Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA To Begin Requiring Min. Stays  
User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

United Airlines to require minimum stays from Oct.

Quote:

United Airlines says it will start requiring minimum stays for nearly all domestic flights starting in October. It is also raising its cheapest fares by as much as $90 one-way.

The second-largest U.S. carrier says the moves are among a number of changes it is making to combat record high fuel prices.

Spokeswoman Robin Urbanski says the Chicago-based airline's new lowest available fares range from $69 to $199 one-way, based on length of the flight.

Starting October 6, most United fares will require a one- to three-night or weekend-night minimum stay.

Not surprising - but looks like UA was trying to be sneaky and hoping people won't notice if they put this out on a Friday afternoon?

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 904 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7325 times:

This is back to the old days when business men worked out a schedule so they could get the benefit of the (stay rules). Most of my clients just booked one long stay and one short stay together and then they saved money. It is easy to get round it but most people are now used to getting one way fares and this will make UA more expensive.
This will be a great help to VX and Jetblue


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7291 times:



Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 1):
It is easy to get round it

It's also a potentially a breach of the terms in the contract of carriage, and they can come after you for the fare difference should they choose. And that's the big differrence from "the old days" -- today, the airlines have access to datamining software that can flag or automatically cancel itineraries that appear to have been booked to circumvent fare rules.

Given how desperate airlines are for revenue these days, I wouldn't put it past them to be more agressive about this...

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 904 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

This is an interesting point. The customer books and travels on a legal ticket and the airlines want to cancel his bookings ? I think the lawyers would have a field day. This is providing the customer fly's all sectors. If they do that I cannot see what rules they have breached. The problem was not flying a sector. All my customers actually did travel on all flights . What do the barrack room lawyers on this blog think legally?

User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

if you do the back- to- backs , it will have to be seperate airlines to avoid detection!

they aleady can search out these breaches!


User currently offlineLambert747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7185 times:



Quoting PNQIAD (Thread starter):
United Airlines to require minimum stays from Oct.

This will be interesting to see if anyone follows. Adding this on top of all the other charges at United Airlines is going to drive business elsewhere. Time will tell I guess. What makes me think even more into this, is United Airlines in such dire straight that they need to penalize people who dont stay a minimum of x amount of days. I have a feeling this will hurt the business people more than any other group.

Truth be told. I have been told a rumor, and that is as far as I put credit into it that United Airlines is going to raise fares as described in the opening link to a level they can offer a much more premium quality product. That quality product that is being "rumored", is Economy Plus replacing Economy on all United flights system wide. At that point United Airlines can charge a premium for every one of its seats. With the reducing of more and more flights and fleet size it makes me wonder if United will shrink itself to a size that it can become a true premium product system wide in all classes of service.


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 7105 times:



Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 3):
The customer books and travels on a legal ticket and the airlines want to cancel his bookings ?

Back-To-Back/End-On-End ticketing is prohibited by most airlines contracts of carriage. If you book back-to-back and end-on-end in violation of that contract the airline is within its rights to cancel the ticket or collect the fare difference.

It's part of the contract between you and the airline -- the airline is offering to sell you transportation from X to Y for $Z provided you comply with these restrictions; if you want to travel from X to Y without those restrictions, the airline would be glad to sell you a ticket for $A

United Airlines Contract of Carriage Rule 100, paragraphs C and D:

Quote:
C) USE OF COUPONS FROM TWO OR MORE TICKETS ISSUED AT ROUND TRIP FARES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIRCUMVENTING APPLICABLE TARIFF RULES (SUCH AS
ADVANCE PURCHASE/MINIMUM STAY REQUIREMENT) IS NOT PERMITTED. UA AGENTS AND AUTHORIZED TRAVEL AGENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ISSUING TICKETS, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS “BACK TO BACK”, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE IS OBVIOUS INTENT TO ABUSE AND/OR MISUSE RESTRICTED ROUND TRIP FARES. AGENTS FOUND ISSUING SUCH TICKETS MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FARE PAID AND THE FARE FOR TRANSPORTATION USED.
UA HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY TRANSPORTATION TO PASSENGERS FOUND UTILIZING TICKETS IN THIS MANNER UNLESS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FARE PAID AND THE FARE FOR TRANSPORTATION USED IS COLLECTED.

D) A TICKET WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED, OR WHICH HAS BEEN ALTERED,
MUTILIATED OR IMPROPERLY ISSUED, SHALL NOT BE VALID. EXCEPTION: WRITE-YOUR-OWN TYPE TICKETS WILL BE HONORED FOR TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT VALIDATION, PROVIDED THE PERSON ISSUING SUCH TICKETS HAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH UA SETTING FORTH ACCOUNTING, RESERVATIONS, AND TICKETING PROCEDURES.

(Emphasis added, capitals in original)

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 6951 times:

So, let me get this straight. In order to save itself financially, UA is going to try and re-adopt an old policy that cost it tons of customers to WN and the likes back in the 1990's?

The benefits of being a UA Premier Exec are really being over-shadowed by all of UA's new drawbacks. They don't even let you come up for air from the last bombshell before they hit you again!



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 6897 times:

The dark ages return ! I thought the days of Apex, super apex etc were well and truly over.

Here in Europe FR & U2 with their demand lead pricing systems have made these petty restrictions a no no.


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 6869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is going to blow up in their face. Look for a lot of loyal flyers to jet. I plan on dumping my UA miles and cancelling membership. They also are jacking up one-way flights as much as $90. I was using AUS-LAX for $92 and now it's $157. Titlon skippering this Valdez juggernaut again.  no 

User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 6767 times:

If anyone's inerested, here's the link to the original story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20..._tr_ge/travel_brief_airlines_fares

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 6768 times:



Quoting FXramper (Reply 9):
I was using AUS-LAX for $92 and now it's $157. Titlon skippering this Valdez juggernaut again.

Trust me...they won't miss bottom feeders going after money losing fares like that. Get over it...oil is high and cheap fares are gone. Stop crying about it.


User currently offlineUA_727 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 215 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 6691 times:



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 5):
Truth be told. I have been told a rumor, and that is as far as I put credit into it that United Airlines is going to raise fares as described in the opening link to a level they can offer a much more premium quality product. That quality product that is being "rumored", is Economy Plus replacing Economy on all United flights system wide. At that point United Airlines can charge a premium for every one of its seats.

I wouldn't put stock into this "rumor", as it is just plain ludicrous...

1st - UA is decreasing the number of E+ seats to reflect a more reasonable level of airport check-in (ACI) E+ sales - as it stands, *many* of these seats simply go out unpurchased due to high loads and low ACI sales...

2nd - E+ was designed to generate a separate revenue stream from the fare - hence, when a pax purchases a ticket, comes to the airport, and decides to purchase the extra-legroom seats for an $XXX.XX, the amount collected is pure gravy (albeit this concept was originally designed with the price of the ticket recovering a much better portion of the flight costs than they are truly doing now...). This revenue stream offsets the opportunity costs of removing two rows (or so) to offer E+...

3rd - E+ is also designed to offer differentiation and reward distinguished, loyal customers.

4th - The reason that you are seeing all of this (un-bundling) is that carriers at this stage in the game cannot attain a break-even level **within** the fare... The elasticity of demand associated with carriers actually charging **within** the fare what it takes to cover flight costs in today's fuel environment would be HUGE... Airlines, despite the associated costs, do not want to drive away discretionary flying (which is often made possible by what customers view as a 'reasonable' fare...). Instead, carriers in the short-term appear to be keeping fares within this 'reasonable' increase threshold and collecting revenue in other areas. BOTTOM LINE - UA is NOT going to be trying to collect premium **within** the fare for **all** of their seats, and thus, it is somewhat ludicrous to think that we will soon be seeing seatmaps with --all-- E+ seats.

*************the obvious exception, of course, is United P.S. - which should speak for itself...**************

-UA-  Wink



"AW - I'm on Board..."
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 6685 times:



Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 3):
This is an interesting point. The customer books and travels on a legal ticket and the airlines want to cancel his bookings ? I think the lawyers would have a field day

How is it interesting? You would also be thinking wrongly because the customer is not traveling on an legal ticket and, quite frankly, as a travel agent should you know that!!

Quoting Rdwootty (Reply 3):
If they do that I cannot see what rules they have breached. The problem was not flying a sector.

I can quite assure you that back-to-back ticketing breaches the Conditions of Carriage, and may I add that the Travel Agent, as the person knowingly advising and processing the booking under an IATA licence is legally liable for defrauding the airline! Yes, it was also illegal 'in the old days' but generally a blind eye was turned to it. I would tend to agree with Lincoln that, if implemented now, the airlines will be much more aggressive considering the vast increase in airline travel from 15-20 years ago and the resultant substantial loss in revenue! One reason for the seemingly lax approach years ago was that, in most cases, the person had completed all travel before it was discovered.....correlation returns were done manually then, and decidedly that's not the case now.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4022 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 6):
Rule 100

The fact that they have to put it all the way down in rule 100 (what is it, right after the "if you are wearing pants that are blue you need a Thursday lunchtime layover" in rule 99?) is why clients try to (and rightfully should) try to stick it up to the airlines and their byzantine pricing schemes as much as possible. I once booked a non-refundable return ticket knowing full well that I didn't know for sure what my return date would be because the difference to the fully flexible fare would allow me to pay the re-booking fee on my ticket 15 times over (no kidding) - am I in some way infringing the rules of carriage as well? Rule 417, paragraph G perhaps?

[Edited 2008-06-20 17:44:06]


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offline1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 6414 times:

Looks like, gone are the days where I take a flight from SAN to SFO for lunch. Or fly to LAS, PHX, MRY for the a fast dinner. I do that too just because I love to fly and add up my elite seg. I am Premier Exec on UA. Maybe I should switch airlines or just stop flying all together or unless I have too. But I don't think UA even cares. Just like when I had a complaint and sent a email to Premier Exec voice, they didn't even give me a reply. I really think more and more people will fly SWA. Its really sad but you get more service on a low frill than UA.

User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

Can someone help me understand how it benefits UA to require a minimum night stay on every ticket? As a small businessman, who sometimes does same-day travel to avoid staying overnight, I don't understand how this benefits anyone other than the hotels. What am I missing here? This really, really annoys me.

User currently offlineZrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3170 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

The legal loophole is this:

Buy a one way ticket A to B

Then buy a series of roundtrip tickets B-A-B



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlineUPS757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Just another reason why not to fly on United.

User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6247 times:



Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 11):
Trust me...they won't miss bottom feeders going after money losing fares like that.

I think most, if not all travellers look for the lowest fare for their class of service when booking. It doesn't matter whether someone is travelling for business or pleasure.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 16):
Can someone help me understand how it benefits UA to require a minimum night stay on every ticket? As a small businessman, who sometimes does same-day travel to avoid staying overnight, I don't understand how this benefits anyone other than the hotels. What am I missing here? This really, really annoys me.

The idea is to require you to stay longer if you want a restricted far for less money. If you still want to fly home the same day, you would have to pay a higher fare.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 6):
Back-To-Back/End-On-End ticketing is prohibited by most airlines contracts of carriage.

Not those who allow you to buy all tickets either one-way or round-trip.

UA is just bringing back a practise that lost them customers to WN years ago.



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6192 times:



Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 16):
Can someone help me understand how it benefits UA to require a minimum night stay on every ticket? As a small businessman, who sometimes does same-day travel to avoid staying overnight, I don't understand how this benefits anyone other than the hotels. What am I missing here? This really, really annoys me.

The idea, I think, is that most leisure travel is multiple days and/or over a weekend (the famed "Saturday Night Stay" requirement) where most business travel* is shorter in duration and entirely within the week (e.g. Sunday-Saturday)

Leisure travel is more price sensitive and schedule flexible than business travel which is more schedule sensitive and price flexible, and the minimum stay is a way to segment the market so that they don't loose leisure travelers but get as much revenue as possible out of business travelers.

Lincoln

* - Absent masochistic corporate travel departments that are so focused on saving money that they require employees to spend more time away from home than required



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2445 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 6192 times:

This isn't about back-to-back/end-on-end everyone already "prohibits" that.

Quoting UA_727 (Reply 12):
1st - UA is decreasing the number of E+ seats to reflect a more reasonable level of airport check-in (ACI) E+ sales - as it stands, *many* of these seats simply go out unpurchased due to high loads and low ACI sales...

Please just don't eliminate E+ UA!!! UA is just about the only airline I'll fly internationally in economy because of E+. 31-32" pitch kills my legs and back, 36" is wonderful! I'll GLADLY pay more for it.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 16):
Can someone help me understand how it benefits UA to require a minimum night stay on every ticket? As a small businessman, who sometimes does same-day travel to avoid staying overnight, I don't understand how this benefits anyone other than the hotels. What am I missing here? This really, really annoys me.

The article is misleading to people who aren't airline travel savvy. The new min. night stays are on CHEAP FARES not seats, they're not requiring anyone do anything. If you still want to travel same day, you'll just have to pay for a higher fare basis. In essence, they're trying to get people traveling for business to pay more, business travelers are typically less price sensitive (it's their company paying after all). Sucks for small business or those who own their own company though.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 5632 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 21):
The article is misleading to people who aren't airline travel savvy. The new min. night stays are on CHEAP FARES not seats, they're not requiring anyone do anything. If you still want to travel same day, you'll just have to pay for a higher fare basis. In essence, they're trying to get people traveling for business to pay more, business travelers are typically less price sensitive (it's their company paying after all). Sucks for small business or those who own their own company though.

D'oh! I read it wrongly. Thanks. You're right, it's no different that what we became accustomed to for all those years.


User currently offlineAuroraLives From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 5344 times:



Quoting Lincoln (Reply 6):
It's part of the contract between you and the airline -- the airline is offering to sell you transportation from X to Y for $Z provided you comply with these restrictions;

If I tried, I could probably read and get the gist of most of the "contract". However, I would suspect a significant portion of the travelling public has neither the time nor inclination to even remotely try to decode it.

Isn't the basis of a contract that both parties understand and are in full agreement with the terms ??


User currently offlineThreeIfByAir From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 5161 times:

What is the economic rationale for this change? UA is simply gouging its best customers, time-sensitive business travelers.

The airline industry in general seems to hate its most loyal customers. I don't think there is another industry quite as stupid.

Looks like another win for WN... along with checked bag fees, seat assignment fees, fuel surcharges, phone reservation fees, buy on board snacks, increased change fees, etc.


25 Coal : I've never understood this minimum stay mumbo jumbo. How does the airline make more if I stay at where I go to for longer? If I'd fly in and out the s
26 Egcarter : Who will be flying Business class or on Y fare tix, so they won't be affected by this move.
27 Uadc8contrail : look for a collective sigh from dfw,atl, eagan and tempe.....also from DAL....WN will/should exploit this for everything they can get out of it......t
28 Swatpamike : Hello All From all the employees of Southwest airlines, thanks United. Keep up the good work and drive more of your customers to us. Something else ju
29 Uadc8contrail : MIKE, on behalf of the legegacy's...your welcome...but....UAL still provides soda,water,juice,blankets and pillows.....things have not changed on tha
30 MilesDependent : UA seem to think that people are so loyal to their FF program that they can just price gauge them day and night. With the US economy the way it is, mo
31 United1 : Thats exactly how it works here's an example... ORD-DCA Leave Monday Return Tuesday airfare $250 hotel room $100 Total Cost of Trip $350 ORD-DCA Leav
32 FXramper : I will log 250,000+ mi. this year for work. I throw the worst legacy a bone and actually purchase a revenue ticket and that makes me a loner? Most of
33 United1 : No but I also hope (and think) you realise that that $92 airfare is way below cost for UA AA and even WN. AUS-LAX is 1241 miles one way that works ou
34 FXramper : Blind allegiance, United1? I didn't bother reading your short story, but the above figures I used weren't intended to show how cheap a person I am, b
35 United1 : Actually it has nothing to do with allegiance at all, if you had bothered to read what I wrote you might have noticed that the $93 fare you quoted is
36 Boston92 : What United1 means is that by YOU not flying United with cheapo fares, you are actually helping them out. Thanks!
37 FXramper : In the last 12 months UA is leader of the pack in fare increases by a long shot. So you tell me how this is 'industry standard' when other airlines h
38 Boston92 : Oil prices have had multiple increases, it only makes sense for the airlines to do so as well. If you take United as an example, they would have made
39 United1 : There isnt a single major US carrier that hasn't raised fares multiple times in the past 12 months, even WN has raised them multiple times in the pas
40 MillwallSean : Raise your fares to levels needed for a net profit, thats fully understandable, but do not increase the obstacles for customers. Instead make it easie
41 AirNZ : Well, your profile says it all so I'll play your silly game with you. No you actually wouldn't be breaching anything. To make it easy for you to unde
42 Tockeyhockey : why in all whole holy hell would UA do this? i sometimes fly twice in a week so that i can get more home time. i go out in the morning on a monday and
43 FrmrCAPCADET : I think the totally legal, moral strategy in your case is to book tickets on two separate airlines.
44 Pyrex : Well, you manage to do a pretty good job at it nonetheless. I guess as a travel "consultant" (fancy way of saying travel agent, perhaps?) your job is
45 FrmrCAPCADET : Another thought, why don't they just make their cheapest fares no FF miles, no frills. Travel restrictions are irksome, game playing ploys that trigge
46 Swatpamike : Hello All Ok, sorry did not mean to pick on United. I will get back to you in 6 months when United will be charging for them. Cheers swatpamike
47 Panova98 : As a Premier Exec, million-mile UA flier, I cannot believe the stupidity of this company in its pricing policies and fare rules. Somewhere in UA headq
48 BHMBAGLOCK : I was thinking the same thing yesterday. LAS-BHM about 4.5 hours flying time and we got 3 full beverage services and two shots at the snacks - no pro
49 MMEPHX : It sucks for all business. Contrary to popular belief, most businesses do not purchase fully refundable tickets unless they have to i.e very last min
50 Burnsie28 : So what it seems to be saying is that UA won't sell you a ticket if you don't stay the minimum? Either way, three night stay for the MSP-ORD legs... l
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
It Seems UA To Begin 752 Service To SXM posted Mon Jun 14 2004 20:13:59 by ConcordeBoy
UA To Begin Corp. Jet Service posted Fri May 18 2001 15:43:08 by Highliner2
UA To Begin 14 Flights/week To India posted Tue Feb 6 2001 14:23:39 by IndianGuy
UA To Begin JFK-HKG Nonstop posted Wed Sep 27 2000 19:05:42 by MEL
UA Express To Begin Service To Kalispell Montana posted Sun Dec 24 2006 17:26:15 by Stapleton
EK To Begin N/S Srvc LAX-DXB IN Sept posted Fri Jun 20 2008 00:58:55 by Rockinflyer
UA To Ground All 733s, Some 744s posted Tue Jun 3 2008 18:13:59 by 777fan
UA To Launch DXB And Moscow From IAD posted Tue May 6 2008 13:12:38 by PNQIAD
Help Needed: Info On UA To SYD/MEL posted Tue Apr 22 2008 15:39:49 by Transpac787
United Expess To Begin Weekend BZN-LAX posted Thu Apr 3 2008 20:30:03 by Stapleton