tjl

Like they have not already? For a non-elite economy ticket passenger, UA service went below the LCCs years ago.

Hmmm, would that imply that UA's business model is to try to stay one step below WN in service quality for non-elite economy ticket passengers?

bhatnasx

This is just another example of this airline screwing customers

This airline, IMHO, has always seemed to pride itself in offering a premium experience to passengers willing to pay for it. I've always felt that unless you are a 1K or higher on UA, you're treated like crap. With this policy, they are treating the non-elite, non-regular flyers that probably give a significant revenue stream to the company like crap. Friends & coworkers often come to me for travel advice - I'm going to strongly encourage them to stay away from this airline.

alliance

If only 25% of customers check a 2nd bag, it would have only been a $6.25 per ticket across the board to have the same impact. I would rather have fares go up $6.25 and keep as many people as possible checking bags. My concern is that I expect this will create boarding hell.

The silly war on liquids got more people to check bags and made the boarding experience better. This policy seems to encourage people to carry on what was before their 2nd checked bag. This will crowd the boarding area, slow down boarding, and delay departure because of additional bags that have to be gate checked. If fees have to be collected when gate checking after the bins are full it will be even worse. Not to mention that the rules are complex and will have training and customer service costs and will likely frustrate front line employees.

pinniped

Did you ever actually take 11 checked bags with you?!? Usually, when we take a family trip with two kids and one of our parents (total party of five), our ratio of bags to people goes down to under 1 bag per person. To me, this doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if we're talking about a 2-week trip, fifty pounds of gear per person is a lot. I can sort of see the airline's perspective on this one.

People have mentioned golf/ski trips - those are key exceptions. But for those, I look at it this way: United has just raised fares by $50 to their popular ski and golf destinations. Competition will dictate whether or not it sticks. Granted, it's a slimy way to do it, but I look at it as an opportunity for WN or F9 to embark on a "skis/clubs are free" marketing campaign. Or - perhaps not - perhaps those airlines have been waiting for someone else to be the bad guy, and they'll look forward to putting more U.S. Mail onboard where your skis would have been.

Actually, it'll be a net positive on the bottom line for them - even though I don't like the move from a passenger loading/unloading perspective. This move won't drive away many pax at all, and it will open up more space/weight for paid cargo.

mre5765

Weight limits on carry-ons aren't new in other countries. The safety forum mentions LHR does it sometimes, and flying SYD-MEL last November on Virgin Blue they were using scales.

So yes, in a $100/barrel world, this is the new reality.

TA

the other thing is, will UA have a note on their purchase screen reminding non-elite (or all) passengers about this? It seems only the right thing to do given the new policy, but I didn't see anything when I tried a dummy booking just now.

GUWonder

You seem to know since you are referring to situations not covered by my words:

It is where all other things are about equal excepting this "enhancement" that business travellers would tend to book away from UA if they treat their employer's money like they would their own.

pigx5

I will do the same thing that encourage my friends take other airlines.

swdke

Not good for skiers who have their own skis. 1 bag for skis, and 1 bag for boots and winter clothing. Just another added expense to an already expensive sport.

mahasamatman

I've had IB and LH both weigh carryons.

Of course, IB was truly "intelligent" about it - they weighed my rollaboard, but said I didn't have to weigh my backpack. My rollaboard was overweight, so I moved several large bottles of water into my backpack. The rollaboard was back underweight again, so they cleared me. So I moved 20 feet away from the counter, and put the water back in the rollaboard.

UnitedF1RST

So statement says "nonrefundable" economy tix. Can some of the walking UA policy books tell us what Y fare classes that would be? I'm guessing S,T,W?

alliance

It is not that simple... it is determined not by what fare bucket but by the fare rules of the fare that you buy. Generally speaking, if the fare basis includes an N in it (ie. E7NX vs. E0X) then it is non-refundable. There are W and other low fare classes that sometimes on some routes are fully refundable.

camachinist

Yes, I had my carry-on weighed by NZ at WLG and AKL and have had it weighed by DJ in SYD, MEL and ADL. I think it is the obvious, though perhaps ill-timed, next step. At SYD, flying DJ, I ended putting some overage into my checked bag, making it overweight, so they just put a "heavy" tag on it and I signed a waiver absolving them of liability for "handle breakage". No charge.

Pat

notquiteaff

So since no other airline offers E+, this "all other things being equal" won't apply in many (most) cases, right?

In other words,

- if you don't have status with UA and
- you don't fly first/business/refundable economy and
- you can get an equally convenient flight schedule on some other airline and
- your company has no preference for UA and
- the other carrier isn't more expensive to begin with (by at least $25/each way)

you will now choose the other carrier?

notquiteaff

Given that there are many other channels to buy tickets, that would only be covering a portion of the target audience.