk of being "demoted" fromMM status 1P, it makes me wonder. WHn you are the VP of a division, and then they create an exec VP, yet you keep all of your roles and benefits, are you really being demoted? Now the example isn't completely fair, as some of the benefits have been changed at 1P, which, is clearly within the terms of the program, you know this, but choose not to present this fact, only one charged side. Lifetime status isn't really lifetime status when the program in it's basic rules says it can be changed at any time, and the courts have upheld such a clause (the thread on the dude last week who sued to get his expired miles back, lost, then appealed and lost.) If there are legit things you have lost, that were advertised as being lifetime (and I believe there are,) then concentrate on those, vs some claim to rights to being #2, when you are now #3.
I would concentrate on your benefits lost, then using the word "demoted" as they didn't demote you, they just made a higher level. I bought the BEST phone out there a few years ago. It is no longer the best as better phones have come out. That in itself didn't demote my phone, only created a higher level phone. Use terms that are more appropriate, concentrate on the facts, not an emotive term that holds little truth. People that read complaints for a living respect that. I know in my role as a CSR, I hear complaints all the time. I want to know the facts so I can evaluate the complaint, not a loaded statment with words that don't fit the situation. Charged words work good on a jury of peers (FT) but not so well on a judge. Target your audience. Those phrases go over well on FT, but not as well to someone who knows the facts and is neutral. The content is good, but the delivery is poor. |
The solution to integrating the two programs would be best to leave Mileage Plus and its benefits as they are, and then grant CO 75K flyers 2 CR1s when they reach the 75K level. Devaluing 1Ks CR1 earning ability in 2012 is not customer friendly.
|
Glencoe guy..sounds like you and I are in the same situation. Been a 1k for more years than I care to admit, and all but 2 years have been a result of 100+ segments.
|
Originally Posted by Mike Jacoubowsky
(Post 15226792)
All this rationalization and concern makes me wonder if maybe it should just be entirely revenue-based, nothing else. Maybe a secret formula based upon weighted fares for each flight (what you paid vs the average for that flight), or perhaps not secret at all, just weigh each fare based upon fare class.
It would certainly make it a lot more difficult to plan, but in terms of worth to United, it would be a lot more transparent. Personally I think the evolution of FFPs from mileage-based to revenue-based is inevitable. Taking the GS model and retrofitting it downward is the most logical method. |
Originally Posted by fastair
(Post 15227069)
... WHn you are the VP of a division, and then they create an exec VP, yet you keep all of your roles and benefits, are you really being demoted? ....
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:22 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.