Not selfless, but rather selfish, because you're accepting the CR1 decrease based upon only your position and thereby advocating everyone else should also lose the CR1s, upgrades they might well use completely.

I cannot change my circumstances to match those of every dissatisfied MP member out there. My circumstances are what they are either through choices that I have made or through sheer luck but I will not accept the view that I have been selfish when I do not feel that way at all. All I said was that my pattern of traveling did not depend on CR1s so, therefore, I am not too unhappy for not getting up to the max of 8. I will be getting 4 CR1s every year I make 1K and that is good enough for me. I am not at all unhappy with the new rule. How does this translate to selfishness is beyond me...

Thank you for the tip and for the link, which I will try to put to use right away and see what happens. I have taken MRs so that I ca stock up on SWUs; to be able to extend their shelf life would be the next best thing...

I think, or maybe hope, that as you spend more time in this community you will understand that a decrease in benefits, which might not impact you personally but does negatively impact your ' FT neighbor', should always be questioned and attempts made to reverse reductions in benefits. I understand that you may not be too unhappy with the planned 2012 CR-1 reductions, but as others are clearly unhappy you could support them, or not.

I think that this is a bit of social philosophy that should transcend this or any other forum. Fight for the common good. The question is what is the "common good" if individual circumstances are so different within the community? Merging the CO and UA FF programs had to affect the individual programs in some way. My understanding was that CO's PEs were being awarded 4 SWUs at 75k EQM. Now, that has been done away with. The only elites getting any SWUs at all are 1Ks. So, what to do about the PEs? One can weave a very complex canvas of such isolated changes that members are not happy with. Does one then reject all change, or does one look at each item and determine its overall impact on the community as a whole? The impact of the new CR1 rule on the community is mixed but a net positive, IME... Those who can afford them can get as many as they wish; those who need just a few can earn them although at a slightly higher cost; and now CR1s are being extended to 1Ps, which is a net plus for those members of this community. I'll be happy to support your petition for a change back to old rule, and I'll do better job using them than to let them expire...

Any reduction in benefits is obviously not for the "common good".

If you want to add benefits for other members, CR-1's at 75k or unlimited earning of CR-1's, then I would support that whole-heartedly.

You seem very familiar with the math and thought process, that I expect must have been done inside UA/MP/CO, to be able to make a statement like, "The impact of the new CR1 rule on the community is mixed but a net positive, IME." But maybe this is just your speculation?

Honestly, I would love for United to keep its UDU ways. I'm getting ill from reading about CO shenanigans and watching the CO apologists (you know who you are) try and make reason of CO's practices. CO will sell an upgrade on IAH-SAN for $69 to a non-elite when there is an EUA list or will let a silver upgrading with miles trump a Platinum on the list. It's totally ridiculous. Ugh better enjoy UA while you can.

New Enhancement?
 

1K Mileage Plus brought me to ICC three times this evening, and the supervisor was also ICC.... wth?

I believe your understand was wrong. CO hands out 4 SWUs for Plat's that reach 100k EQM.

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...wupgrades.aspx

While frequent flyer socialism is a nice concept, and some actually practice it, what is good for the group is not always good for the individual. I believe the phrase "1k lite" is an example. 1K's that "earned it the hard way" were peeved that some were given the same status by taking a late developing short cut to their same status, thus having new competition for the same finite perks. Few got to the top of the food chain by thinking of "the rest of you", not Rockerfeller, not Vanderbilt, not Gates, not Buffett, certainly not Tilton. It's only in their later years, after they were done being "top dog" that they thought about the common man. How many posts have we seen where FT members complained that the GA didn't enforce the boarding order and the lesser man was permitted to board with the FT elite, and sometimes, even ahead of them?

One can't fault someone for being a capitalist in a capitalistic society. As long as benefits can be scarce, many people will behave like their instincts, being territorial, protective, and fighting to do what benefits themselves best. All those that claim loyalty to UA and are saying they are leaving...are they doing it to give back to the other guy, or to get what they think is best for them?

FT as an info sharing site is very socialist, but individual posters in their actual behavior are not as self-sacraficing as their theoretical rants/ discussions. There are many exceptions to this, but as a whole people's individual actions are geared to toward their own best interests, and after that, the charity starts. Many offer expiring SWU's for very little, but few offer fresh ones they may use to others for the same "karmic" feedback.

You had a really good thing going until the very end. I don't think people give away/sell cheap soon-to-expire SWUs believing they're doing something for the common good. Rather, they're doing so because they believe them to be worthless to themselves at that point (no itins within the remaining life of the SWU, so there's no expense in being "nice" to someone...) and/or believe they're "sticking it to the man" because by gum they were meant to be used and they will be used! Actually, that last part is a bit of a stretch, but I seriously doubt that people here believe they're doing something good for humanity, at their own expense, when giving away soon-to-expire SWUs. Unless someone is claiming the expiring SWU to be some grand gesture on their part, it's nothing more than helping it find a home where it has more value, like sorting out your recycling from the rest of the trash.

Also, I think we need to understand the distinction between respect, socialism and capitalism. Out of respect for others and for the rules, I wouldn't do something that might cheat someone else out of an upgrade they were more qualified to get. I believe there are many others here that feel the same way, while there may be an equally-large number that feel, if you're smarter at gaming the system than the other guy, you deserve to win and he deserves to lose. Is that really capitalism? Is the former socialism? I'd suggest no for both questions.

And this is why I respect you, while the threads on how to give YOUR (bolded to emphasize the fact that many feel it is owned by them) UDU away to someone, show that even though the system says it goes, if unused by the person awarded to to the next person on the list, that some feel they don't care and that the established rules don't apply.

I tolerate just about every opinion and person, I respect most, and I agree with some. You have shown yourself to be respectful of others and the rules, not greedy or manipulative. So when you post (as well as other open minded posters that can see more than just their own points of view,) I read a little more closely than some posters who only rant "UA is done, stick a fork in it!" Credibility gets respect.

As far as "sticking it to the man" the only "man" they would be sticking it to is a non-executive employee that may get the spoilage seat after all else. I doubt "the man" (and I use that term all the time myself) could care less if the cert expires unused, or is used by the named person, or is sponsored. It isn't like their models show that SWU displaced paid revenue premium cabin seats.

Two requests re these new developments (besides CR-1s):

1) Let 1Ks at least elect/choose to have their 6 SWUs deposit in Jan, as had.

2) Award MillionMilers 75K/1P+ status, as this is in line what was promised & offered originally.

Both are fair & balanced and can be offered/reinstated with minimal effort on UAs part, but might mean a lot to many loyal UA customers.

Part 2 was never promised nor offered as having 1P+ benefits. The CR1 options wasn't presented before, and ranking ahead of others who have hit the 75k mark wasn't presented before (although there are many who believe that MM status 1P somehow trumps a current 1P, I have seen no evidence to suggest that it does...it may, but I haven't seen any documentation that I can recall stating such, nor based on anecdotal experience either.) AFAIK a 1P on a B fare trumps a million miler 1P on a V fare. This change will have a 1P+ on any fare trumping a 1P on even the highest fare.

I see no fundamental error in your part 1, nor any reason other than programming why it couldn't be offered.

As a 1K for 10 consecutive years who has weathered the ups and downs of the program, its a shame to see some of the recent program changes over the past 12 months. In the case of two significant changes in particular, management appeared to be somewhat out of touch with the priorities of some of the very most frequent customers -- and in each case had to backpedal a bit in the face of a very adverse reaction from such passengers:

1) After announcing the replacement of 500 mile upgrades with UDU about this time last year, CR1's were originally to be eliminated. In addition, the PS transcontinental flights were excluded from the UDU system upon its implementation. Only after an extremely adverse reaction from some of UA's most frequent customers -- particularly those who frequently use the PS service for which CR1's became the only way to upgrade (without using miles) -- management decided to restore the CR1 program. Management appeared to have badly miscalculated the value of the CR1 instruments to many of its best customers.

2) In its latest attempt to either eliminate or severely dilute (by a ratio of 7.5 to 1) the CR1 program, management again apparently miscalculated the reaction of its frequent customers by not even giving them a full year's notice of the proposed dilution. After an outpouring of complaints, management quickly decided to extend the existing CR1 earning framework for one additional year. This temporary "fix" -- while the right thing to do -- is really only a band aid as the same issues will arise next year when 1K passengers are again facing the same dramatic dilution of their ability to earn CR1's.

Both episodes are troubling in that management seems to be out of touch with what is important and most valuable to the airline's most frequent and valuable customers. Management should have a much better sense of what keeps this passenger group loyal to UA. The two best means to achieve such understanding is through (i) contact with and substantive feedback from the passengers themselves and (ii) input from the front line emplyees -- both in 1K reservations, the 1K mileage plus service center and at the airports. These employees -- particularly at the supervisor and service director levels have the best understanding of what is most important to the most loyal passengers. They live with and experience the frustrations of these passengers on a daily basis, yet appear not to be regularly consulted by senior management. Management could learn a lot from these valuable front line employees.

Finally, with some of the most recent modifications to the program, management is actually working against its own economic interest in certain respects. For example, the conversion to UDU (from the old 500 mile upgrade system) actually deprives the airline of additional revenue on some routes in particular. For customers like myself who live on one of the coasts and often travel on transcontinentals, we were happy to pay for upgrades (beyond the ones we earned under the old system) for longer flights. By switching to the UDU system, management excluded certain flights like the PS transcontinentals -- most likely because they did not want to give away the enhanced business class seats for free. PS business class is a quality product and I don't blame management for this decision. Rather, I blame them for how it was applied: They easily could have included the PS flights in the current upgrade system but charged a fee (roughly equivalent to the prior cost of upgrading with 500 mile upgrades), prioritized by status just as the UDU system is prioritized. This would have served the dual purposes of (i) allowing passengers who value the PS business class product to upgrade on PS flights without having to use miles (or CR1's which management seems to be focused on eliminating) and (ii) bringing in material additional revenue to the airline from the passengers who value such upgrades and are willing to pay $250 to $300 each way for the ability to travel in comfort on these flights on a space available basis. Management's apparent inability to understand the priorities of the high frequency customer have resulted in passengers' frustration with the difficulty of upgrading the PS flights and the loss of significant revenue by the airline on these routes.

As the United/Continental merger evolves, its time for management to reach out to front line employees and very frequent customers for their input -- before the airline makes any further embarrasing and frustrating mistakes. There is still time to take these perspectives into account in trying to merge the programs without alienating some of the combined airline's most valuable customer base.

Aren't you in a union? :D

I believe Gates wrote a book where he talked about his wealth, and noted that when he was much older he planned to give it away to charity. I believe Buffet responded that he should give some away sooner. I believe Gates did just that, as Buffet was doing. The wealthy by and large give a lot away. CC has daily examples of elites sharing with less fortunate FTers.