ExCrew

Unfortunately, it also seems to be the M.O. of the new CO/UA.
From what I have read in the past on the CO boards and what I am seeing recently at NewUA, Smisek's team seems to have a "like it or lump it" mentality. Although that may have played well in the past at CO's hubs with no other credible competition, they're now adding UA's hubs to the mix where competition runs rampant. Time will tell, but Jeff may be in for a rude awakening by f-ing with his inherited UA elites.
It will be interesting to see what other "enhancements" he and his team roll out. I'm sure that AA, DL and WN are all looking at what goes on here as well, so that each can coax UA's elites away as Jeff raids Mileage Plus.

Please be kind enough to send a letter to 1K voice including what you written here. Likewise, you should cc: Jeff Smisek on it as well. The people at the top need to know what's going on "in the trenches."
I'm thinking of sending a certified letter to his office after the rather tepid response I received from the 1K desk.

HawkeyeFlyer

While I understand the EQS qualifiers plight, I am perfectly fine with all of them defecting to other airlines if they feel it is a better deal. Gotta do what you feel is right and I am perfectly ok with having fewer 1K to compete against for the UDU

TravelManKen

Twice in the past 10 years I made 1K on segments, and while I have not really flown in 2009 or 2010, I will be back up in the air in 2011, and will likely hit 1K via long haul. However, here in the Sacramento market I know of a few people who are 1) good revenue customers, 2) go out of their way to take UA (i.e. SMF-SFO >> SAN/BUR/ONT/SNA/PHX/SEA/PDX when WN flies non-stop to all of those destinations), and if they will not hit 1K and get the SWU benefits, then they will opt out of flying UA.

tullupump

Last week I sent a note to 1KVoice regarding the recent change to 1K Qualifying requirement being increased to 120EQS's for 2012 and am awaiting a reply. I would be interested in learning about other "Iron-Man" 1K's (segment qualifyers) who have also written specifically about this change only. Please post here if you wrote a similar letter and the response you received from UA.

Thanks!

AFJon

Not yet. This year had a bit of extra short travel I won't have next year, so I'm torn as how to voice my unhappiness to support those who make it annually with the realization I'll probably not make 1K on segments again.

Akulashark

Prepare to be underwhelmed with the response. They said its is to align them with CO.

323power

That's a terrible argument for UACO. They could've as easilly aligned CO's program with UA's, then align UA's with CO's.

bouldersnow

I think the reason they did it is because there are too many 1Ks and the international fliers generate more revenue (I'm sure there are exceptions). I personally wish they would raise the EQM to 150K also. That would make 1K more like it use to be.

I fly more than 100 segments and 200K EQM and spend about $40K a year. That doesn't get me close to global services because I always buy the cheapest coach fare. There are international flights I'm on with 50+ 1K and GS fliers, so this means most of us are stuck in coach and watch our SWU's expire.

reddirt14

Ditto - if they are doing it to the segment guys, I'd like to se the Mileage Runners feel the pain too. 150K sounds reasonable, because I could care less about the guys that do it on miles. Honestly, 100K is piddly. 150K is starting to get into some real miles worth meriting a reward. So United for 2012 lets make it 120 segments or 150K in flights, no exceptions. This is Bull Saki that a guy only needs to fly 100k to make 1K. You can do that for $2,500, while I'm spending $25,000 plus flying my 100+ segments. I'm tired of these 1K lights sitting next to me. It takes away from the experience.

texasex95

I like this thinking. Renewals should be less. That keeps them loyal and happy. Are you paying attention United?

zombietooth

That was a truly silly statement--the airlines want as many elites as possible!!!
I should think that the best way for an airline to prosper is to increase the pool of loyal fliers, not decrease them! They do this best by giving powerful incentives to achieve status and this, in turn, results in behavior by the traveler that is not in the traveler's best interests, from a financial or time-cost perspective, but is mainly of benefit to the airline. That is why 1K fliers like myself will choose a routing through a UA hub over a cheaper, more direct flight. I follow this pattern and I would bet that most 1Ks do also. Almost every trip that I take results in higher cost and more transit time because of my loyalty to UA. Only rarely does UA have the cheapest fare but, it doesn't matter to me anyway because I want status.

By disincentivizing segment fliers, I believe that UACO will be hurting itself because it will inspire more cost-effective behavior by previously loyal fliers, resulting in decreased loads on short-haul domestic flights (unless, of course, UACO becomes more competitive from a price perspective).

I understand the selfish motivation, of those of us who will achieve 1K status no matter what, to have less competition for upgrade seats, but it is ridiculous to believe that the airlines care about our upgrade chances. Their ideal scenario is to sell-out the higher upgradeable fares to elites who play the upgrade lottery, and then sell-out the premium cabins to full/partial-revenue passengers, leaving us with unused SWUs that expire worthless! Oh, and I am sorry, but domestic upgrades just aren't that valuable unless you are on a PS flight--I think the exit rows are more comfortable than the crappy UA FC domestic product, and would always opt for the exit row over FC except my wife likes the FC cabin.

I respect you segment fliers and hope that things will work-out for you in a more favorable way.

jpsj

I wrote to UAL to express my displeasure at the segment change to 120. Here is what I got back:

"We recognize that the increased criterion for EQS may come as a disappointment to 1K customers who earn status based on segments; however, the segment qualification criterion is necessary to provide logically spaced intervals at 30 EQS, 60 EQS, 90 EQS, and 120 EQS. This provides meaningful differentiation between the segment-based thresholds and the benefits offered. It was also necessary as we continue integrating the United Mileage Plus and OnePass programs."

By this reasoning, shouldn't there been a subsequent raise in mileage requirements as well?

Meaningful differentiation=a different airline for me.

^^^^^^

tullupump

I got my response back yesterday. My "personalized letter" had exactly the same words.

SFOisHome

I got the exact same response as well.

I have hit about 110 EQS and around 65-70 EQM for the past 3 yrs. I will most likely have to do a MR/ Segment Run to hit the new 120 EQS qualifier. Luckily, my work travel will increase next year so I may hit 120. Its still crappy that UA doesn't value 1ks the hard way as much as 1ks on miles. Mr SFOisHome is 1k on miles and I have easily spent more time on UA metal in the past year than he has.

benblaney

So there are other options, but you choose to take connections rather than fly direct, on UX rather than mainline, AND you pay more for just so you can be "loyal" to United.

Firstly, I think this proves that actors in the market are irrational. Secondly, I think that you're mad.