Co-Pays on GPUs for Sub W (or Z) Fares: Slippery Slope or Good Idea?

Discussion in 'United Airlines | MileagePlus' started by J.Edward, Mar 10, 2012.  |  Print Topic

?

Would you like to see Co-Pays on SWUs for upgrading sub W (or Z) fares?

  1. Yes, I would like to see this feature added.

    8 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. No, I like GPUs the way they are.

    16 vote(s)
    66.7%
  1. J.Edward
    Original Member

    J.Edward Silver Member

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    178
    Status Points:
    420
    Recent rumblings from our fellow MP'ers on the AA forum have seemed to suggest that AA is considering introducing co-pays to their SWUs.

    Obviously there's a few differences between the two reward programs but it does seem to raise an interesting idea: in a simple "yes" or "no", would you like to see the option to have SWUs work on all fares (specifically sub W fares for Y > C and Z > F) with the addition of a copay.

    Finally if you want to share your reasoning for voting please feel free to do so.
     
  2. Xyzzy
    Original Member

    Xyzzy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    14,626
    Status Points:
    14,020
    A co-pay option for sub-W would allow one to not have to f:eek:rk over extra money in hopes of a GPU clearing... then again, it would invite the co-pay bar to be raised to a higher fare class. I'm not so sure this is a good idea.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  3. mht_flyer
    Original Member

    mht_flyer Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,016
    Likes Received:
    6,664
    Status Points:
    4,670
    Exactly why I say a big NO... If this do this then why not on W fares.


    Keep these the way they are.
     
    meFIRST likes this.
  4. Xyzzy
    Original Member

    Xyzzy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    14,626
    Status Points:
    14,020
    I'd rather go the other way and have the old C:) SWU deal ... four SWUs that were usable on any fare.
     
    Golfingboy, tommy777, theBOAT and 3 others like this.
  5. J.Edward
    Original Member

    J.Edward Silver Member

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    178
    Status Points:
    420
    My thoughts as well. As I posted on FT, I'd prefer the devil I know over the one I don't.

    At the very best this would make GPUs harder to use as they would become less restricted and put increased pressure on an already anemic upgrade supply.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  6. ssullivan
    Original Member

    ssullivan Gold Member

    Messages:
    27,358
    Likes Received:
    60,275
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Me too.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  7. Seacarl
    Original Member

    Seacarl Gold Member

    Messages:
    10,521
    Likes Received:
    11,372
    Status Points:
    16,520
    That's what I'd fear. Co-pays on anything below Y/B/M fare. Making SWUs really useless unless there is confirmable inventory at time of booking
     
  8. CGK
    Original Member

    CGK Gold Member

    Messages:
    6,015
    Likes Received:
    7,984
    Status Points:
    7,845
    I would rather rather have four CO unrestricted SWUs, and would rather not deal with the slippery slope of co-pays.

    Simplicity is always the best solution, IMO.
     
    festdave and ssullivan like this.
  9. ssullivan
    Original Member

    ssullivan Gold Member

    Messages:
    27,358
    Likes Received:
    60,275
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Agreed. I miss the old CO SWU program.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  10. EWR764
    Original Member

    EWR764 Silver Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    580
    Status Points:
    670
    Agree with the slippery slope argument. This opens the door for copay on all fares when using an instrument.

    However, I would like to see some greater measure of flexibility, such as using a GPU+RPU to upgrade a sub-W or Z fare, for example. Of course, that would be far too complicated to implement.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  11. PhlyingRPh
    Original Member

    PhlyingRPh Silver Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    476
    Status Points:
    595
    I would vote for no co-pays for any fare class (if it were an option) but would also be interested in an "early confirmation fee" to guaranty confirmation at the time of booking or any time up till the time of check-in. Some people, myself included, prefer the certainty of knowing exactly where they will be sitting for 8, 12 or 14 hours and would not mind paying a fee to confirm an upgrade. Others don't mind checking seat inventory and seating charts once or twice a day until the day of departure, then every hour thereafter, ultimately taking an anxious ride to the airport and being extra extra nice to the airline pre-screening and check-in agents.
     
    mht_flyer likes this.
  12. meFIRST

    meFIRST Silver Member

    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    744
    Status Points:
    695
    I would go one up and give the travelers a choice.
    4 on ANY fare or 6 W or D or higher.

    meFIRST, would take 6, at the W or higher or D or higher
     
  13. Xyzzy
    Original Member

    Xyzzy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    14,626
    Status Points:
    14,020
    That s;)unds great until one considers the implementation of this proposal. Imagine the confusion both customers and employees will have over which type of upgrade instrument a customer has. People won't understand the difference. (I have already had that kind of experience trying to use unrestricted 2010 CO SWUs near the end of their validity dates.) Then, consider what happens when customers decide that they want to switch the kind of instrument they wish to earn....
     
  14. meFIRST

    meFIRST Silver Member

    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    744
    Status Points:
    695
    I totally agree. I had to remind some of the agent, and for my protection I printed of the terms and conditions of these instruments, circa 2010
     
  15. mherdeg
    Original Member

    mherdeg Silver Member

    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    186
    Status Points:
    395
    An undocumented feature of UA SWUs was that they could, at an agent's discretion, be manually applied on day of departure at the airport on sub-W fares on flights that were extremely undersold in business class. This was a smart and extremely cheap way for UA agents to brighten someone's day, build loyalty, and eliminate an instrument that in the future might have the costly effect of displacing a revenue traveler.

    Because upgrades can no longer be requested within 24 hours of travel, this flexibility is completely gone. I will miss it. (To pre-empt the replies saying that it is good for the company's long-term financial health if people pay more money and receive less product: yes, it certainly is, but perhaps not if there are any other companies in the marketplace.)
     
  16. chitownflyer
    Original Member

    chitownflyer Silver Member

    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Status Points:
    870
    United GPU(formerly SWUs) copays are a bad idea, as it opens the door to requiring copays on W & higher fares down the road. If AA implements SWU copays, it will really aggravate their Executive Platinum flyers, and their program will loose a major advantage that it has over MP of issuing 8 SWU valid on any fare.
     
  17. okrogius

    okrogius Silver Member

    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    853
    Status Points:
    795
    As long as they co-pay is only payable if the upgrade clears, it's a big improvement. In fact, in most markets I would be happy with such a copay equal to the W fare difference.
     
  18. jswong
    Original Member

    jswong Gold Member

    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    2,739
    Status Points:
    1,370
    For me, anything that reduces the inventory of upgrade seats is bad (thus my vote is no)

    Jeff
     
  19. Seacarl
    Original Member

    Seacarl Gold Member

    Messages:
    10,521
    Likes Received:
    11,372
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I am sure that the co-pay will be higher than the fare difference. Take a look at the co-pay chart for mileage upgrades. And why stop at applying the co-pay at W fares, those are also discounted. All fares below Y/B could end up with the co-pay. I think it would immediately devalue the SWU.
     
    chitownflyer likes this.

Share This Page