So when UA, on several occassions has been asked a direct question whether or not they will keep E+, and they say they are still considering the issue, you don't think they mean that? What kind of hint were you looking for? Perhaps the future announcement by UnitedPR...oh, like the one that started this thread?

Open your eyes - the writing is on the wall. I'm shocked you were knocking the poster who proposed what was next. He wasn't exactly pulling that out of thin air. I would call him psychic either.

I hope the new company lays out the full road map for the new FF program early next year rather than dribble it out in pieces as they've hinted they may do. Let us have it all upfront & early on so we can make a decision to stick with it or not. If the new program is indeed "enhanced" they shouldn't be afraid to do this.

To add to the last post. I want to make it very clear to United. They will be a lower quality/value airline than their competitors if they lose E+, for me. At the moment, I'd say they are on par at best. Their SWUs are practically worthless, while AA offers a superior instrument and more of them. Not to mention the pure fact that they have more first class seats )approx. twice as many), so I could almost careless about E+, if my alternative is a first class seat. On United, you are lucky to upgrade into the very few seats they have, even as a 1K.

Unfortunately, I suspect that's the one thing they will do in a smart, business like way. They will wait until you have put in a significant amount of miles (i.e. you are vested for another year) before droping the bad news on you. I think we all fear that and for some of us, it's going to cause us to jump ship now because there is a strong appearance that important decision criteria, such as E+ will be eliminated.

If we can get AA to match our elite levels (1K to whatever their top level is), I will switch. I have not booked any flights for 2011 yet. I'm just not sure where I will place my miles. At the moment, I think I can hit 50,000 by April. I know that's not a lot to most of you, but to me, it's another year of top status...or close to it. :rolleyes:

Silver Fox: my thoughts exactly.

UA1K4EVER: perhaps it would have paid to choose a handle
you could live with (said the retired violinist).

Me, I'm on the fence, but I will reserve the right to agitate
to encourage falling as comfortably as possible on one side
or the other.

If you have not heard me threaten to jump ship to the dAArk side that is because for my pattern of traveling (TPAC/TATL/Intl/East-West) there is no substitute to UA, and with the merger it would be even tougher to beat when more South/Latin America routes are added. Jumping ship will be my very last act, which is why I am agitating now to try to stir the merged company from some moves that might prove disastrous. As for the handle, it is still safe...for now...;)

All of us: Please agitate, please stir. The loss of E+ would be truly tragic. <begin sarcasm>Too many laptops have been smashed. Of course, they could mitigate laptop crush by simply preventing the seats from reclining. Even better, they could charge for each seat to recline (no cash, only UAL Visa accepted). Even better than that, they could award recline/no recline privileges to the highest bidder: the pax that want to recline vs the pax behind them that do not want to be reclined into. I see $$$ here, Mr. Smisek. <end sarcasm>
I agree, UA1K4EVER (and others): Let's get this done!

For all those planning to write to 1KVoice in support/protest, might I suggest you preempt their canned reply, as to why they are increasing segment qualification to 120 segments, by stating that if they must add this additional 75K and 90 segment level to the UACO FF progam, they do so by supporting it with additional upgrade priority and two CR1s, but NOT by penalizing loyal segment qualifiers.

As I have posted ealier in another thread, my many years of qualifying for 1K by segments have been funded almost exclusively out-of-pocket. I am willing to continue to do so, if 100 segments is maintained, even though UA's recent screwing with their routing rules has rather dramatically increased the cost of multi-segment fares, and (cost-wise) taken away many of the favorable routings I used to book.

If UACO remains steadfast on increasing the segment requirement to 120, while continuing to announce/impliment additional FF program and operational "enhancements", they will in all likelihood lose me as a paying customer. That seat(s) I usually pay for can remain vacant...it's a rare flight I have flown on for quite some time that has been fully booked. I will then switch to start chipping away at the substantial stash of award miles I've accumulated, which is sufficient for my wife and me to exclusively enjoy "free" domestic and international travel for many years to come.

What would help a TON would be data. What is the % of flights that go out with more than 1-2 seats empty (ColoBill's experience has not been the case for me on the 65+ flights I have taken this year)? What is the % of flyers that will do what ColoBill will do (and that have the miles banked to do so)? How closely do FTers approximate the mean of the majority of UA flyers? If all of your threats are so individually specialized and "case exceptions" then threats will mean nothing. UA will say "who cares?". If however the "typical" UACO flyer will indeed leave en masse when E+ goes away, then we have something. We need data!

How does one get a sample of the typical flyer, outside of places like FT which are biased towards interested (and connected) fliers? Most of my professional colleagues, for example have not heard of FT and really don't care much about any of the details discussed on these boards. But clearly there is power in FT (viz, those that have successfully lobbied for meaningful change), so let's have some science (data) to wield as we continue to agitate.:mad:GRRR:mad:

My post was not meant to represent a "threat", as is implied in posts by others saying they may/will defect to another airline, but was rather meant to reflect a reality that there will be a point in time, after so many additional UACO-initiated "enhancements" are added, that my continued loyalty to this airline will be just too expensive to justify.

Believe me, I'm not looking forward to the day that I will no longer be 1K, but rather a lowly 1MM 1P. The "glory days" will for sure then be over. :(

We are in agreement. Call it threat or reality there is no question that some will jump ship with the changes. And as I said before, "...we should continue to kick up a storm, make a ruckus, stir the pot, and generally whine like heck. It can't hurt... "

Linear steps between the levels. Not really all that hard to see.

I for one am happy with the changes.... fewer 1Ks to compete with, no change in CR1 as I fly at least 150k.

Thanks UA!

I think the SWU program is the best among the big three. On DL, you can only use them on high price fares. On AA, the C seats aren't lie flat. I have had really good luck with the UGs (miles and SWU) on UA. 19 of 20 last year and 22 of 24 this year on TPAC.

They could also have linearly "aligned" downward, i.e., map the top UA MP elite level (100K EQM/100 EQS) to the top OneP elite level (75K EQM/90 EQS), so that the requirement for all 1K would have been 75K EQM/90 EQS, and so on down the elite ladder... just a "linear alignment", right? :cool:

Except for the people who fly 150K or 200K EQM, who aren't happy to be treated the same way as others who are flying only half as much.

Well of the four levels they are combining to there are eight published qualification levels, EQMs and EQPs for each. Seven of the eight fit the linear scale without changing. Doesn't make much sense to me to change the vast majority of the numbers instead of just one, particularly when that one represents a documented tiny proportion of the total population.

Remember that they actually have the statistics and we have a bunch of fun pretending.