Earlier today I wrote about United’s new earning structure for partner flights, effective July 1, 2020. While the policy penalizes those outside the USA, I would not call it unfair. At the same time, I cannot think of a more tone deaf move on the part of United Airlines now.
Why The United MileagePlus Policy Change On Partner Flight Earnings Is Fair
When I first wrote about the 2020 MileagePlus program changes last autumn, it was already clear there were tremendous arbitrage opportunities to earn status for far less than the dollar values set by United.
United eliminated the category of distance in calculating elite points for its own segments (only dollar spend and segments would count) but essentially re-introduced mileage runs by allowing partner flights to count toward elite spending requirements…by factoring distance.
> Read More: An Intriguing Upside To United’s Radical MileagePlus Changes
As one commenter aptly noted:
Also ironic that this will result in people spending more money to “not” fly United. Did I say irony? I meant something else…
Well, the irony is no longer lost on United, especially as it fights for survival.
For mileage aficionados, there was a perverse disincentive to avoid flying United. Choosing Singapore Airlines over United on a cheap San Francisco to Singapore flight could result in 3-4X greater MileagePlus earnings on Singapore than United.
Clearly, as United desperately tries to rebuild, it wants to incentivize customers to fly on its own planes.
In that sense, the policy change is fair.
Why The United MileagePlus Policy Change Is Tone Deaf
But while this change may be fair, it is certainly tone deaf. People are not flying now, but looking ahead to when they can fly again. United was just the recipient of a huge bailout from the U.S. taxpayer. Yes, United was very generous to extent status and cut status requirements for 2021. But it had to do something to woo customers back.
And this new policy change strikes me as unnecessarily adverse during a time in which United should be doing all it can to earn customer’s trust. Just like on the refund issue, people are taking note and will remember which airlines took care of them and which airlines did not. Business is a two-way street.
United had a great opportunity to build upon the positive news of its status extension and offer additional incentives to fly on United. United could have even offered a less painful disincentive. It could have also increased the divisor, essentially reducing the number of PQDs earned on partner tickets without setting artificially low caps.
Sadly for United, it will once again be viewed as penny-wise, pound-foolish by further devaluing its MileagePlus program and pulling the rug out from a new earning scheme that is only four months old. If United decided, with one day of notice, that this valuable feature must go, what confidence do MileagePlus members have that other perks or positive program features won’t be taken away without notice?
How This Could Backfire On United
I’ve got a friend who lives in Singapore. He has been loyal to United for decades, always re-qualifying for 1K status. Yes, he uses Singapore Airlines or Thai Airways for regional or European flying to help re-qualify for status, but spends thousands of dollars per year on tickets between Singapore and the U.S. on United metal due to EconomyPlus and the chance of upgrades.
With United now no longer counting partner flights as generously, he may well just give up on status and start using Singapore Airlines for his transpacific status. That will cost United thousands in revenue.
People who took advantage of these arbitrage opportunities were discretionary passengers on the margins. United has shown hostility toward such travelers going back to the Smisek era, so this is hardly a shock. But I still think the “hey this isn’t fair they are qualifying so cheaply” mentality does not account for the whole picture.
United’s war on travelers at the margin has never made sense to me. It continues to reward the sort of corporate travelers who have no choice anyway (and also receive deeply discounted tickets due to bulk discounts). Especially as the economy rebounds slowly and air travel even more slowly, it’s not like they will be “stealing” seats when load factors are so light.
And if the quip is “they never wanted to fly United anyway” then I guess that means they are not stealing premium seats from any “worthier” customers.
CONCLUSION
Customers will not reward desperation and this move strikes me as desperation. United is so desperate to win customers back that it further undermines its more valuable asset (MileagePlus) in a way that will actually drive more business away than draw it in it. But yes, technically the new policy is fair, at least when compared to earning on United flights.
It is not about being fair or not. It is about timing. United is bleeding pretty bad. The blood transfusion provided by the Government will not be enough and by October when they are allowed to lay off there will be traffic on Willis Tower elevators going down. Hopefully by that time people will start to fly again and that is when customers will be in control to decide which airline and hotel deserves their loyalty. United is doing everything to piss off customers. This is bad timing and it seems like United executives should have much higher priorities in their list than limiting the amount of miles one can get by flying on partner airlines. United is doomed.
“as United desperately tries to rebuild, it wants to incentivize customers to fly on its own planes.” And they are doing a horrible job at incentizing, all right. In fact, this sneaky BS that they constantly pull has really done it for me. I do not disagree that it’s fair but the timing and how they have actively created policy to hurt their customers is what I am done with. I have one booking with UA to FRA in J, and after either a refund or voucher, I will actively go out of my way and spend more on other airlines to stick it back to them. Let your money do the talking as a consumer. I have a trip to HKG in the works as well as one to Singapore. Originally, I was going to take the nonstops out of EWR for HKG and SFO to SIN but not any more. SQ offers better service all around for my dollar so it will be SFO-HKG on SQ and also SQ on IAH-MAN-SIN. I spend around 35-45k on airfare annually and UA once would receive a sizable piece of that but no more.
Agreed. I hope United reads this.
I totally agree. It seems to me that those on the margins who need this to qualify for 1K will use their status for something United-related.
So to dissuade those few to chase status would likely mean losing those customers anyway, which seems awfully shortsighted.
united is broke. I hope they go bankrupt.
United could make me Gold for life and I woouldn’t choose United. Oh, wait…I AM Gold for life…but I still won’t choose United unless there are no other options.
This is th depth to which United has destroyed their customer base over the years.
How can you call it ‘fair’ – UA changed their program to basically say if you’re not already buying expensive tickets it’s going to be nearly impossible to get any status worth having (status that won’t matter to anyone in that category). They created this ridiculous math for partner earning which created better opportunity for flying non-UA metal. Every travel blogger saw this benefit in about 1.2 seconds. So are the people who created this at UA complete idiots for missing it? Their job is to understand these things. If UA made such a glaring miscalculation on partner earning, it stands to reason that their logic for the rest of the changes was flawed. In a lot of markets US isn’t even competing with the partner (inter asia, inter europe, even some long haul like NYC-ICN or NYC-SIN) so why not make it worthwhile for flyers to choose SA over different carriers?
Back to the fair question…you’re calling it fair relative to the new structure which wasn’t really fair relative to the old structure. I don’t think this is an issue of fair or not. UA is free to do what they want. I think this issue is, what’s their goal with these changes. If it’s to incentivize people to fly with them and other SA partners, I don’t see it. Shouldn’t that be the goal of any FF program?
They don’t want you to fly any Star Alliance partners. They only want you to fly United.
I get it, on NYC-TYO they want you on United not ANA – but in markets they don’t serve, why not make some incentive to fly their partners…it still just shows how little thought they put into this whole structure and the effects of it if they have to make another change this fast.
“United was just the recipient of a huge bailout,” when? I don’t see how United received a bailout as opposed to union employees who are receiving substantial pay for the next 6 months. It disingenuous to say United was bailed out when the money is pay union flight attendants who aren’t flying and they have to give up equity stakes or pay it back unlike businesses that received PPP and have rent and overhead coverage. If this is a bailout, please keep it far away from individuals that get to keep the stimulus checks and not pay it back.
I get the point you are trying to make — that these changes are understandable from United’s perspective — but “fair” isn’t the right word.
“Fairness” is a very loaded concept, and everyone will have his or her own interpretation as to whether something is fair. (Merriam defines “Fair” as “ free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism“ and one could argue that United is doing precisely the opposite by acting largely out of self-interest.)
What’s less debatable (though still somewhat debatable) is whether a process is fair (eg, conforming with established rules — which is another Merriam definition of “fair”). I think most people will agree that the way this is being implemented is unusually brusque and poorly timed. (One would usually expect these kinds of changes at the end of year!)
Additionally, AA and DL do NOT cap mileage earnings on partners, so this actually goes against the norms.
I’m a GS member so I’m not personally affected, but I think it sets a terrible precedent WRT the shortsightedness of the implementation.
(Whoops – I meant to respond to the whole thread not to this poster in particular.)
Good points UAFlyer.
@Jackson Aimson: Money in fungible. United received a huge cash infusion so it would not have to pay its employees. Call it what you want, but it most definitely was a bailout.