zambonisk

I crossed 100k eqms last week and low and behold my 6 2012 SWUs show up for a total of 22 in my account. I recall reading on FT that this would occur this year and that UA will allow use to postpone their arrival until the traditional Jan of the following year.

I called MP twice and was told that they can not issure or extend them as they always have now. I was told that this is a program change and that I'd have to call back in Jan 2012 and they would extend them then as a 1time exception. I had the Supervisor note the account so I don't have to argue again in January, has anyone else run into this yet?

While the idea to give the SWUs early sounds like a good idea, however not giving the choice to get them later makes this GS unhappy and is not a change I like.

WineCountryUA

In the long-term it should not matter, instant posting or January posting -- but in the transition year it is a pain (and a potential loss of usefulness)

UA-NYC

Except it is a pain when they've established both January posting with the option to take 4 early if you really need them. Now they're forced on you.

I'm going to hit 100K in May, and I really don't want them then.

mahasamatman

I don't recall seeing any mention of that.

Take your MP number off your record (after you've received your pre-flight benefits of course) and file for retroactive credit later in the year.

zambonisk

I consider getting stuck with 18 swu that expire in Jan, Feb & March a loss of usefullness and will not book UA for all of my early year travel if this continues. UA should give you the choice of when to get the swu, like they always have done.

mahasamatman

They have to align with CO at some point, and transitions are always painful.

StingWest

yes, I guess the rationale is that if you fly roughly the same amount each year and spread evenly over the year, next year's new EQM's would also appear in the same general time frame. Not good for all concerned, I would think.

MBS MillionMiler

Another change Jeff thinks we'll like. Speaking solely of the 1K program, there haven't been any positive changes. This one ranks as one of my biggest downers (next to the eventual loss of CR-1s).

Would it be all that difficult to continue to allow us to control our own destinies with regards to the SWUs? This just devalues them even more.

Karter

It's a real problem for me. This year I'm gonna requalify for 1k around July, but I usually use SWUs for when I travel with family, and my partner won't requal til probably late autumn. You really should have the option to get them at qual or in January.

amartin1979

Why not give them to us as soon as we earn them, but make sure that they won't expire until Jan 2013? This would seem to make the most sense. Just extend the expiration period and deposit them early.

UA-NYC

I'm assuming you mean Jan 2013 - THAT would make sense (and would be nice)...it's what AA does, right? But probably too nice unfortunately - remember, our benefits are supposed to decline with this merger.

amartin1979

Does this also mean that there will be no way to ensure a January 2013 expiration for these SWU? If we get them as soon as hit 100k, the latest we can earn 100k would be at the end of December, so the last expiration would need to be Dec 2012.

It also seems that this new policy might encourage 1K's to fly *less* towards the end of the year to avoid crossing the threshold.

zambonisk

It won't be to painful for me, I'll just shift more business away from UA and send them copies of the AA tickets.

mre5765

SWU's are normally dated from the month they are deposited. When I've earned SWUs at 150K and 200K EQMs, they are never deposited on the day the EQMs post, and it take several days.

So if you time your EQMs to post on December 31, I suspect they will expire in January 2013.

amartin1979

This just shouldnt be something I have to do. Why would UA want me to time my arrival to 1K exactly to Dec 31? I would think the airline would want me to fly more throughout the year, not less! Perhaps UA Insider can chime in on the reasoning here. It seems shortsighted.