TransWorldOne

Well said.

johnep1

One more thought on this. I'm sure a lot of folks with these tickets are on UA flights at some point. That is real $$$ US is losing when you fly the UA segs. I think that it would be very smart of US to offer people this option. Instead of having to give up most of the taxes/fees and pay $$$ to UA, US would instead be getting $$$ and would get the seats back in inventory (I've looked at my flights and see that some are very close to sold out (Y2 on ART-PIT)).

If US sold 1,000 tickets, and maybe 250 of them are F tickets, then they only get $7,000 (750 x $2 + 250 x $22) revenue. If they offer to buy everyone's tickets back, they (assume 100% participation) make $40,500 (750 x $32 + 250 x $66) instead because US would get to keep the taxes.

Now, let's also assume that the average ticket earns 5,000 miles (many are transcons but there also a lot of midcons). Then the Y tickets would get people a total of 3,750,000 miles and the F tickets 2,500,000. So by buying people's tickets back, US would be getting $40,500 and giving up 6,250,000 miles. US would be agreeing to sell 6,250,000 miles at 0.65 cents each. But they would also be saving whatever they would need to pay UA for the UA flights and would get about 5,000 seats (I'm guessing the average itinerary has 5 segs on it) back to sell. Seeing that the miles would go on US's balance sheet for a lot less than 0.65 cents each, this could make US some decent money.

Just my $1.86.

Has the OP heard anything back from US?

bursa

But if US gave miles without flying, it would set a "dangerous" precedent for future scenarios...what if many pax bought tickets and didn't fly?

johnep1

I do not think allowing this once would set a dangerous precedent, especially considering the circumstances here. I don't think US will go for this, but I do think that it would make good sense to do so.

CPRich

OK, I'll bite - what's your definition of precendent.

1.a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.

Or do you not think it would be dangerous - buying status without flying is a fine idea?

johnep1

I never objected to the statement that this would set a precedent. I objected to what I view as an erroneous assertion that this precedent would be "dangerous." The precedent that would be established would be very narrow. Something along the lines of: "When US mistakenly offers a fare under $2 and 1,000 tickets are sold, many to people who bought up tickets for the sole purpose of accumulating FFMs, US can offer the miles in return for the customer giving up their rights to the tickets if doing so would be in the best interest of US."

I see no dangerous precedent being set if US offers this type of deal. It would in no way imply that flyers would then be able to seize up cheap tickets to Europe and then get the miles without flying. As with any mistake fare/rate, anything offered by the provider would apply only to those involved with that specific issue.

So yes, I concede that a precedent will be set. However, I only contested the use of "dangerous." Yes, US might commit themselves to making the same offer the next time they offer transcons for $1.86, but barring this exact fact pattern, there is nothing at all "dangerous" about this precedent.

pitflyer

It is dangerous. Airlines do sell miles straight to the public at higher rates and also to other agencies (such as hotels, car rental companies etc). If people can book a $400 mileage run fare to Asia for example and earn 100k miles without flying, that will depress the market for miles.

We all know that mileage runs exist, but it takes a special type of lunatic to ride all that way for the miles. It isn't that hard for any 'normal' to understand that if I can get 100k miles for $400 with no further hassles, then it sounds like a great way to get the family to see Grandma on her birthday cheaper than any ticket I can buy outright.

johnep1

I still fail to understand how allowing people who booked these specific $1.86 fares to trade their tickets for the miles that would be earned had they taken the flight would bind US to honoring the same type of deal for anyone who later buys a ticket to Europe just for the miles. I specifically stated that this could easily be a one-time offer (unless US tosses out some more $1.86 fares).

I have no problem doing MRs, and will be flying on 5 of these tickets. Still, it makes sense for US of offer some type of deal. Much as Travelocity honored the $51 Fiji tickets and then offered people a $250 credit to cancel. Using your analogy would mean that you can book anything on Travelocity and then call them up and receive a refund and a $250 voucher. Obviously this isn't so. Every situation is unique and just because US would be allowing those who already booked these cheap flights to basically buy status, there's no reason to believe that this would happen in the future. Precedent - yes. Dangerous precedent - no way.

rbAA

I don't think I would want US miles. Definitely prefer BD, especially on the FC RT's for the 325% of actual/minimum.

I have 2 UA segments next Monday and both appear fairly full, though it appears UPG'able to FC once they figure out how to pull miles and from which program for the US codeshare on UA metal. LH miles should work. I gues it can't hurt to ask.

Morrissey

The reason that US will not do this is simple: as far as they (and all other airlines) are concerned, the primary purpose of purchasing an airplane ticket is to get from point A to point B, not to earn FF miles. I'm sorry if that sounds like heresy to some of you, but it needs to be said. I would be against any airline that would award you miles for a flight that you never actually took and had no intention of taking. US held up their part of the bargain by honoring the fares, and now you have to hold up YOUR part of the bargain and sit through all those flights...

pitflyer

^^^
What he said!

CPRich

I echo the sentiment of the last 2 posts.


By definition, a precedent can't be "only for this case, but not in the future". Once you open Pandora's box, no matter the caveats around it, you have established that you accept the concept of buying miles and status.

I'm also curious if OP heard back. I'm curious whether OP actually contacted US or just posted on FT to brag/grandstand.

johnep1

And I said I wouldn't hold up my part of the bargain when? All I remember saying is that this would make financial sense for US to do and would not force them to give miles for flights not flown in the future.

I have 5 of these tickets. 3 of them are booked in F class and have a lot of UA flights. I'm actually looking forward to the flights and to going to Oregon for the first time. But it still would make sense for US to offer some deal to get these tickets back. Same as what travelocity did a few weeks ago.

As for booking flights that you never intend to take solely to get the miles, you have not given any facts that support this. In our case, people booked a lot of flights with the intention of taking those flights and earn the miles for the flying. US offering the miles in this case in return for taking back control of the tickets would not change that. I'm sure any real FTer is happy to actually take the flights and get the cheap miles and I am not trying to get out of my side of the bargain. Again, I'm simply saying that US would be better off if they offered people a deal.

The post above that mentions applying the miles to other *A carriers helps make this case even stronger. By making a deal, US would be giving out their own miles (which are on their balance sheet for a fraction of a cent) and not have to purchase miles from other carriers.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's been fun though. I love mistake fares.

JS

Besides violating FFP protocol, it would be a big waste of time for US Airways to refund tickets and award miles anyway.

If you've ever tried to refund a ticket for a good reason, you understand that it's not as simple as 1-2-3. The agents are overloaded as it is; doing that a few thousand times, not to mention looking through millions of reservations to find them, is a total dead end.

Just fly the dang flights and quit virtually badgering US Airways!

johnep1

I hope that last part was not directed at me as I have not been badgering US. I have simply stated that I think it makes sense for US to lessen their damages.

As for being a waste of time, how difficult is it to take their one 20 year old website developer and have him scan the whole 4 flights a day to/from ART and LEB for the next year and email anyone with a base fare under $25 (to pick up the Y and F tickets)? That might take a few days to complete.

And please show me where anyone asked that US refund any tickets. As far as I can tell, the OP requested that US keep the fare and just give out the miles.

Anytime I have refunded a ticket using the 24-hour cancellation policy, the refund has appeared on my CC statement within a few days. Doesn't appear to be that difficult.