BE AWARE - new UA Basic Economy Fares

[ducklite]

Think this through. If he buys this lower fare ticket, he won't be able to get a window seat request. So, will he now buy "up" to get the window seat?

 

Then, if he has the window seat, when you buy a cheap ticket, you get whatever they choose to give. Plus, you can't buy two different fare classes for two people on the same reservation so you are not even together on the airline system.

 

 

 

Which can go south on you quickly if there is an ir ops situation. Trust me, I know this for a fact. Having my husband land at LHR with no cash, no idea of where our accommodations were, and no plan while I was sill in the air on a later arriving flight could have been a mess and a half on one trip. Fortunately he managed to find his way to the BA arrivals lounge in T5, have a shower and breakfast, and figure out where to find me after I got off my (re-accommodated) AA flight in T3. Yes, I was impressed. :)

 

I didn't ask but have long assumed that the Dragon might have given him some advice. ;) Had it happened at CDG, it might have had a very different ending.

 

Due to employment logistics we come in on different planes and even carriers more often than not domestically, but that is so much easier to manage for almost every reason--if you are both fairly self-sufficient.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slidergirl]

The one problem I foresee with this one comes with families. Ma and Pa and the 3 kiddos (ages 2, 5, 10) book the "Economy Minus" reservations because, well, it's the cheapest fare they find. They arrive to the gate and receive the 5 seat assignments, which are strewn all over the plane. They now start whining and begging people to move from the seats they PAID to book because, well, the family MUST sit together :rolleyes: This is going to slow up things probably more than the overhead luggage scrum. Yes, the lead FA or GA needs to be firm to tell the family "you paid for bargain-basement, you sit where we assign you", but we all know how well that usually happens even now, when families try to guilt people into moving...

[ducklite]

The one problem I foresee with this one comes with families. Ma and Pa and the 3 kiddos (ages 2, 5, 10) book the "Economy Minus" reservations because, well, it's the cheapest fare they find. They arrive to the gate and receive the 5 seat assignments, which are strewn all over the plane. They now start whining and begging people to move from the seats they PAID to book because, well, the family MUST sit together :rolleyes: This is going to slow up things probably more than the overhead luggage scrum. Yes, the lead FA or GA needs to be firm to tell the family "you paid for bargain-basement, you sit where we assign you", but we all know how well that usually happens even now, when families try to guilt people into moving...

 

 

 

Had a situation like this a couple weeks back on a WN flight. They didn't buy early bird and obviously didn't check in at 24 hours, and then we're having coronaries because their school age kids couldn't sit with them. The worst part is that the entitled idiot mother was insisting they should all be in one row in the front of the plane, and the children all deserved window seats.

 

Flight attendants decided they weren't going to get involved. No one was budging, mostly because the mother was such a horses ass and making such a scene and ridiculous demands. FA finally told them to take available seats or get off the plane. Several people applauded.

 

So if you are reading this you self-absorbed you know what from KCI, you are a jerk and your youngest (around 8) eats her own buggers--a lovely scene we were subjected to as she was sitting across the aisle from my coworkers and I. Blech.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jagoffee]

Perhaps they should be an age requirement in order to book the basic fare. If a children is not old enough to sit away from their parents than they should not be able to book the tickets. Otherwise I cannot imagine how UA is going to able to manage the seat problem with families.

[slidergirl]

Perhaps they should be an age requirement in order to book the basic fare. If a children is not old enough to sit away from their parents than they should not be able to book the tickets. Otherwise I cannot imagine how UA is going to able to manage the seat problem with families.

 

I've heard a spouse go ballistic also when he/she has to sit apart for a 1 hour flight...

UA will have to manage the seat problem by saying forcefully (with a smile), "you booked that fare and you must abide by the rules of the fare. If you cannot comply with the cabin crew and take the seats we have assigned FOR YOU and your family, we will be happy to escort you off the plane." That'll happen when pigs fly...

 

This is one of the prime reasons I do not fly WN unless I have no choice. It is not my fault that you did not prepare properly for the flight and you do not get to sit together and I will most assuredly NOT give up my seat for you...

[ducklite]

I've heard a spouse go ballistic also when he/she has to sit apart for a 1 hour flight...

 

UA will have to manage the seat problem by saying forcefully (with a smile), "you booked that fare and you must abide by the rules of the fare. If you cannot comply with the cabin crew and take the seats we have assigned FOR YOU and your family, we will be happy to escort you off the plane." That'll happen when pigs fly...

 

 

 

This is one of the prime reasons I do not fly WN unless I have no choice. It is not my fault that you did not prepare properly for the flight and you do not get to sit together and I will most assuredly NOT give up my seat for you...

 

 

Actually I have seen the spilt up families several times in the past couple months on WN. The only time I saw a FA intervene was when a mother and her three year old with an A boarding pass arrived just before the door shut due to a connection that arrived late. The FA asked a guy who looked mid-20's if he'd give up the window for a middle a few rows back, and said drinks would be on her.

 

I can't blame the mother (I have seen families split up around the plane on legacies after they missed connections) and think it was appropriate for the FA to intervene. The guy who moved seemed to think it was an equitable solution as he knocked back three free beers on a 90 minute flight, LOL!

 

Bottom line, overall I am seeing WN FA's less and less willing to help, and love that the gate agents have gotten very proactive about family boarding being after the A's and truly limiting it to one adult per kid. I have seen more than a couple people be to,d that they had the choice of following the rules or not flying.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[critterchick]

He takes the window, you take the aisle or window in a different row. Being apart for an hour or two isn't the end of the world. I would much rather do that than be uncomfortable.

 

I couldn't agree more. Aisles across from each other are the closest we sit any more because neither of us wants the window seat in any class of service unless it's a 1-2-1 configuration. We will sit on opposite sides of the plane if it means being more comfortable, and will do it on longer flights as well. On flights with GOGO, we can text each other for free (T Mobile) if we really have to communicate, lol.

[waterbug123]

The one problem I foresee with this one comes with families. Ma and Pa and the 3 kiddos (ages 2, 5, 10) book the "Economy Minus" reservations because, well, it's the cheapest fare they find. They arrive to the gate and receive the 5 seat assignments, which are strewn all over the plane. They now start whining and begging people to move

 

Perhaps they should be an age requirement in order to book the basic fare. If a children is not old enough to sit away from their parents than they should not be able to book the tickets.

 

Bingo. When the rez includes a minor child, don't allow that fare class to be booked. Use whatever age cut-off UA uses for unaccompanied minors to be able to fly alone without paying the unaccompanied minor fee.

[slidergirl]

Bingo. When the rez includes a minor child, don't allow that fare class to be booked. Use whatever age cut-off UA uses for unaccompanied minors to be able to fly alone without paying the unaccompanied minor fee.

 

Problem is, people lie. If they want something badly enough, they will lie. My ex-SIL did this twice when she flew with her rug-rat to get the "fly free" fare. She was too cheap to buy the seat for the kid, so the kid was a perpetual "2 year old" for 6 months :roll eyes:

Will the airline require the birth certificate (original, not a xerox that could have the date changed) be presented at the check-in counter to verify that little Bobby is really old enough?

[calliopecruiser]

I think it's not a bad thing........for those that want just a cheap price, they can get it, and there will be fewer roller carry-ons (I hate those) and maybe faster boarding. Yup, it's a race to the bottom because there are customers down there, but as far as I can tell they're not forcing anyone down there -- i.e. it's not a choice between this barely there service and flying up front. The difference to move up a "class" isn't very much.

 

Personally, I think they should all be charging for carry on baggage (any bag that can't be stored under the seat), and they should have started doing it a long time ago......They should offer checking a bag for free but charge if you carry it on board. Boarding would be faster, safer, and friendlier (well, at least less stressful).

[FlyerTalker]

Personally, I think they should all be charging for carry on baggage (any bag that can't be stored under the seat), and they should have started doing it a long time ago......They should offer checking a bag for free but charge if you carry it on board. Boarding would be faster, safer, and friendlier (well, at least less stressful).

But when you specifically disclaim any responsibility for electronics, jewelry, cameras and much more when put into checked luggage, by definition you create the need for carry-ons. I am not going to put several thousands of dollars worth of "stuff" in the hold, have it be tossed and beat up by ramp rats, and then have the airline say "not our fault". And I won't even go towards jewelry and other valuables.

 

Any yes, my electronics and cameras take up that much room. Plus the lithium batteries, by law, can't be put into checked luggage.

 

Next idea?

[ducklite]

But when you specifically disclaim any responsibility for electronics, jewelry, cameras and much more when put into checked luggage, by definition you create the need for carry-ons. I am not going to put several thousands of dollars worth of "stuff" in the hold, have it be tossed and beat up by ramp rats, and then have the airline say "not our fault". And I won't even go towards jewelry and other valuables.

 

Any yes, my electronics and cameras take up that much room. Plus the lithium batteries, by law, can't be put into checked luggage.

 

Next idea?

 

 

 

If it's over 20" tall and can't fit wheels in, it has to be checked. That would free up 30-40% of the overhead space and eliminate most of the idiots who carry on more than they can handle.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[calliopecruiser]

But when you specifically disclaim any responsibility for electronics, jewelry, cameras and much more when put into checked luggage, by definition you create the need for carry-ons. I am not going to put several thousands of dollars worth of "stuff" in the hold, have it be tossed and beat up by ramp rats, and then have the airline say "not our fault". And I won't even go towards jewelry and other valuables.

 

Any yes, my electronics and cameras take up that much room. Plus the lithium batteries, by law, can't be put into checked luggage.

 

Next idea?

 

Then you have a choice to carry it in a reasonably sized bag that can fit under the seat in front of you, pay to bring it on board, or don't take that much ;) You have options......just not options you like. In my knapsack (which fits under the seat in front of me), I can put my DSLR, 2 extra lenses, my tablet, my smartphone, my meds, and my jewellery. In addition to my wallet, passport, and emergency toothbrush. It's really not all that hard.

[ducklite]

Then you have a choice to carry it in a reasonably sized bag that can fit under the seat in front of you, pay to bring it on board, or don't take that much ;) You have options......just not options you like. In my knapsack (which fits under the seat in front of me), I can put my DSLR, 2 extra lenses, my tablet, my smartphone, my meds, and my jewellery. In addition to my wallet, passport, and emergency toothbrush. It's really not all that hard.

 

 

 

I don't think they should charge for carry on's. I do think they should set the maximum size at 20" so they will fit wheels in, and strictly enforce the number of items... That said, I have always thought the two piece limit is dumb. I think volume is more important then number--within reason. I think it's ridiculous that they will stop someone carrying a "normal" size handbag, a small shopping bag (like the size of a normal handbag) and a third item--maybe a bag from Hudson's with a couple magazines, a bottle of water, and couple of snacks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FlyerTalker]

Then you have a choice to carry it in a reasonably sized bag that can fit under the seat in front of you, pay to bring it on board, or don't take that much ;) You have options......just not options you like. In my knapsack (which fits under the seat in front of me), I can put my DSLR, 2 extra lenses, my tablet, my smartphone, my meds, and my jewellery. In addition to my wallet, passport, and emergency toothbrush. It's really not all that hard.

My roller fits in wheels out or in so it's not like I have to take two "spots" for it. But when you have a full sized laptop, plus a tablet, charging cables, spare batteries, two cameras, all of the wires, Bose phones, not to mention my own jewelry and medications - it's not fitting in a knapsack.

 

I'd gladly check the items - IF they will take responsibility for their care. But that's the killer.

 

And no, I'm not cheap and unwilling to pay for what should be charged. I just wanted to point out that your original statement, which was:

They should offer checking a bag for free but charge if you carry it on board.

has some huge downsides and isn't the panacea you think it may be.

[Mr. Click]

Now that I am retired I travel with one Canon 5D Mk3 body, 3 lenses and one flash in bag that goes on my shoulder. Once I put that bag on the floor under the seat in front of me in E- with a 31 inch seat pitch I am lucky if I have a place to put my feet and I am barely 5'10. No Basic is not for me, I know that. My fear is that it will become the norm again. Continental tried it with their peanuts fares, United tried it with TED, both failed. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

 

FlyerTalker's point on never putting anything of any real value in checked bags is spot on. I know. It was not United but I had a very expensive lens disappear from a locked case one time, many years ago. It was ugly and it taught me an important lesson. From that day until I retired I never ever checked any of my gear. It took some serious juggling for each trip but no gear left my sight.

[pinotlover]

Rules without enforcement is no rules at all!

 

Who is going to enforce all these new rules? The GAs? Are they going to check the ticket code on each passenger and then verify their carry ons? That will definitely speed up boarding! UA currently has carry on restrictions that many passengers totally ignore an a word is never uttered! Does anyone believe the Agents doing baggage check and check in are going to be checking carryons? Doubt that will happen either, because if it did the valet guys out front doing check in and baggage check would be required to do the same!

 

We took what I hope to be our last Frontier Flight ever a couple of weeks ago. One was suppose to pay for overhead storage, we did, but somehow I doubt that the entire plane of people did. Everyone got on board and put their carry ons overhead. No one ever checked off passengers to see if they were allowed to do so.

 

It will result in extra fees for the honest, which will soon mean less honesty!

[jagoffee]

I suspect it will be managed by boarding group number with the no overhead carry on people in the last group to board, but I cannot imagine that it will be easy to manage.

[slidergirl]

I suspect it will be managed by boarding group number with the no overhead carry on people in the last group to board, but I cannot imagine that it will be easy to manage.

 

I believe it was already listed that everyone in the E- class will be boarding in the last group. That MAY help with Kettles without status. But, the GAs will have to be careful with the last-minute people with status who show up at the end of boarding - that could get ugly. People with status and their carryons - trying to get them to relinquish is akin to asking a Bundy to put down his automatic weapon ;)

[jagoffee]

I believe it was already listed that everyone in the E- class will be boarding in the last group. That MAY help with Kettles without status. But, the GAs will have to be careful with the last-minute people with status who show up at the end of boarding - that could get ugly. People with status and their carryons - trying to get them to relinquish is akin to asking a Bundy to put down his automatic weapon ;)

 

Yes, it will interested requiring the GA to monitor the boarding number vs. carry on.

[pinotlover]

So you believe that UA will stop the practice of allowing "those with children or who need extra assistance" from boarding first? You believe it will now be based solely on ticket type?

 

Additionally, what do you believe the GA will do with those E- tickets holders, on a crowded flight that is running late, that show up with the 22 inch carry on with wheels? Stop the line and make them pay to gate check? Not allow the carry on aboard and the luggage left at the gate for further disposal?

 

Will E- ticket holders now become the first to be bounced off overbooked flights if not enough volunteers come forward? I could see many of those families with E- tickets showing up at the gate with no seat on the plane. Will most all E- ticket holders now just become waitlisted passengers on overbooked flights? In fact, would these new tickets eliminate the need to request volunteers to not take the flight and pay any allowances? E- ticket holders would only be waitlisted passengers, and by the nature of their tickets be bounced without recourse?

 

How lucky do you feel? I'd never buy one of those tickets, regardless of how cheap they are!

Edited November 26, 2016 by pinotlover

[ducklite]

So you believe that UA will stop the practice of allowing "those with children or who need extra assistance" from boarding first? You believe it will now be based solely on ticket type?

 

 

 

Additionally, what do you believe the GA will do with those E- tickets holders, on a crowded flight that is running late, that show up with the 22 inch carry on with wheels? Stop the line and make them pay to gate check? Not allow the carry on aboard and the luggage left at the gate for further disposal?

 

 

 

Will E- ticket holders now become the first to be bounced off overbooked flights if not enough volunteers come forward? I could see many of those families with E- tickets showing up at the gate with no seat on the plane. Will most all E- ticket holders now just become waitlisted passengers on overbooked flights? In fact, would these new tickets eliminate the need to request volunteers to not take the flight and pay any allowances? E- ticket holders would only be waitlisted passengers, and by the nature of their tickets be bounced without recourse?

 

 

 

How lucky do you feel? I'd never buy one of those tickets, regardless of how cheap they are!

 

 

 

There a re many ways they could handle many of these issues. First would be to deny boarding to those who show up late and need to gate check a bag, and charge them $100 per ticket to rebook on a later flight.

 

I am seeing more and more carriers stop giving priority booking to people with kids. I don't see where this would matter I terms of carry ons.

 

All carriers have an order in which people get bounced off flights. Yes, E- flyers would be near the top if the list, just after non-revs. The DOT require that the carrier first asks for volunteers, but doesn't set the amount of required compensation. So they could offer $25 to take a later flight and when no one says OK, they can bump passengers. The DOT prescribes the amount of compensation which must be paid, but consider this--the airline legally has the right to bump you and does not have to make alternate accommodations, they can simply pay you 400% of the face value of your one way ticket.

 

So let's say you score a great fare r/t from Dulles to Tampa. You're going to fly down on Friday night, drink some beers and smoke a cigar in Ybor City after you land, then spend the day soaking up some rays on Indian Rocks Beach then hitting a Hyde Park and the Kennedy until the wee hours before taking an early flight home Sunday. Your total ticket was $189 r/t. But of that, $163 was the flight down, $26 was the flight back. You get to the airport all set to crash for the two hour flight home, and screeeeeeeech. Brakes are on full force. Your flight is oversold by one seat. No one volunteers, and no non-revs have been ticketed. The other low fare bucket ticket holders are families. Guess who isn't taking the flight?

 

The real kicker is that they have the right to hand you $104 and suggest Greyhound as an option. Does it happen? Seldom if ever. (Although I know of cases where people weren't going far and requested then took the cash rather than waiting for the next available seat a couple days later and taking the two hour train ride instead.) But it could.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[purduemom1]

Non Revs aren't given a seat assignment until all revenue pax are accommodated. in all my years of non reving on Delta, United, US Air/American, I have never seen a non rev assigned a seat and then denied boarding. If a flight is almost full, non revs won't get their seats until the very end of the boarding process and the GA is sure all other revenue pax are accommodated. I'm not saying it can't happen but if I were a revenue pax on an oversold flight I would not count on a non rev's seat. He/she won't have one if revenue pax still need a seats.

Edited November 27, 2016 by purduemom1

[ducklite]

Non Revs aren't given a seat assignment until all revenue pax are accommodated. in all my years of non reving on Delta, United, US Air/American, I have never seen a non rev assigned a seat and then denied boarding. If a flight is almost full, non revs won't get their seats until the very end of the boarding process and the GA is sure all other revenue pax are accommodated. I'm not saying it can't happen but if I were a revenue pax on an oversold flight I would not count on a non rev's seat. He/she won't have one if revenue pax still need a seats.

 

 

 

If you are responding to me, I thought I was pretty clear about non-revs not being ticketed as the late arrival showed up.

 

I have seen non-revs ticketed and a late arrival refused boarding after that only once in my lifetime. I was very early to my gate in a small airport with no lounge and watched it go down. They had cleared standbys (three non-revs) and we're ready to close the door as he arrived. They could have deplaned a non-rev for him, but it wasn't going to happen, that gate agent had been complaining for the previous 30 minutes, and there was no way she was doing the extra work to remove a non-rev and let him on. She sent him to passenger services with a sneer on her face. (HPN about five years ago)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bUU]

I'd gladly check the items - IF they will take responsibility for their care. But that's the killer.

And more importantly, not what is being offered. The consumer's option is increasingly becoming a matter of willing to do without the service when there is no one is willing to give you what you want on your terms. How does that map into having a cruise to get to but no airline willing to carry you there in a manner acceptable to you?

 

Choices are getting harder and will continue to do so. Our economy and the economic prosperity of the airlines, cruise lines, etc., all hinge on a model with never-ending revenue growth. That's got to come from somewhere.