I didn’t really want to write a post about this. I saw a post from Gary on View from the Wing and thought the article he was critiquing might just have merit. So, I did what any reasonable person would do, I opened the link (in a new window of course). What followed was a conflagration of frustration, over-entitlement, confusion, and general whiney-ness (yes, I made a word up).

The article Gary referenced is here. The author makes a bunch of arguments, and discusses their loyalty to United. Much of it, my response was “meh”, but the below paragraph sent me over the line between reader and commentor:

I suppose that everyone has his breaking point. For me, it was while trying to pre-board an overcrowded flight to Miami with a noisy baby in my arms, only to be ordered back in line by a curt agent. At that moment, I realized that United had quietly eliminated the traditional practice of pre-boarding “passengers with small children,” choosing to favor a few élite fliers over the convenience of everyone else. United spokesman Charles Hobart woulddescribe the new boarding policy as an improvement: “We figured it would be better to simplify that process and reduce the number of boarding groups.”

Now, I don’t mean to be insensitive, but, someone arguing that the breaking point for shifting loyalty (and it isn’t really clear how much loyalty this person really had), being whether they could pre-board with a child or not. Even Southwest moved pre-boarders to after their A+ travelers (or is it their first 50 folks in A, I can’t recall).

I find it quite ironic, in fact, that this writer feels that United is favoring “a few elite fliers.” because, as a former 1K flier (and I was 1K when I moved my business elsewhere), I found I felt unappreciated. My upgrade ratio dropped worse than the stock market in mid-October 2014. United was selling upgrades at a rate that severely impacted 1K members (and I suspect, lower tier elite members).

The writer goes on to comment about competition and whether the merger should have been permitted:

You might think that, given competition, there’s no reason to worry about the effects of a mess like United-Continental. Consumers can always switch to friendlier skies, right? But competition, while helpful, is an insufficient remedy for bad customer service.

As I understand it, the government is not responsible for ensuring any particular standard for customer service.

Stepping on my soapbox

I left United in 2013, after an abysmal upgrade ratio as a 1K. Yes, that’s not something that I should feel guaranteed, but, seeing what United expected of their elites in following years (including Elite Qualifying Dollars), I didn’t feel like it was worth spending the money. However, I have a hard time believing that the New Yorker article that outlines the various arguments (some of which I highlighted above), has any meaning. Perhaps I’m biased by the fact that I fly 100,000-150,000 miles per year. I just have a hard time feeling for folks that want to get on their own (or the New Yorker’s) soapbox, for what very well might be a flight or two per year. Yes, it hurts to pay a percentage more for your flight. But I’m not convinced that it is materially harming. Do I dislike United’s changes? Of course. I think Smisek and his team came in and ruined all that was good about United (sans Economy Plus). I won’t give the airline any more of my money than I need to. But is it worth an article in the New Yorker, arguing that maybe the US Government didn’t do its’ due diligence? I think that’s a bit far fetched.