Stating the SWU for elites is “overly generous” is a joke if you fly to Asia. Looks like I will end up with four SWU left over from this year because I was unable to upgrade. The UA flights to HKG, PVG, etc, are so grossly oversold these days that I have had the past six segments unable to upgrade – I’m usually 10-14 on the list when the door shuts, as a 1K.

Given the direction UA is moving I would be grateful if AA stepped up and made me a decent offer.

Sirs:

I previously wrote to voice my displeasure at the 25% increase in segments required for 1K status beginning in 2011.

I received a rather inane and disingenuous response that it was done to coordinate UAL and Continental Elite benefits, or something to that effect.

It appears that you think that I am naive. Please be informed that I am not, nor are your other customers at this level.

Kindly explain to me, other than in a generic "We strive" letter format, why you didn't decrease the requirements for Continental travelers in order to align the two programs at the 100 segment level rather than hitting your most loyal customers with an increase that, at least to me, is nothing short of outrageous?

Suppose you are told that beginning next year you will have to work three more months a year to earn the same salary? That's what you have done to me and others like me, and your conduct and your decision making, while probably designed to cull the herd and/or increase your revenue, is nothing short of reprehensible. You deserve to lose business, and believe you may well.

When I calm down, I will be merely furious.

Richard Luros, MD

Except that I understand that it might be even harder to use SWUs on the dAArkside. With respect to using SWUs on TPAC UA, my experience has been different than yours:

April 2010 JFK <- p.s. -> SFO <-> PVG; 2 SWUs; all segments upgraded.

June 2010 JFK - p.s. -> SFO -> HKG -> SIN; 1 SWU; all segments upgraded
June 2010 SIN -> NRT -> SEA -> IAD -> JFK; 1 SWU; all segments upgraded

Sept 2010 JFK - p.s. -> SFO -X-> HKG -> SIN; 1 SWU; one segment (only one all year) failed to upgrade.
Sept 2010 SIN -> NRT -> SFO - p.s. -> JFK; 1 SWU; all segments upgraded.

6 SWUs, ~16 segments to TPAC and only one failed to upgrade. 4 SWUs used for TATL trips and all segments cleared. That ain't too shabby and that is why it would be nice to preserve as much of the current UA's "overly generous" structure as possible...

My upgrades were clearing prior to September - LAX-SFO-PVG or HKG and back. Starting in September, and including Oct, Nov, and my flight this week, it has been a bust - no upgrades. They stopped selling my PVG-SFO flight in C on Dec 16, and only a couple seats available on the outbound Friday. I will wait until I actually know about those two segments before I complain. However, this is exactly what happened the past few months and it resulted in no upgrades.

I wrote a letter today to the 1K desk. I voiced my concern about E+, MM status, Region 1 threshold, and oversold flights in F&C for my routes.

Richard,

Welcome to Flyertalk. We have a dedicated forum for United threads, which I will move this to. Please note however, that there are a lot of existing posts on people's frustrations over 1K changes for 2011.

Moderator2

Could it then be that this upgrade difficulty you are experiencing might be 'seasonal'? SFO - HKG is notoriously tough to get upgrades on at any time but especially on Fridays at 13:00 (I am explaining why my one upgrade failed ), but SFO-PVG has not been as tough...

Perhaps you'll be able to properly calculate 120/100 then as well
And why only "Sirs", what happened to the other half?

And of course welcome to FT!

I do not believe that the new poster attempted to demonstrate a calculation. I think he used words to make a point rather than a mathematical computation 120/100.

I, too, wish to welcome the new poster and state that I agree that the additional requirement of 20 additional segments to achieve the 1K status is a slap-in-the-face to loyal customers who previously achieved the same status at 100 segments.
-

Welcome to FlyerTalk Runon MD1!

You might find some like-minded folks in these threads:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...elopments.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...s-matched.html

and especially here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...ers-unite.html

Welcome to FT!

And stop whining.

I absolutely concur that SWUs have value only if they are useable, but to Smisek's way of thinking, you still COULD have used them on other more open routes and that would have decreased their upsell and discount C revenue streams (assuming that you got the UG confirmation significantly before the day of departure---on the day of travel, SWU use probably doesn't affect upsell and discount Z fare sales because I believe that your priority for UG is below the revenue purchase options). He is a pure numbers guy and I truly believe that he will wring every last cent out of the loyalty programs by cutting benefits. He knows that inertia is very hard to overcome and that many of us kvetchers, like myself, don't want to jump carriers because of our comfort and familiarity with what we currently have, and are unlikely to leave unless it becomes absolutely intolerable. But, I would take the plunge if another carrier, with good routings to Asia, stepped-up and offered us something of value. Unless, of course, UACO makes an announcement that they will absolutely keep E+ and expand it to CO's fleet. But, I wouldn't be happy with less upgrade availability or more restrictive SWU rules e.g. them being valid only for the higher fare buckets. By the way, I was very lucky and got all 12 of my 2009 SWUs used, although it was pure luck on my flight to NRT on 3 DEC (some poor sod missed a connection and I got his seat).

Not to make light of your situation, but these things have happened to most at UA. Days that used to be paid vacation are no longer, the number of vacation weeks have been reduced, the accrual of vacation as well as sick time has been reduced. So yes, your analogy would ring a bell in their ears, as they have suffered the "work more for the same or less" pattern that you describe. I believe they call it "cost cutting".

But 3 months more? That is a 25% increase across the board. 100->120 on segments is a 20% increase, and it is not the only way. One method hasn't been increased. Your argument is good, but your math isn't quite accurate. It's in the ballpark, but why not use real numbers instead of exaggerated. You don't like the 20% increase on segments, yet you inflated the increase percentage yourself by the same 20% over the accurate number. Naive? No, exaggerator, yes.

edit: I see azpine has already noticed the "funny math" used to drill the poster's point home, even if it isn't accurate, it is a good analogy.

Wow let's belabor the math to death here. Does it matter if it's 20% or 25%...anything above 0% is intolerable. Don't you guys get it? Geez.

With such focus on accurate numbers, you guys need to move over to some government forum and address the budget issues. The inaccuracies are so much larger and could use your expertise.

I think the original posters statement is well take and 100% on point (using my scale - so don't question it ).

With all that said, I'm getting a little bit more comfortable with the United changes. I had 10 flights this week (a crazy week and yes I will be 1K this year), almost all were on regional jets and despite being incredibly fatigued, United impressed we with some great service. It's caused me to rethink my negativity. I'm willing to give United a little string here...but I'm not going to be thrilled if they make any negative changes (a.k.a. "enhancements" as United puts them) in the next couple years. Yeah I know that's a long time, but I think United through us a real doozy here, and if they want to keep us, they need to sit tight through 2012 with no more "enhancements".

I've experienced the pains of segment qualification and I wish I was flying miles. United should realize that a U.S. based business person, may be flying a lot of domestic flights and brining in some good dollars. I probably average $300-400 for some pretty short runs (I have a zillion 500 mile segments, so I'm flying under 500 miles for a minimum of $300.) I could probably afford to rent (wet) a Mooney or Beach, cheaper than I pay UA. Granted I've not got the hassle of flying the plane and dealing with weather. But my point is, I'm a little shocked United doesn't value a guy that brings in a 100 legs at $300 a flight for a short haul. If that's not a major bread winner, they should sell off that part of the business and only do U.S. to Asia runs. I'm sure any other airline would be happy to pick up the routes for them.

When trying to argue persuasively to a corporation, numbers are important. When someone writes in to you, in whatever you do, do you take them seriously if they cite inaccurate data? That is our point. One may agree with the sentiment, but if someone were lobbying for something you believed in, and they were spewing inaccurate statements, that could undermine your cause vs. help it.

I did say that the analogy is a good one, so I didn't belabor the math only, but I would advise people to fact check and proofread, and when arguing with numbers, to use real numbers, not B.S. ones to make a point. The point is lost when the validity of the argument is undermined with easily noticeable false statements. Would you write a report to your boss with made up data that supports your opinion, but doesn't even require any research to disprove, only simple 4th grade reading skills?

But the announced new SWU system actually follows old UA's (6 applicable on higher fares and 2 per 50K additional EQM) not old CO's (4 applicable for all fares). Did he feel UAs was less generous than COs?