Is United devaluing MP on a stealth basis?

We are all by now weary of the changes in MP. For most they have been neutral to negative. Some great benefits were doled out and some taken away or degraded.

These were all very clearly announced some months ago, so we could all gird our loins for the upcoming onslaught. HOWEVER, it appears UA is now subtly and without announcement, degrading the program by awarding fewer miles per city pair than they previously did.

This was uncovered in another thread http://milepoint.com/forums/threads/no-more-500-mile-minimum.30127/
I invite you to take a look and give me your opinion.

 

Why did you start a new thread to tell us about an existing one?

 

Title of the existing thread does not allude to thi issue so people may not realize what exactly is going on. The subject evolved. I'd like to get more of an uproar. Further, I checked with Milepoint Moderators / Guides before posting this and they OK'd the concept.

 

Ehh, of all the things that have been devalued, I think this is one of the more minor items.

 

Not a big deal to the individual (although over the very long haul it will be). This is how the bean counters screw the entire universe of MP members. I don't know the numbers, but I am guessing if you translate their (United's) long term obligation in outstanding miles to a cash equivalent, and then reduce that by say. one half of one percent, you are talking real money. real money coming out of all of our pockets! Sic Semper Tyrannus!!!

 

And I agree, this is minor, however, they apparently tried to blow one by us and then gave us some BS explanation.

 

No disagreement from me about it helping them in the long run, but the way I look at it, it's balanced out by the extra RDM/EQMs that we've gotten (and will probably continue to get in the future) when we get rebooked in full Y during irrops.

 

So I am at a little loss on this, if on March 2 and for how many years in the past was, lets say SFO YVR 800 and all of a sudden it is no longer now 798, I think that for a change like this it would be nice if UA explained how they devalued the miles, what criteria did they use? if point A to B is so many miles how can you say now it is not?

 

The distance between two airports can vary depending on a number of factors. For one thing, it depends on the specific coordinates you use for the airport. Are you basing it on the driveway, the ticket counter, the gate or the runway? And if the latter, which end of the runway? Remember that a 8000 foot runway is actually a mile and a half long. From the eastern entrance to LAX to the western end of the runways is probably between 3-4 miles.

After that, it depends on what parameters you use when calculating the great circle distance between the coordinates. Because the earth is not a perfect sphere there are essentially fudge factors that get worked into the normal spherical geometry calculations.

All this adds up to different sets of numbers which can easily vary by 1-10 miles. I have no idea what set of data United is using for populating these tables, but it isn't all that hard to believe that the numbers can vary a bit.

ETA: I just did the calculations for LAX-HNL based on the shortest and longest distances I can get and still be on the property of the airports at both ends. The distance varies over a 4 mile range. I have no idea what the company is actually crediting for that route so I don't know if it is within the margin of error, but there is a range there.

 

​

​

​

I copied this off a post in the other forum, which, in turn was copied from an FT forum:​

​

​

​

​

"Originally Posted by UA Insider ​

Hi Everyone, in true FlyerTalk form, your detailed thought and research on this topic are worth talking about. And as usual, we have a pretty boring explanation for what really happened. ​

​

As part of combining our two loyalty programs, we did a side-by-side comparison of the mileage calculations used by Continental and United. Of course, we found differences. Most commonly, these differences in calculations were found in locations where airports have physically moved (e.g. DEN, HKG, SIN, etc.). Other differences were found in markets where, when Continental or United added service, the mileage amount chosen was simply set to match other carriers already servicing the market as opposed to doing a new calculation. ​

​

In an effort to begin using a single source for all mileage calculations, we refreshed all of our calculation data. The source against which this new mileage is calculates is a standard Great Circle Map (GCM) table. As many of you know, there are several sources for GCM data, and, while they don’t match perfectly, they are also rarely ever off by more than a mile.​

​

Shannon Kelly​

Director, Customer Insights​

United Airlines"​

​

It doesn't address why the vast majority of changes so far uncovered and reported are decreases. It is possible that there is a more even distribution of increases and decreases, but people will tend to report the decreases....​

 

That happens to you too? I thought it was just me.

 

Didn't know SIN had been relocated. Think she meant BKK?

 

Yup. There are rumors that it's less likely to happen on the new CO system, but we'll see...

 

I noticed the mileage differences between location as well. I think this is another example of "the squeeze" on potential profits and, as pointed out above, the allowable devaluation of miles.

 

Right on!! Stick it to the man!!

BTW , welcome to Milepoint, or as Mrs. Flyer calls it, the looney bin!

 

I hope United isn't devaluing Milepoint! Oh, did you mean the other MP???

 

So let me get this straight...you started a tread entirely to cause trouble.

Don't matter what the coppers say, doesn't make it right.

What is this, #OccupyMilePoint?

 

No, I started a thread in the hopes we wold get a response from United. And yeah, part of the reason we have these forums is to keep the various travel entities in line. The power of social media is growing and they know it. So, should I check with you before posting something from now on?

 

I noticed this too and now I will have to either buy PQMs (thank goodness they kept this CO feature), add a connection to one future trip, or do a baby MR SFO-LAX some afternoon. Otherwise I think I'll miss my status target for this year. I already know I'm extremely unlikey to do business travel this year, only family stuff.

Nickel and diming the miles by magically shrinking the globe after March 3 just took off 459 miles. Yeah, i do cut it pretty close. I don't like to sit in a pressurized tube any more than I have to.

 

Let me see if I understand you, above you posted the post that UAI posted on the FT thread giving COs reason for doing this, Im sure you read the posts after that and saw she never came back to discuss it. So now You believe by creating this Thread on MP that she will all of a sudden come onto MP and start answering our questions? Sorry but I fail to understand your thinking

 

#OccupyGCMap

 

What is it you don't get about revisiting a subject whee we are getting ripped off (I think), and have gotten an explanation that is weak (I know)? The FACT is that this sure looks fishy and in IMHO the explanation was seriously lacking. So, we sit back and let UA hammer us, or do we bring them to task? The fact is that members of this board spend hundreds of thousands of dollars flying this airline, and the least we deserve is honesty. I tell you I would be satisfied if they just came out and said "Hey guys, we reviewed the mileage credit we were giving in various city pairs and decided we were over crediting a bit, so we minimally pulled back in several areas". At least we would know where we stood. I assure you, if they made a move like this BENEFITING the FF community we would never hear the end of it. As it stands, they are burying it with malarkey.

So now I'm getting flamed for putting up a legitimate subject. Admittedly one that had been discussed in another thread with an unrelated subject, nonetheless a legitimate subject. My initial reaction would be that perhaps you shouldn't participate in the thread if you are uninterested or find the purpouse futile. However, that would be hoping for too much.

 

Simple solution......... use a different airline.

 

There are many, many ways United could screw us if they wanted to. This is not, in my opinion, one of them. Over the long haul, the impact of this change in source data for city pairs falls somewhere between removing one piece of lettuce from the dinner salad and replacing sick bags once a week instead of once a day.

 

Just a small opinion.. They did change the EQ miles from PDX-SFO to 549 from previously 550.