1K the Hard Way--EQS Qualifiers Unite!
Nov 23, 2010, 9:17 am
#61
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield,MO,USA
Programs: UA 1K MM, HH Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,604
Well it will affect me and it does make bad business sense for United to alienate me. I buy expensive domestic tickets usually between non-hubs via a hub. 4 segments per trip minimum and at least 2 of the 4 on UX on CRJ200 or ERJ145. I have friends and acquaintances and co-workers to whom I can sing the praises of United , or not.
I am sure I am not unique as a predominantly domestic 1K on segments flier living in a non-hub that is served by UX.
I am sure I am not unique as a predominantly domestic 1K on segments flier living in a non-hub that is served by UX.
Nov 23, 2010, 9:30 am
#62
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MEM
Programs: UA 1K-MM, Bonvoy LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Avis something or other
Posts: 436
Nov 23, 2010, 9:47 am
#63
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,330
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.
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.
Secondly, you're assuming that I fly cheaply. I don't. I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline.
Thirdly, UA is going out on a limb by making this change. Their closest competitor (AA) still maintains the 100 EQM/EQS requirement. Whether this makes good business sense to United remains to be seen.
Bottom line is...whether it makes good sense or not, UA is pissing off a sector of it's top tier elites by it's recent changes. That is one fact that's not debatable.
Nov 23, 2010, 9:54 am
#64
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,825
Why UA?
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.
Thumbun, May I ask why you fly UA? What are the top three things you value as a 1K? Why is your yearly aim to achieve 1K status?
You travel a lot. SFO OAK LAX per your profile, mostly segments so I assume you stay in the West. What planes do you find yourself on mostly? RJ's? What percentage of your flights have F / UDU opportunity? What percentage of your flights have E+?
My main point is this: With your locations (airports) and travel patterns, are there not other airlines that will reward you more than UA does?
With the move UA has made (1K now 120 EQS), they are clearly saying that they DO NOT value you as a frequent flyer as much as they value others with differing travel patterns. They are continuing to incent others (100K EQM'ers) while disincenting you.
Which leads me back to a statment I have posted here before: Wouldn't many / most segment runners be better off giving their business to Southwest? Thumbun - you especially with your location and travel patterns. Hollywood_13 and anybody running segments out of DEN too...
There was an enlightening article in the New York Times the other day about Southwest.
Pushing 40, Southwest Is Still Playing the Rebel
"Last year, it flew 86 million passengers, more than any other airline within the United States. It operates 3,200 flights a day, owns a fleet of 544 planes and serves 69 domestic cities from Seattle to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and from Lubbock, Tex., to Buffalo." (Plus add Airtran routes and an Atlanta hub - "“Southwest got two big pluses from AirTran — 37 more destinations and taking out the lowest-cost carrier in the business,” says Robert Herbst, an independent analyst and a former commercial pilot.")
"The company started flying to Denver in January 2006. It now has 141 daily departures there, reflecting the fastest growth in its network. Frontier Airlines, based in Denver but wedged between Southwest and rising fuel costs, couldn’t keep up. It filed for bankruptcy in 2008, though it kept flying.
In Las Vegas, Southwest effectively drove out most competition from US Airways, which retreated to Phoenix. With 212 daily flights, Las Vegas is now Southwest’s top city.
Competitors see Southwest as cold-blooded and ruthless."
The article goes on and has other interesting points, including some of the weaknesses of Southwest and the challenges they are facing today. (No Hawaii, no international, 'antiquated' reservations system, etc.)
But the bottom line is that they focus on domestic segment runners, offer low prices, and operate profitably doing this.
Last point, and this is another anecdotal data point. In a conversation with a coworker yesterday, he provided his reasoning for choosing Southwest.
- He is a road warrior, out of SJC / SFO / OAK (mostly SJC). His travel is 95% west based, up and down the corridor to SEA and PDX, sometimes to SoCal too. He flew Alaska for about a year with this pattern (I did not ask him about benefits he received like F upgrades, etc...).
He had a couple of hundred thousand RDM's, wanted to take his family on a vacation, and was frustrated to find that every flight / destination he wanted to take required the maximum number of points, and that was when there was award availability. He found it very frustrating that his 'hard earned' miles were devalued from his perspective.
So, he switched to Southwest. And loves it. It goes where he wants to travel, and 'provides him value' for the things that are important to him.
Segment runner + location (SJC) + values easy domestic award travel = Southwest. A simple equation for him, dictated by his travel pattern and priorities....
Nov 23, 2010, 10:20 am
#65
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD
Posts: 177
As someone who qualified for 1K on segments and miles in 2008 and then on miles only the past two years, I don't see a problem with this.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
Nov 23, 2010, 11:34 am
#66
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MEM
Programs: UA 1K-MM, Bonvoy LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Avis something or other
Posts: 436
As someone who qualified for 1K on segments and miles in 2008 and then on miles only the past two years, I don't see a problem with this.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
Nov 23, 2010, 11:52 am
#67
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: HHonors Lifetime Diamond, UA Million Miler Gold, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,142
First off, no one said the words "shut up" except you.
Secondly, you're assuming that I fly cheaply. I don't. I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline.
Thirdly, UA is going out on a limb by making this change. Their closest competitor (AA) still maintains the 100 EQM/EQS requirement. Whether this makes good business sense to United remains to be seen.
Bottom line is...whether it makes good sense or not, UA is pissing off a sector of it's top tier elites by it's recent changes. That is one fact that's not debatable.
Secondly, you're assuming that I fly cheaply. I don't. I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline.
Thirdly, UA is going out on a limb by making this change. Their closest competitor (AA) still maintains the 100 EQM/EQS requirement. Whether this makes good business sense to United remains to be seen.
Bottom line is...whether it makes good sense or not, UA is pissing off a sector of it's top tier elites by it's recent changes. That is one fact that's not debatable.
"I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline."
This is such a cop out. You do not fly connections instead of direct flights....and pay HIGHER prices for this inconvenience to stay loyal to United. You do it because your business probably agrees to pay for those tickets and allows you to keep the mileage....which you in turn use to go on nice vacations to KOA, OGG, Europe...etc.
Voice your anger if you want, I even agree with it but don't do it behind false claims
Nov 23, 2010, 11:58 am
#68
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Pikes Peak COS
Programs: 3 Month Delta Plat, UA PP 2.4mm, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, HH Lifetime Diamond, National EE
Posts: 426
As someone who qualified for 1K on segments and miles in 2008 and then on miles only the past two years, I don't see a problem with this.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
Nov 23, 2010, 12:30 pm
#69
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 27
As someone who qualified for 1K on segments and miles in 2008 and then on miles only the past two years, I don't see a problem with this.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
United (and other airlines) are probably annoyed by the fact that some status chasers like to use exotic multi-segment routing just to boost their status. That behavior, on balance, artificially inflates operating costs.
Seems reasonable that someone determined the 120 EQS threshold will be high enough so as to dissuade some from pursuing that approach.
The addition of the 0P tier also likely is a factor here.
Nov 23, 2010, 1:04 pm
#70
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,330
C'mon folks gimme a break.
"I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline."
This is such a cop out. You do not fly connections instead of direct flights....and pay HIGHER prices for this inconvenience to stay loyal to United. You do it because your business probably agrees to pay for those tickets and allows you to keep the mileage....which you in turn use to go on nice vacations to KOA, OGG, Europe...etc.
Voice your anger if you want, I even agree with it but don't do it behind false claims
"I live near an outlying airport where UA doesn't have a huge presence. It does, however, have competition. Many which offer non-stop options to my final destination. I, however, wanting to maintain status and continue to show my loyalty to United, continue to fly connecting trips...not always the easiest schedule...not always the cheapest routing...and always on UX instead of mainline."
This is such a cop out. You do not fly connections instead of direct flights....and pay HIGHER prices for this inconvenience to stay loyal to United. You do it because your business probably agrees to pay for those tickets and allows you to keep the mileage....which you in turn use to go on nice vacations to KOA, OGG, Europe...etc.
Voice your anger if you want, I even agree with it but don't do it behind false claims
Thank you.
Nov 23, 2010, 1:16 pm
#71
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Programs: 1MM BIS. Former 18-year segment 1K, 1997-2014...now just a distant memory.
Posts: 1,200
OK, I guess it is about time for me to chime in.
2010 is the 15th consecutive year I have qualified for 1K by segments. Over the past 16 years (was Premier Exec my first year as a UA FF), I’d estimate that over 98% of the 1,550+ UA/*A flights I’ve flown were “out of pocket”, and most years it was 100%, including the past two years since my retirement. Others may disagree but, and forget about what I may or may not have spent to stay with UA, I feel I’ve shown the ultimate in loyalty to UA. Many are not fortunate to have employer-paid travel, so those of us who do fund our own travel necessarily must do what it takes in order to attain status so we may travel more comfortably, and get the perks.
To maintain my 1K status over that extended period, I’ve become quite adept at finding affordable multi-segment routings, both east and west from Colorado. Had to, as that was the only way I could continue to attain 1K. I’ll never make it on EQMs, as I don’t fly transcons and rarely fly internationally. Even with two round trips to BKK one year, I ended with only 95,000 EQMs. It has been tough, as my standard domestic flying days are 13 to 15 hours in duration. That’s OK, though, as flying this way has been my own choice. Quite frankly, I enjoy flying/traveling, to the point I tell people it’s my “hobby”, and I look forward to getting away and taking multiple short trips each year.
But UA has made a number of changes in recent times, and needless to say I am not at all happy with their most recent. First they did away with lower fares which allowed quick Saturday-Sunday overnight runs, replacing them with fares that required one to stay away until Monday or Tuesday. Then earlier in 2010 UA changed its fare routing rules, so now my typical multi-segment routings, whether east or west, have jumped up a minimum of 40% in cost, with the vast majority now being much more expensive than that. Now, UA will require that I fly 120 segments. Seriously?
Tell me, UA, will the “enhancements” ever end?
2010 is the 15th consecutive year I have qualified for 1K by segments. Over the past 16 years (was Premier Exec my first year as a UA FF), I’d estimate that over 98% of the 1,550+ UA/*A flights I’ve flown were “out of pocket”, and most years it was 100%, including the past two years since my retirement. Others may disagree but, and forget about what I may or may not have spent to stay with UA, I feel I’ve shown the ultimate in loyalty to UA. Many are not fortunate to have employer-paid travel, so those of us who do fund our own travel necessarily must do what it takes in order to attain status so we may travel more comfortably, and get the perks.
To maintain my 1K status over that extended period, I’ve become quite adept at finding affordable multi-segment routings, both east and west from Colorado. Had to, as that was the only way I could continue to attain 1K. I’ll never make it on EQMs, as I don’t fly transcons and rarely fly internationally. Even with two round trips to BKK one year, I ended with only 95,000 EQMs. It has been tough, as my standard domestic flying days are 13 to 15 hours in duration. That’s OK, though, as flying this way has been my own choice. Quite frankly, I enjoy flying/traveling, to the point I tell people it’s my “hobby”, and I look forward to getting away and taking multiple short trips each year.
But UA has made a number of changes in recent times, and needless to say I am not at all happy with their most recent. First they did away with lower fares which allowed quick Saturday-Sunday overnight runs, replacing them with fares that required one to stay away until Monday or Tuesday. Then earlier in 2010 UA changed its fare routing rules, so now my typical multi-segment routings, whether east or west, have jumped up a minimum of 40% in cost, with the vast majority now being much more expensive than that. Now, UA will require that I fly 120 segments. Seriously?
Tell me, UA, will the “enhancements” ever end?
Nov 23, 2010, 1:28 pm
#72
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: HHonors Lifetime Diamond, UA Million Miler Gold, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,142
It is hard for the average person to believe your "loyal" to United to this extent without some rather large personal benefit on the back end. My guess is that the "competition" is small regional providers that could save your company OR YOU, money and time overall but they do not fly desirable domestic or international routes or partner with someone who does that allows you to burn your accumulated miles for vacations and personal use.
So please correct me on where I am wrong on these points as I hope to understand your position better
Nov 23, 2010, 1:56 pm
#73
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: JAX
Programs: UA Plat MM, AA Gold MM, Marriott LTT, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,770
As someone who has qualified for US CP (prior to 2007) or UA 1K status (after 2007) on EQM, I found my self with 130K EQM and 120 EQS in 2009 (with DEM/DEQS promotions). I am finish 2010 with 103K EQM and 98 EQS. If I hadn't purchased a C fare to TLV this year, I'd be sitting south of 100K EQM and tyring to make 1K on 100 EQS.
I have a better appreciation for those who qualify 1K on EQS. 60% of my flights are regional jets, and my UDU percentage has been pretty low so I haven't enjoyed the perks of 1K to the extent that I wanted. With the change to 120 EQS, I'll have no choice but to plan on EQM qualification as the only option.
Yes there are too many 1K's this year. Why? It's not because of the number of 100 EQS 1Ks (the actual number must be fairly small), it's becuase of the 2 DEQM/DEQS promotions UA had in 2009.
I have a better appreciation for those who qualify 1K on EQS. 60% of my flights are regional jets, and my UDU percentage has been pretty low so I haven't enjoyed the perks of 1K to the extent that I wanted. With the change to 120 EQS, I'll have no choice but to plan on EQM qualification as the only option.
Yes there are too many 1K's this year. Why? It's not because of the number of 100 EQS 1Ks (the actual number must be fairly small), it's becuase of the 2 DEQM/DEQS promotions UA had in 2009.
Last edited by CIT85; Nov 23, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Nov 23, 2010, 2:24 pm
#74
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: HHonors Lifetime Diamond, UA Million Miler Gold, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,142
As someone who has qualified for US CP (prior to 2007) or UA 1K status (after 2007) on EQM, I found my self with 130K EQM and 120 EQS in 2009 (with DEM/DEQS promotions). I am finish 2010 with 103K EQM and 98 EQS. If I hadn't purchased a C fare to TLV this year, I'd be sitting south of 100K EQM and tyring to make 1K on 100 EQS.
I have a better appreciation for those who qualify 1K on EQS. 60% of my flights are regional jets, and my UDU percentage has been pretty low so I haven't enjoyed the perks of 1K to the extent that I wanted. With the change to 120 EQS, I'll have no choice but to plan on EQM qualification as the only option.
Yes there are too many 1K's this year. Why? It's not because of the number of 100 EQS 1Ks (the actual number must be fairly small), it's becuase of the 2 DEQM/DEQS promotions UA had in 2009.
I have a better appreciation for those who qualify 1K on EQS. 60% of my flights are regional jets, and my UDU percentage has been pretty low so I haven't enjoyed the perks of 1K to the extent that I wanted. With the change to 120 EQS, I'll have no choice but to plan on EQM qualification as the only option.
Yes there are too many 1K's this year. Why? It's not because of the number of 100 EQS 1Ks (the actual number must be fairly small), it's becuase of the 2 DEQM/DEQS promotions UA had in 2009.
It worked both ways
Nov 23, 2010, 3:24 pm
#75
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Programs: 1K 1MM; Bonvoy Ambassador; Nat'l EE; Hertz PC; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 2,465
I qualified for 1K for the first time this year on EQS and EQM on the same exact flight! It was ORD-MCI.