OOPS! I forgot a word. My mistake - I was typing to fast...must have just went over my error free rate of 10 words per minute. Meant to say, "not following suit".

So today I had the choice to fly PHL-BOS on either UAL (codeshare) or SWA. In the past, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I am a 1K by segments this year---will end up with 109 total. When I looked at the choices, the SWA ticket was 80 bucks cheaper and changeable. The UAL ticket on USAir didn't recognize my 1k status, no priority seat selection and was more expensive with a change fee.

I can't see trying to do 20+ more segments this year and paying for more expensive and restrictive tickets. I need to do 18 roundtrips on SWA to get their priority boarding--that will be good enough for me.

It's been a while since there was a $700 fare to Australia from the east coast or DEQMs to make it possible to earn 1K for $2500-$3000. And most high-yield 1Ks forget it is their companies footing the bill, not to mention they actually fly a lot less than 100K BIS given either full Y or COS bonuses for C and F fares. For those low-yield 1Ks you so disdain, not only did they earn that status the hard way, in UA's coach cabin (and single screen 744s at the to Australia), they paid for it in after-tax personal dollars! And not all of them ran scams to collect those vouchers you refer to.

+100

I made 1K this year, and unlike many, I do not get my tickets payed for by my company. The money comes 99% from me. On the rare chance that I have a business trip, which has only been one time this year, then that single ticket will be payed for. I flew to SYD and back in Y twice this year, paying $700 - $850 for the tickets. While I have received a good amount of vouchers for legitimate issues, I have payed around $7500 for 1K..

Don't feel bad! When I get dropped back to 1K, I will have paid more than 5 times that on my way to 200 segments and the worst summer of flying I can remember which I dubbed "Summer of 2010 - RJ Hell"!!

why do these UA people say they are alligning the programs. that is total nonsense. Continental's top elite is 90 segments and 75EQM so how could they be alligning the programs?

I am a road warrior and will be royally screwed by this bs.

The reason I wanted to scream when i heard about the merger. what will be gone next? E+....guaranteed. then the dAArkside.

I don't care if you spent $3000 or $300,000 - I was simply responding to chavada's earlier question and pointing to the relevant thread on the topic.

My "disdain" for low-yield 1Ks is only in comparison to the relatively high-yield EQS qualifiers (the ones who really earn it the hard way!) that got screwed with the 120 segment increase.

Makes a lot of sense. I just don't want to get the following email: "We made a mistake. You've spoken and we've listened. The requirements for our 1K elite fliers will now be 120 EQS or 120,000 EQM. Thanks for flying United."

The bolding is obviously mine.

DL gives tippy top elite status at 140 segments. I know this to be true, because I did it this year. Did it suck? Just a lot. But I've been true to myself and avoided UA completely, directing my spend and my flying instead to DL, US, LH, BA, SA, and SW (granted SA and SW are hardly in competition with UA...). This has meant taking some trips with a connection where UA flew a nonstop, but I'm okay with that. Oh. Ew. Just remembered that I do have a round-trip to Chicago over Christmas on UA.

What makes me sad for the UA loyalists (and the ones who are trying to stay loyal) is that UA is creating these 'enhancements' in a bouyant economic climate for the airlines. The carriers are posting record profits, but then instead of actually enhancing anything, really, they're sucking the benefits away - and many of these benefits are of a marginal cost, literally, to the airlines. Not sure I'll ever understand it, but then again here I am in a hotel room, a mere salaryman.

For those who do make the change to a different carrier due to the diminution of the UA upper tier benefits, do let us know how it turns out. As others have posted, if you switch to another carrier and/or alliance, you'll find some new perks (for me, DL's fares can be lower; upgrades happen often for me) and some new annoyances (Hello, SkyMiles? It's me, TravelinWilly. Just wanted to tell ya' you suck. Out loud), but no surprises there. I look forward to the time that UA creates a compelling reason (and dare I use the overused "value proposition?") that makes me (or all of us) want to come back to them. I keep trying to like UA, but they keep telling me that they don't want me to. So I'll obey them until they tell me otherwise.

I grew up on UA, and I always rooted for them. Now, sadly, even with a new CEO, they still keep getting it wrong.

The good news is that they've got a fresh, engaging, and compelling new/used logo and font. So that's great.

I hear you TravelinWilly! I'm finding it harder and harder to root for the hometown hero. My wallet is tugging towards Texas, AA and Southwest.

Wanna be melodramatic? Let's be...

UA AND CO have been presented with a golden opportunity to create a truly great airline, and it seems they just might squander it by forgetting that it is the customer that made them successful and it is the customer, ultimately, that will determine whether they succeed or fail. CO was a "quality brand" on paper, while UA was showing that it could restructure and become a profitable airline. Having routes that complement each other almost seamlessly, the combined airline can be truly revolutionary in how it moves its passengers - the bottom line of its business - effortlessly across the globe. However, as happens too often, the CEOs won't be satisfied to have a good product. They will get greedy and believe that they can do better, and will start "experimenting" with new "enhancements" that will generate even more "revenue". This usually means that things that have worked in the past are going to be tinkered with for no reason other than there now is an opportunity to tinker. Jeff and CO (no pun intended) have a new canvas and lots of paint and brushes; they are going to do their best artistic impression and expression.

To make a long story short, here are indications that the merged company is going to fail: drastic changes in the FF program that ignore the members wishes (the 120 EQS requirement is such a change; and resolving this unpopular change by bumping the EQM requirement to 120K would be a shameless thumbing of their nose at you!). The next changes to watch for would be "enhancement and experimentation" with tried and true money makers or popular features... "to generate more revenue". Yes, you guessed it: If the merged UA can be deaf to the complaints about the increase in 1K EQS requirement, you'd better believe that the "experimentation with and enhancement" of E+ cannot be too far behind. When that happens, you'd better sign that petition to bring Tilton back because this ain't gonna be anywhere close to the UA that you have come to know and cherish.

UNITED PR, are you reading this?

why in the world are we bashing UA for changes that have not even been hinted at???
Someone who only reads the latest post is going to get worked up for no reason at all.

I am the last person to say that the new UA doesn't suck, but I think your predictions MAY be short-sighted. We don't know where the economy will go, what other airlines will follow suit, what direction the overall forces of paying pax will go, etc. It may indeed be as bad as you say, maybe even worse if MP is a major driver of success. But it could also go the other way.

Based on the history of airline "success," this new plan will likely fail; but that may be more related to the fickleness of the industry rather than the new plan.

That said, we should continue to kick up a storm, make a ruckus, stir the pot, and generally whine like heck. It can't hurt...

My post was offered in the spirit of the one it had responded to:
And I hope that readers will have the presence of mind to distinguish a hypothetical from something that's actually transpired. Far from bashing UA, what I wrote can be seen as a "preemptive strike" aimed at eliciting a course away from "enhancements" such as increased EQS for 1K qualification, or tinkering with E+ as a potential way to increase revenue...

I think the writing will start to appear on the wall for 1K qualification if they ever rename it.