No he plans on making the swus expire quicker and will reduce nf/nc inventory so many will go un-used. Same way CR-1s got added as a benefit for CO Plats.....an added benefit for them, How did he justify the cost?? there is none since he took the cr-1s out of 1ks pockets and put it in Co Plats pockets. kinda like QE2 :D

Good question.Well, actually, it does matter. People won't take you seriously if you either can't do simple math or didn't care enough to do it right.

Bruce

I would tend to think that this is a tempest in a teapot. If I were at the receiving end of that email, I would just chalk it up to an honest error [heck, the guy - apparently, an MD - had to know that UA knows the actual % EQS increase and not bother lying about it!], and concentrate on the substance...

I am sure that it was down to temper that he accidentally got the calculation wrong - another example of the anger that people are feeling in that it is addling their brains for the most simple of calculations. :D

Personally, I can't wait until United PR announces additional "enhancements" to the MP program. I'm sure there will be more in the weeks before the end of the year. Things can only get "better." :rolleyes: :td:

That said, one wonders whether UA's early announcement of the "enhancements" for the 2011/12 calendar year was made so early so they could "test the waters" with it's most vocal FFs (ie - we here @ FlyerTalk). They already backtracked once from the original announcement. Here's to hoping they re-think their position on the 20 EQS increase for 2011. (fingers crossed!)

You probably are right about the season or economic changes. Oddly, .bomb opened up 17 seats in C on my Thursday the 16th return - go figure why they have not been there for several days?

They did add a route LAX-PVG starting in May 2011. Maybe the loads will be favorable soon.:)

I do feel that writing the letter about the devalue of 1K benifits was prudent.

It seems that a number of recent posts have accused UA of shutting down upgrades as though upgrades are a primary right of some sort. Now I love upgrades as much as the next guy and I have an excellent track record of them coming through. However, I see no evidence that they are or ever were a priority that came above selling the seat for revenue. NC/NF have always been allocated on an assumption that those seats would not be sold. If UA thought they could sell the seats, they never allocate them for free upgrades - quite honestly that would be poor business for any airline. What we are seeing is that, quite simply, people are more willing to pay for those premium seats combined with capacity reductions industry wide on many routes. That means fewer seats are on average remaining unsold at departure which in turn means that the prediction algorithms of IM drive down the NC/NF inventory throughout the process. This Friday it appears that I will fail my first SWU upgrade of the year attempting a Biz to First upgrade on the PVG-SFO flight. That means UA has managed to sell those seats (or allow standard award miles "sales"). Lest any of us forget - that is the purpose of the business - to sell those seats. So while I'd prefer to sit in 1st - good for UA - selling seats at First class prices is really good revenue! I remember during the worst of the bankruptcy period many here worrying that their entire program investment would vanish as UA failed. Well now they are making some money selling seats at a high price - that is good for them and by extension probably good for those of us with FF investment in them. I'm fine with complaining to UA about program changes - I sent them my comments on the recent announcements myself a while back mainly about the relative downgrading of MM versus 75K PE. However, when it comes to straight up revenue questions do folks here actually believe that given a credible projection that they can sell a premium seat at D,C,A, or F pricing they should refrain from doing that to allow an SWU? Sorry - but from my perspective that is absurd.

+1. UA is in the airline business to make money and if they are able to sell C and F seats at the expense of upgrade inventory, it would indeed be absurd for anyone to complain. Programmatic changes that appear to disenfranchise FF members should be separate from individual flyers' difficulties in clearing upgrades...

UA miles on CO Metal?
 

Sorry if I missed this, but I didn't read all 33 pages.

If I fly as a UA 1K on CO Metal, do the miles I earn count toward CR1's? I know that all EQMs and EQS's will be combined at the end of the year, but I couldn't find this detail. I have about 10K BIS miles coming up in January, on CO, where I'm using my MP#. Will they count toward my earning CR1's?

Thanks

Steve

not yet ...


not until end of 2011

***********************************************
You're absolutely correct in noting that my math was off.

I apologize, as the correct percentage is 20% rather than 25%. I was tired and upset/frustrated. However, I accept that I lose points due to my careless error.

However, while you pointed out my math blunder in a manner that comes across as being smarmy, and you have somehow decided that I am anti-distaff, you managed to ignore the essence of my letter, which is, of course your absolute right.

And thanks for the welcome...it really made me feel warm and fuzzy.

So enjoy your triumph(s). At least you'll have something to talk about in therapy.

Best,

Richard ;)

************************************************
Exactly so.

I really do feel foolish as the result of my error in calculation, and, as pointed out, if you try, you can see the "forest" of my posting, rather than the somewhat decaying "tree" depicted by my math.

Thanks for understanding!

Richard

************************************************

Thanks. I appreciate the fact that whether you agree with me or not, you had the decency to focus upon the essence of my posting rather than my error in calculating the percentage increase in 1K segments required to re-qualify for 2012.

The description of bringing programs into alignment reminds me of the old "negative revenue enhancement" ploy of some years back.

Richard

Thanks for the welcome. I appreciate it, and understand your role as moderator and my post having being moved.

Richard Luros, MD

Sorry, Bruce...

You are right. While it doesn't excuse my carelessness, I was tired, and didn't "check my work." I can in fact do simple math, though I made a silly error, as many have pointed out, though others took the time to read what I actually said, with some agreeing, I suspect, while others probably did not.

But they at least focused on the essence of my letter, and were kind enough to deal with the "wheat" rather than the chaff.

Take THAT seriously.

Richard

I read your post and took it seriously. I was responding to the other poster who suggested that getting the math right isn't important. I believe that it is because, in general, it affects your credibility.

Bruce

Really? Was his point we should let UA take it away and then react and fight to get it reinstated after they have booked the shop where the seats will be reconfigured, bought the new interiors, changed all their seat maps and number of seats available on every flight in the system for two large airlines being combined into one, or should we take this opportunity now to try to persuade UAL to keep it for both airlines considering I was told in writing that it is literally 50/50 going or staying. If I made his point, I apologize because it is a very bad one. E+ is the ONLY reason a good number of us have any loyalty to UA!

Or were you referring to the point about anyone that can't deal with change should just go find another airline??:rolleyes:

The real point of your letter is well received and right on point. Far more important than the precise math -- which anybody can do -- is MP's devaluation and dilution of the benefits we have all earned with years of loyalty. The point here is that the alignment of the two separate programs should not result in any loyal customers being effectively stripped of the benefits they have come to expect over the years.