thumbun

Let me join the chorus of woes. Right now sitting in the LAX RCC about to board my 105th segment of the year -- all on mainline UA metal. I echo some of the other comments, and this weekend plan to send a respectful, but pointed letter to UA. Like one of then previous posters, I have flown at least twice and sometimes four times/week for the last 20 months. Only once have I strayed away from UA. The only reason I am so loyal is because my yearly aim is to get my 1K status, which I have done 4 years in a row. The first two times was on miles. The last two times on miles and segments. I know, however, that in 2011 the chances of making it on miles is slim. 100 segments should be easy, but 120 is going to be a stretch. Very disappointing, especially because I feel like I live my life in UA's hands. A grandfather clause would be nice.

Zone1

I'm reasonably close to qualifying for 1K this year on segments, so this is a big thumbs down. If Delta was more feasible for my flying pattern I would probably switch in a heart beat after all the MileagePlus changes this year. At least on DL with 60 segments you get free standby and same day confirmation and with 100 segments you get 4 SWUs.

Where can I tell Jeff that I'm not liking his changes?

BlackMountain

It is punishing, to fly 100+ segments and still NOT fly 100k miles. I work at a hub city and never fly out of the country, so most of my trips are non-stop and many of them are on 50 seat RJs, with no E+ much less F. The price/mile is high compared to transcons. I will have about 110 segments by year end, and will still just barely get to 100k miles. Next year, I'm looking at fewer long flights, I'll be lucky to get to 75k miles but I'll have about the same number of segments.

United-Continental can adjust membership qualifications and ration the seats how they see fit, but like the earlier poster, if United has decided that what I do (fly a whole bunch) is suddenly something they want to encourage less of relative to others (fly really far) I would at least like to understand the economics of why I am a 20 percent worse customer in 2011 than I was this year, relative to the 100k milers going to Asia now and then on discounted fares upgraded to Business class with a coupon. In the meantime, I'll have a look at what 100 segments brings over at AA.

mattinsf

I'm still stuck on UA's rationale. So if mrswirl is right (and I think he is), the thinking over at Wacker Drive is that UA needed to accommodate a third tier between 1P (60 EQS) and 1K (100 EQS). If that third tier (1P+) is 90 EQS, then 100 EQS isn't sufficiently more to justify a different (and arguably much better) elite level. Hence the increase to 120 EQS.

Two things strike me. First, as someone else above already pointed out, 90 EQS for 1P+ seems a bit high, especially compared to 75,000 EQMs. Why not just lower the EQS for 1P+ to 80? That would have pleased everyone (or at least pleased the 1P+ folks and not offended the 1Ks).

Second, isn't there a value (read: revenue) judgment inherent in the adjustment that UA did choose to make? That is, with the bump to 120 EQS for 1K, UA has decided that it has more to gain from accommodating the 1P+ tier at its current requirements -- 75,000 EQMs or 90 EQS -- than pissing off the 1Ks who make their status based on EQS. Put another way, UA must have calculated that the revenue gain from keeping the 1P+ requirements where they are would be greater than the revenue lost from the number of 1Ks who would leave as a result of the change. I suspect UA also calculated that the proposed solution above (80 EQS for 1P+, 100 EQS for 1K) also would generate less revenue. (If I'm missing something, please point it out -- I'd love for there to be a flaw in my guessing about what was behind this decision.)

I get these calculations, but I wonder whether there isn't some more creative way to generate the increased revenue and keep the 1K threshold at 100 EQS. (I know some ideas have been bandied about here.) 120 EQS just seems really, really tough, and out of sync with what the other airlines are doing.

fastair

It is possible they thought that after 100 segments, many people switch to another carrier/program, at if you fly 100 segments a year, a 20% increase (think more flying=more money to the coffers) isn't impossible, so increase the requirement, much as my bosses used to do to me when I got to the top..always striving for more water out of the rock. In terms of ratio flying, 30,60,90,120 is simple math. In terms of ratio to total flying 30-60 is 10% increase, 60-90 is 50% increase, 90-120 is 33.3... increase. Using the law of diminishing returns, it becomes increasing harder in terms of absoluteness to hit the next tier. In relative terms, it gets easier as you go up.

How many things out there don't get harder to achieve the next level as you increase up the food chain? In a job, to go from flunky to a lead, relatively easy. To go from VP to president, not quite so easy. Maybe the distribution is skewed. There was no DEQM this year...perhaps as AA didn't, perhaps UA felt that 1K with it's significant perks (as well as all levels,) needs to have a significant addl investment. I mean for not having your favorite seat, UA gives a general member a form apology, but a 1K is gonna get rich off the ecerts. These are just theories, mind you, but they are far better theories than the ones posted here of "UA must not want my $$, that's why they did it."

akatuva

1K, four-years running here. Usually on segments, sometimes on both. At 106 EQS with 88 EQM this year.

I want to stay with UA and would very much like to see them keep the EQS requirement in line with AA as their main competitior. However, I can't imagine taking the risk of being 15 segments short at year end when on AA I would have qualified for EXP with plenty of room to spare.

Bottom line is, if UA isn't willing to move on this, I will make the switch if my travel office is able to set up a status match. Nothing however would make me happier than being able to stay with United.

fastair

Forgive the question if it is stupid, but you are currently a UA 1K, and an AA plat. Do carriers traditionally give status matches to their own elites of 2nd tier up to top tier just by showing their top tier status on a competitor?

Seems to me, that you ARE UA's target audience. You are not at 120 segments, but choose (or do so without choice) 50+ segments/50k miles on UA's main competition at ORD (in terms of a fair fight, DL is a much closer competitor now.) I would think this is where UA, if they actually knew of your dual loyalty, would say "It isn't so tough for you to contribute some of that extra segments/mileage/$$ our way and we all can get what we want. I understand that AA does fly to some places that UA doesn't, so the choice isn't always "I will always pick UA due to true loyalty" but can be a result of schedule.

That would be MAD (in the escalation usage of the word in terms of the arms race, mutually assured destruction) as everyone could then be top tier on every carrier as long as they made it on one. A "challenge" would seem more appropriate, and easy, seeing how a good % of your travel is already on them, timing the challenge flights couldn't be all that difficult.

Hollywood_13

I too feel very slighted by the new 120 EQS requirement. I emailed 1KVoice to receive the response that it was to align with Continental's OnePass level. No apologies, no thank you for your continued 50+ trips to the airport for short haul regional flights.

I, like many others in this post, reside in DEN and have several other choices for my short haul flights. I am currently sitting at 89.5 EQS/64000EQM and will complete the year with 101.5EQM and roughly 70000EQM. This is my 3rd sequential year doing this with UAL and was 1P for a few years before, all on EQS.

I understand that the EQM fliers have a higher profit margin for their travel, but does UAL not realize that the EQS fliers are indeed the LOYAL group? We travel and act as ambassadors for UAL in over 100 airports per year. Is that not worth something? Depending on the outcome of this debate, the tone may become more negative towards UAL on my 100 plus visits with infrequent travelers in airports for their 1-5 trips per year. We, the 1k EQS traveler epitomize loyalty and should be acknowledged, not thrown away.

Denvercccc

I think there must be more EQS 1Ks that fly < 120 EQS than there are EQS 1Ks that then fly enough to make status on another airline.

As far as the closeness to the 1P+ 90 EQS level, who cares if there is another level after another 10 EQS? You could qualify for 1P on a trip and go over by several K EQMs only to qualify as 1K on your next trip. 10 EQS is likely more than 1 additional trip. They could provide an additional incentive at 120 EQS to keep people flying UA after they reach 100 EQS (2xCR1s, perhaps).

Of course, it all boils down to what will make UACO the most money. It doesn't seem to me that the loss of EQS 1Ks that will go elsewhere rather than be 1P+ will be offset by the additional revenue from EQS 1Ks that will fly 20 more segments.

After all, the cost of a FF being 1K on an RJ is nearly nil. There is no UGU, no SWU usage, no F at all! Many EQS 1Ks allow their SWU to expire as they do not fly internationally. It is a small percentage that are FTers and sponsor UGs with SWUs. All else being equal, what is the real cost of making 100 EQS worth 1K? What is the benefit in terms of retention?

ExCrew

No offense FastAir, but you have morphed into a United apologist. You don't have a dog in this fight, only a (skewed, based upon your employment status) opinion. You don't fly around in the back of RJs 50 weeks of the year (which I didn't fly that much, even as air crew on UX) as most of us segment flyers do. Please stop with your pat "simple math" answers. This new policy is UA being short sighted, willing to alienate their top level elite fliers for a mathematically consistent equation.
No matter how you try and spin it (and please, stop trying to do so), we still end up being asked to suffer through another 20 segments on UX.
You are adding nothing here but discouragement and frustration to this very valid conversation. Unless you have something substantive to offer us, please keep your COol-Aid responses to yourself. You're not helping our cause, and we're growing weary of your simplistic analogies and unwavering allegiance to your employer.

benblaney

I agree with everything FastAir wrote, and I don't work for United. Must I shut up too?

Fact is, the change clearly makes sense. There are too many 1Ks; we know this because sometimes as a 1k I don't get an upgrade. So they need to make it harder to become a 1k. Of all the 1k members, the airlines likes those who spend the most. So they will find it easier to become 1k next year. Those who do a round trip a week from hub to spoke, probably on relatively cheap tickets will find it harder.

Simple.

Obviously those who are arguing against the change are bummed because it will probably affect them. That doesn't make it bad business sense for United.

UA1KOK

Dear United,



I have been a 1K for many years. I have maintained 1K based upon segments in most years. In reading the Flyertalk.com/forums/mileageplus I find most 1K’s are dissatisfied with the new requirement of 120 segments.

It appears that the new combined frequent flyer program is accommodating a fourth tier from One pass.

The 75,000 miles/ 90 EQS would put the EQS of 90 to close to the present 100 EQS of 1K.

Possible solutions to align these two levels are as follows:



1. Lower the 75,000 miles level EQS to 80. Keep 1k at 100 EQS

2. For 2011, keep the 1K segments at 100. Any member achieving 100 EQS would be grandfathered in at 100 EQS/ 1K as long as they maintained that level. New 1K's would have to achieve the 120 EQS.

3. The new 1K level at 100,000 / 110 EQS. This would not satisfy most 1K but would be a compromise.




I think it is important for United to compromise and adjust the program for their loyal 1K members.

benblaney

I want McDonalds. You want Burger King. If we compromise and go to KFC, neither of us gets what we want.

There are simply too many 1Ks. Sorry.

chitownflyer

You have my support in changing the requirement back to 100 EQS. Although I earn my UA status via EQMs, I can only imagine how tiresome it must be to fly weekly on short segments and spend so much time going to and from the airports. What does United think it accomplishes by raising the segments needed to qualify for 1K by 20 percent?

courcoison

Good Day:

Year to date I am at 117 segments and 91000 miles.

Will end the year at 125 segments and probably 95000 miles.

I mostly fly the West Coast and in the past I have qualified to 1K both on miles and segments, sometimes only on segments.

As a Million Miler I cannot justify flying another 20 segments solely to retain 1K status, as much as I enjoy the perks.

This leaves me with other options as American Airlines will resume service to Los Angeles out of Phoenix starting in January for example.

Also looking at “hard earned “ miles redemption, I am able to redeem AA miles on Cathay Pacific First Class from Phoenix to Hong Kong and Hong Kong to Paris in October 2011 without any problems while I cannot do the same on United Metal to Hong Kong on the same dates and Singapore Airlines won’t let me fly First Class on their 380 ( no business class from Singapore to Paris).

In conclusion I am disappointed with the changes but will deal with them.