eviltwin

I noticed that I did not get my 100% mileage bonus for a recent flight that was marketed as a UA flight (UA flight number and all) but was on Asiana metal.

What if the flight was marketed as an Asiana flight and was on UA metal? Would I have gotten the bonus then?

I'm assuming not, in which case this seems kind of unfair because then they have you coming and going -- one of the two of those situations ought to be deemed a UNITED flight.

Thoughts?

JetCity

I got surprised by this one last year on a UA flt# operated by NH. Afterwards, I complained to the 1K desk because it was not obvious to me when I made the reservation and they took my ignorance into consideration. Now I know better.

gachen

Your assumption is wrong. Actually you will get bonus from united regardless which airline issure the ticket.

eviltwin

Okay, so just to be really clear:

Partner-marketed flight with partner flight number flown on UA metal = 100% bonus.

UA-marketed flight with UA flight number flown on partner metal = no bonus (unless on US Airways or Lufthansa trans-atlantic)


Please confirm or disconfirm, anyone?

WindFlyer

Your confirmation:

Yes. This flight is what UA and MP refer to as a "reverse codeshare."

Correct again.

Always Flyin

Just another example (of many) that codeshares are outright fraud.

If UA is going to put their flight number on a flight operated by any other carrier, it should be treated as a UA flight for all benefit purposes.

Morrissey

I couldn't agree more! ^

aparsuites

I agree too. I think this is what AA does.

A helpful way to think of it, under the UA rules, is the following: When there's UA flight operated by another airline (e.g. NH), it's not UA who's putting their flight number on the NH flight, it's NH who's putting their flight on the UA number. Same thing in the opposite direction--when there's an NH flight number operated by UA, it's UA whose getting the benefit by being able to sell their own seats to customers who might initially have been geared towards flying with NH. I think that this way of looking at it helps to explain why the system works the way it does.

Many people have complained about the fact that ua.com sometimes gives many options of flights operated by US and very few of flights operated by UA. I remember someone once posted that there was an agreement under which UA promissed to mix in US-operated flights in with its own and US did the same thing. So, for me, the lesson was that a for an airline, the benefit of a code-share agreement is the fact that another airline will sell your seats. The cost is the fact that you have to try and sell their through your booking channels (i.e. by attaching your flight number to their flights).

The above isn't true for all code-share agreements, but I think it fits for many. UA and LH have a renevue-sharing deal, so, in this case, it's a whole nother ballgame.

transpac

This text is found prominently displayed in the Mileage Plus section of ual.com...

"PLEASE NOTE: The mileage accrual of United marketed code share flights operated by other carriers is based on the accrual rule of the operating carrier."