Punki

cblaisd writes:

No, you do not have that right. What I said was that I want credit for all of the miles I actuallly fly, and unless and until I hear a logical reason why I should not get them, I will make every effort to do so. Thoughtless explanations like, "That is the way we do it" and "That is our rule" are simply not logical and carry no weight with me. If there is no logical reason for a policy, then IMHO it should not exist.

As a matter of fact, on the two occasions I have requested the miles that I actually flew on "direct" flights (thank you for reminding me about that time seven years ago), the CSR's agreed with me and happlily credited my account.

Of course, your miles may, and very probably will, vary. That is your prerogative, just as claiming the miles that I actually flew is mine.

Thank you again for your impressive research, documenting how obscure and frustrating this policy really is for folks.

ozstamps

Just so others might get confused, a single flight number of 2 segments CAN be "broken" by agents - if you are savvy enough to ask, and if they are obliging enough to do so.

I had a SYD-NYC recently that has the one flight number.

At my request original agent "broke" it into two and the one SWU sufficed for all 10,000 miles - albeit both upgrades cleared at different times.

WindFlyer

Well, I hate to be the one breaking it to you, but you'll never get credit for the miles you actually fly

You see, you'll get credited a set number of miles for any given city pair based on the great circle route distance between those two points. The actual number is, well, somewhat arbitrary to the specific mileage program or airline (compare UA- and LH-operated SFO-FRA flights, for example)... or in other words, the program's rules ...

In reality, you will fly a greater number of miles, as you have departure routes, you'll often fly on a series of connecting jetways that form anything but a straight line between the city pairs, there are airfield approaches, there's vectoring for sequencing, and sometimes even holding patterns and whatnot... but, guess what... you'll never get credit for those actually-flown miles

Now, that is a perfectly logical reason and explanation to me, though I suspect it may not be to you—after all, at the end of the day it comes down to the program's rules or, to paraphrase you, 'the way things are done'... things for which you seem to exhibit some disdain since, as you say, "they carry no weight with [you]."

Having said all that, yes, the 'direct-flight' policy can often be frustrating and annoying. But like with all rules and policies, one simply needs to learn to work them to one's advantage (such as breaking up the direct flight into its segments)... There are also a number of cases where a direct flight can be advantageous (an RTW when one is running short on coupons and/or miles comes readily to mind).

And for the record, 'direct flights' are an industry-wide practice not limited to UA... I expect most savvy travelers have become aware of them by now @:-)

kb1992

Really?

I thought that adding a segment would increase tax by $7.

Would agents insist charging this?

notquiteaff

What you and I want or feel we deserve usually doesn't matter. UA put forth the rules of MP, and you can choose to accept them, or you can choose a different airline. Or, well, you could buy enough shares of UAL to have some say as to what the rules should be to be logical.

(and yes, I agree that the rule isn't logical, but where's the rule that says rules need to be logical).

SmilingBoy

What flight numbers would the itinerary show in this case? For both flights still the same flight number? Or the actual, real flight numbers of each of the non-stop flights?

SmilingBoy.

cblaisd

Good luck with that line of reasoning when you try it with the IRS

Good for you that you managed to get employees to agree with you and to violate the rules their employers had charged them with the responsibility of upholding. I'm sure that you would be equally happy, therefore, if one of your employees breaks one of your rules because someone convinces him or her that it's not "logical." Demanding that someone do something that puts his or her job at risk is usually not considered an appropriate thing, but in this case I'm sure you must be right.

As has been pointed out more than once, you didn't get the miles you "actually" [sic] flew, either before or after you managed to have the rules broken for you.

You're welcome. The fact that it has been mentioned so many times in the past year makes it more like common knowledge and frustrating, though. That would be a more logical inference.

And I still await your response: When you fly a flight that is listed as having an actual distance of fewer than 500 miles, do you also ask UA to deduct the extra miles that you illogically and unfairly are given? Knowing you are honorable and logical, I assume so?

iapetus

Not to imply that I'm taking a side in this debate, but I did want to pose a quick question: doesn't the origin of this policy have to do with the inability of UA's mileage calculation software to separate out the segments on its own? Somewhere along the way I got the impression that that's why you have to make sure that different segments on the same flight number are booked as such.

ozstamps

Feb 20, 2007 - UA 840 - LAX to JFK 2,475 - 2,475 - 4,950

Feb 20, 2007 - UA 840 - SYD to LAX 7,487 - 7,487 - 14,974

vsevolod4

There are many things that don't make sense but are part of the rules, whether at United or other airlines or most companies or Government agencies. They just 'are.'

United's explanation will be that they credit you for every separate flight based on the endpoints, not every takeoff/landing, not every segment:
- They don't give you extra miles when you fly around and around an airport in an ATC holding pattern (even though you have technically flown them);
- They don't give you extra miles when the pilot decides to fly around a storm and take a longer route;
-If it's a flight that has a refueling stop R between points A and B (whether scheduled or unscheduled) they don't credit you for two flight segments from A to R and R to B.

I don't believe this is a UA issue ... this is the way every airline with which I have familiary does it.

The way that they see flight 917 is (or rather, was) IAD-SEA, period. This is the way it fares, the way it computes taxes, the way it computes upgrade availability and, of course, computes mileage.

Mileage usually works against you. But the taxes (and security fees, etc.) may be a tad lower. Them's the rules and while I think you got lucky by finding someone who "broke" the flight into two segments, that is probably not according to policy.

Probably the biggest positive reason to go on a flight with the same flight number is in case of delays on the first segment. If the aircraft is the same aircraft, this is obvious. But most of these faux-direct flights have a change of aircraft. In this case, it is not a certainty, but it is a higher probability that the "onbound" segment of this "direct" flight will be held to accommodate the "inbound" passengers. For some flights such as the ones to Australia, this extra peace of mind MAY be worth the fewer mileage.

But this is FT and of course are about mileage ueber alles. You can of course specifically book different flights. You can also try booking a ticket by using "multi-city" and selecting flight 917 for both FRA-IAD and IAD-SEA in this case. It's likely to be treated as two separate flight segments in both faring and for mileage, although YMMV.

Another thought might be to book one of the segments as a partner's code-share, e.g. the LH equivalent of the same flight (this may affect your fare of course).

cblaisd

For a not dissimilar situation (but purely US domestic example), here is what my summary shows

UA 84 S Class HNL to LAX 2,556
UA 84 S Class LAX to ORD 1,745

In this case, of course, the difference between the sum of these and the direct published mileage awarded (not to be confused with "actual miles flown," of course) for HNL-ORD is not terribly big

Same here. One CR1, but segments cleared at different times.

A very thoughtful and effective and logical post, vsevolod4

Punki

Thanks for the post vsevolod4 , but that is not, in fact, what Mileage Plus or UA Customer Service said. The agents I talked with all said that they didn't know why that mileage was assigned to the flight and that it didn't make any more sense to them than it did to me, since UA has no direct flight FRA/SEA. As long as they are happy to give me the miles, I am certainly happy to take them. ^

I am sorry cblaisd, I thought I answered your question in post #15, but I will be happy to answer it again. We don't fly many short slights these days, but, yes, I would be happy to accept the actual miles on shorter flights if they would give them to me. I have actually asked them to do that, but they say that the reason that they give 500 miles for all flights is that it is easier for their record keeping purposes. Further, while it is easy for them to individually enter the two segments of a "direct" flight to adjust that mileage, it is impossible for them to enter less than 500 miles per segment.

Oh, by the way, I have never received an explanation from the IRS that didn't make sense to me. Maybe I am just lucky.

robb

I would be thrilled to see any evidence that you actually asked a United representative, at any time, that you be credited with fewer miles than the 500-mile minimum. Surely, you must have made a head-scratching, bemused, "airlines will be airlines" post somewhere along the line when your perfectly reasonable request was denied.

I could be wrong, but you seem to be wanting to engage everyone in an argument as to whether or not the direct flight rule is fair or proper. I think the only thing anyone has tried to point out to you here is that it was a bit disingenuous for you to pretend to be befuddled and perplexed at the sight of your mileage statement. It turns out you've personally encountered this before and been involved with or read countless discussions of these rules. You could have simply posted "There they go again!" Our joyous family would have consoled you and reminded you how to avoid this common pitfall in the future.

Instead, you chose to advance this fantastic tale of bewilderment and corporate confusion in which the rebel alliance was, in the end, victorious thanks to both subterfuge and the kindness of strangers.

Discrepancy? No. Easily avoided mistake which all of our newbies should be made aware of? Absolutely.

Punki

Darn, I knew I should have recorded that phone call. It would be pretty simple, however, for anyone to duplicate my results by calling MP and asking for their actual miles on a short flight, in lieu of the 500 mile minimum. Or, maybe not, who knows? YYMV Give it a try and let me know what happens.

Actually, robb, I don't believe that I have been involved in or read "countless" threads on the subject. I really don't read too much FT anymore and only rarely visit the UA forum.

Yes, it is true that once, 7 years ago, I encountered a similar situation with another airline. I called them up, explained the problem and they fixed it. It was no big deal and I forgot about it. Similarly, I called UA about this current discrepancy and they fixed it. No big deal. I would probably have forgotten about this as well if you all hadn't gotten so excited about it. I am old and have to pick and choose what is important enough to take up space on my internal hard drive.

If you guys want to take less miles than you fly, go for it. It doesn't matter to me in the least. If you want to pick up the phone and ask for the mileage assigned to the segments you actually flew, that is fine with me. To each his own.

Getting all my miles makes me happy! ^ If following illogical rules without question, and getting less miles, makes you happy, by all means, be my guest. I promise you that I will never spend even five seconds, questioning your decision or going back in time to search out, and post any threads that might ever have indciated that you cared about getting as many miles as possible.

ozstamps

I heard it was because the airlines all heard about the Mileage Run forum here.