You'll want to use those United Premier Miles before your status expires....

...or you're going to pay a lot more should something go wrong.

United increases award change fees for non-Premier members effective immediately. Scottrick, Hack My Trip

Talk about a day of United devaluations! It’s still June 18th on the west coast, but I noticed that United has changed its award fees for non-Premier members on tickets issued on or after June 19, 2013.Details in the screenshot below. Premier members are not affected by this change.This does not affect tickets issued on or before June 18, 2013!

In a word, ouch. And boo on United for trying to sneak this through (with no advance notice) when it's expecting to see many travelers falling off of the Premier rolls and onto non-Premier member status once their revenue requirements kick in.  In short, not only does United not want a certain type of passenger on their airline, but they also don't want to make it easy for them to use up their remaining miles as well.  My plan, such as it is, is to use all of my miles before I fully lose United Premier Status in 2015.  I'd advise everyone else to do that as well.  Don't stockpile your miles, because it's only going to get more difficult, and less lucrative, to use them in the future.

The flaw in United's business plan.

Last week I explained my reasons for abandoning my pursuit of Premier status with United given their recent decision to require high revenue requirements for level attainment.  In that story I mentioned that United doesn't have their house in order to attempt to charge a premium that would gather them the high-value, high-ticket price fliers that they're obviously craving.

Then I ran across this story, which placed all of United's flaws into stark relief:

United Airlines forgets toilet paper on 10-hour flight from San Francisco to London. Robin Wilkey, Huffington Post.

Before embarking on a 10-hour international trip from San Francisco to London, the crew for United Flight 931 failed to stock the plane with toilet paper, forcing flight attendants--and passengers--to improvise.
Some of the bathrooms reportedly ran out en route, leading flight attendants to stock them with cocktail napkins instead.
Passenger reactions ranged from eye rolls to outrage.
"That's disgusting, that's just so terrible," said United passenger Gretchen Holland to ABC. "If I'm paying for a ticket, that should include the price of toilet paper, I would think."
United later apologized for the incident, releasing the following statement:

We apologize to our customers on this flight for the inconvenience and would like the opportunity to welcome them back.

 United explained that if the plane had stopped to stock toilet paper once the shortage was discovered, the flight would have been delayed.

Now, I don't fault United for deciding to go ahead with the flight, after all, it would have been much worse had the plane been late and a group of people missed connections.  I do fault them for their ham-handed customer service, ridiculous stuff that shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how to deal with issues and, more importantly, the people who are dealing with them.

It also shows United's increasing lack of attention to details.  The fact is, since the merger, this is a mediocre airline with serious operational issues that is taking a huge gamble in telling a large portion of their loyalty base that they no longer wish to do business with them. On top of that, they're treating the remaining customers like an afterthought.

That United is scrambling for a solution right now is not in question. What will matter is whether or not the industry has the wherewithal to take advantage of United's current weaknesses.  Historically in the industry t he answer is no.  Given that United will probably be OK, but I think there current business plan is doomed to fail.

Where United and I part ways (despite me agreeing with the business decision)

By now, if you're a MileagePlus member, or just interested in traveling, you've probably heard about the recently announced changes to United's MileagePlus program.  Boiled down to it's essence, United is now adding revenue minimums in an attempt to cull out low-value, high-use Premier members by requiring minimum spend.

The new chart is as follows:

It all works out to 10 cents per mile needed to be spent to attain certain levels of status.  However, every dollar you pay in ticket costs will not go to qualifying as a PQD.  To whit:

The following spending counts toward the PQD requirement:

• Base fare and carrier-imposed surcharges
• Flights flown by United, United Express, or Copa Airlines
• Flights operated by a Star Alliance^® or a MileagePlus partner airline and issued on a United ticket (ticket number starting with 016)
• Economy Plus purchases

What this means is that taxes, fees and other government charges will not count toward your PQD making the total outlay required for qualification at various levels much, much* somewhat higher than that. As an example, the screenshot below is a typical fare breakdown (from ITA Matrix) of a United fare from IAH to LHR (London-Heathrow)

In the above example you have not spent approximately $1,100 toward your PQD, you have actually only earned $421* $878. This is without taking into consideration bag fees etc, which are free to an extent for most Premier members.  In order to increase the PQD on this fare, you can buy up to economy plus, greatly increasing the price of the ticket.  So in reality you are only receiving approximately 40-50% of your total outlay in PQD, which raises the cost per mile to somewhere around 20-25 12-13 cents per mile.  In effect, this makes buying an economy plus ticket next to worthless in terms of attaining Premier status.

Here's the thing:  That's exactly what United was trying to do when they rolled this out.  And I agree with their business logic 100%.

Yes, there are going to be those who whinge that "loyalty no longer matters to airlines" and they are about half-right.  Profitable loyalty matters, loyalty that's less (or not) profitable does not.  Especially when that less (or not) profitable loyalty sucks up the majority of available resources.  As I said, I'm OK with this.  It's a decision that United has made and it makes good business sense.  We're just at the moment where United and I part ways.

This is not to suggest that I'll never fly United again.  Flying out of Houston, I most certainly will. I might even fly on them enough to retain Silver Premier status, but I doubt it.  The fact is that I've been remaining loyal to United because there was something that was in it for me.  I would typically pay a little bit more (not a lot more mind you) to stick with the airline because my Gold Premier status made it worth my while.  All of that is changing now.

With the carrot of Premier status gone for the leisure traveler (it's still very much there for the business traveler) it's time to start judging the airlines on their merits, and by price.  United is rarely the cheapest option out of IAH.  Yes, with other airlines you have to connect (and that will be a factor in decisions) but those connections are often less dodgy than with UA because their planes have a tendency to be on time more often.  The fact is United, at this moment, is a very unreliable airline in relation to the rest of the industry.  Not only do they do a poor job of getting you to your destination on time, but their service is sub-par and their planes are (to be nice) starting to show their age.  While United has done some work to upgrade their premium cabins, their economy product is among the worst in the industry, especially on trans-continental flights.

The way I see it United is taking a big risk.  When everything started falling apart after the merger United lost a lot of high-value customers.  They seem to be thinking that, by culling the Premier ranks through revenue requirements, they're going to bring these passengers back into the fold.  The problem that I see is that United is still charging premium prices for an average product and hoping that people overlook that while they continue to get their house in order.

Because of all this the way I travel will most certainly change.  I'm going to be much more price conscious and will start to look at a la carte offerings (such as premium economy) much more closely as it relates to total ticket price. For those of you reading this of a credit card lean, I'm beginning to think that the airline branded credit card (unless you're not a light packer) is going to become somewhat worthless as other cards offer better points/miles values and increase flexibility.

Why limit yourself to one carrier when you have a choice of several?

*Note: As CW on twitter pointed out to me here. I made an error reading the fare schedule from Matrix software.  YQ is, of course, included. As always, I appreciate the free proof-reading.

How to take advantage of #BadMedia (Houston Ecomentalist Edition)

Last week I touched on some poor reporting by Chron Transportation reporter Dug Begley surrounding a ruling for a temporary injunction in Wisconsin that didn't do exactly what transit activists were suggesting.  This fact hasn't stopped Houston Tomorrow from doubling down on the mis-characterization of the ruling, and even going one step further and using the lazy reporting as a mask for credibility by appealing to the authority of a story they, quite obviously, fed to Houston's former newspaper of record.

Federal judge says sprawl, transit, must factor in to highway building decisions. Matt Dietrichson, Houston Tomorrow

A Wisconsin court ruling may require planners across the country to publicly consider the effects on sprawl and transit before approving highway expansions, according to The Houston Chronicle:

Never mind that the ruling, in no way, states what they are suggesting (a fact that was clearly established by reading the request for a temporary injunction). The real problem here is that Houston Tomorrow is using the implied authority of the Chronicle in a story where they provided much of the opinion themselves. 

Wisconsin court ruling could mean Houston thinks more about transit, Dug Begley, Chron.com

“It feels like it is almost the sky is the limit for our team on these kinds of issues to stop wasteful highway building and increase transit,” said Jay Blazek Crossley, program development and research director with Houston Tomorrow, an urban planning nonprofit.

(...)

Crossley said past decisions in the Houston region — building the Grand Parkway and Texas 288, widening U.S. 290 — were made with the full knowledge they would benefit future users and open up more land for development. The Wisconsin ruling, if it stands, helps ensure that planners have to explicitly study the effects of sprawl in a wider capacity than they do now, and have that discussion publicly.
“I think what the judge is talking about is meaningful public input,” Crossley said.

In fact, other than the snippet from the Natural Resources Defense council ALL of the "expert opinion" offered up in Begley's story comes from: Jay Blazek Crosby, Head of program development and research for......Houston Tomorrow.

So basically, Houston Tomorrow (and several other transit activists) displayed a stunning lack of knowledge about the trial process, were able to convince a reporter (who was either lazy or also possessed the same lack of knowledge about the legal process) to run a story touting the "ruling" as a potential game changer based SOLELY on their opinion, without bothering to include a dissenting opinion, and then touted that same story as being objective proof their opinions are correct.

Cozy relationship isn't it?

Back n' Forth on racism by racist people.

People tweeting out racist statements to children are disgusting. They should be, and were, publicly shamed, this time on Twitter.  The problem with discussing race is always going to be one of response.  Often, what's said after the racist act can be just as racist as the first event.  Take the recent Chron.com story revealing that some idiots decided to send racist tweets following a young Mariachi's singing of the National Anthem.

Little S.A. Singer proves he is a class act. René A. Guzman, Chron.com

A soft-spoken boy with a big voice isn't about to let obnoxious online remarks bring him down — especially when he has so many positive ones in his virtual corner.
Fans of Sebastien De La Cruz have rallied on social media to support the young mariachi, whose rendition of the national anthem Tuesday at the Spurs game against the Miami Heat set off a flurry of racist tweets criticizing the 11-year-old.
“On the positive remarks, I just want to thank everybody for their support,” Sebastien said at a hastily organized news conference Wednesday. “With the racism remarks, to be honest, it's just the people how they were raised. My father and my mother told me that you should never judge people by how they look. You should judge them on the inside. And the saying that I go by is never judge a book by its cover.”
On his Twitter account @selcharrodeoro, he said, “Please do not pay attention to the negative people. I am an American living the American dream. This is part of the American life.”

So what we know, is that the kid is way, way smarter than the morons who are tweeting racist drivel his way.  Unfortunately, he's also much smarter than the "expert sources" that Guzman chose to quote for this story.

Several San Antonio civil rights activists and academics had their own take on the racist online comments spurred by Sebastien's emotional delivery of the national anthem.
While proud of Sebastien, they said crude reactions to his appearance on national television Tuesday night — clad in a mariachi traje — reflected a wider anger aimed at Latinos and immigrants, and over immigration reform legislation in Congress.“I was very proud of him,” said Jaime Martinez, founder and chairman of the César E. Chávez Foundation. “But it shows we still have a long way to go. There's still a lot of bigotry in this country.”
“The Star-Spangled Banner doesn't just belong to white people,” he said. “It belongs to all of us.”

As I understand it, and as it was reported, there were several racist tweets directed at Mr. De La Cruz, and it has not been reported that all of them (or even most of them) came from Caucasians.  While I don't deny that there are many Caucasians out there who are not fond of those of Hispanic descent, there are also many in the Black community, the Asian community and the Middle Eastern community who have been known to make anti-Hispanic statements as well.  The statement "The Star-Spangled Banner doesn't just belong to white people" is as racist as the anti-Mexican tweets directed at Mr. De La Cruz.  The difference is, those who made the offending tweets are portrayed as rubes, while Mr. Martinez is cast as an expert in the field of civil rights.

It doesn't stop there:

Irma Mireles, a civil rights activist since the 1960s Chicano Movement, said she was horrified by the tweets.
“At first, I got angry,” she said. “Then I realized these are ignorant people, and they're afraid of the future, and the future is brown.”

No Ms. Mireles, the future is not "brown" at all.  The future, is multi-colored. As a matter-of-fact, the PAST was multi-colored as well. Now, by making that statement I'm not suggesting that some colors didn't have an advantage over others, only that the American cultural tapestry, especially in Texas, is an intricate weave of a multitude of cultures, all (in their own ways) trying to work, somewhat, together to achieve a better society.  If "white privilege" is a bad thing, then it stands to reason that "brown privilege" (which is what Ms Mireles seems to be advocating) would be equally bad.  The reason we have the past is to (hopefully) learn from it.  If we continue to follow the narrow-minded down the paths of racial division then we're always going to be less of a Nation than we can be.

It's taken all of that to get to my point.  Namely, that the media (especially bad media outlets such as ChronBlog) are incapable of reporting a story on race without enabling racists from one side or the other.  Whether it's in the style-book or just a piece of outlook bias on the part of the reporter rearing its ugly head, racism is still racism, no matter how it's doctored up.  This doesn't mean that, historically, racial tensions and attitudes were different, only that we shouldn't be held hostage to them (which many, especially white progressives with a huge yoke of white guilt think we should) when we attempt to move forward.

For some reason the MSM seems incapable of grasping this fact, and intent on promoting the worst in our society when it comes to race.  Because it's important to note, that for all of the idiots on-line tweeting stupidity there were many more tweets of support from people of ALL colors.  This is a big thing, a thing that reveals a truth:  Yes, we still have some way to go on racism, but we are making progress each and every day.  We'll never eradicate it fully from the world because you cannot fully control the mind and hearts of man, but you can minimize the effects, and remove them from public policy.

To accomplish these goals however we need to have an honest conversation on race, and stop relying on academic definitions and justifications for certain groups to continue practicing it with no negative connotations.  Racism, in every form, is a disgusting world-view.  Leave it to the ChronBlog to try and make value judgements on one group's racism vs. another.  All in the name of page views (of course).

Why Houston can't have anything nice. (Tear down the Dome edition)

Oh. My. Gawd.

A not so modest proposal for the Astrodome. David Kaplan, Prime Property a Chron.com blog

It’s Niagara Falls meets Paris World’s Fair meets “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

And that's just the header.  The remainder of the article is a reminder of just how bereft of ideas the so-called "creative class" in Houston really is.

Niagara Falls? - Um, not really. Especially when you consider Niagara Falls is one of the seven wonders of the Natural world.  An inside waterfall would be like the Dubai Mall, only less so because it would be a weak copy without all of the beauty of the silver figures diving down it.

Paris World's Fair? Look, the Eiffel Tower works because it is the perfect (phallic) symbol for the Nation of France.  Obviously such symbolism doesn't work for perpetually whingeing Houston.  What is the symbol for an inferiority complex again?

2001: A Space Odyssey?  Actually, Kaplan is setting his sights a little lower trying to COPY.......Fort Worth.  If you're the biggest city in Texas and you're trying to COPY Fort Worth, you're doing it wrong.

The rest of the 'idea' is nothing more than a wish-list of things that the so-called 'creative class' wishes they had in Houston instead of other places.  Copy an Apple store design? Check.  A Space Needle (complete with revolving restaurant). Check. River Rides?  Check.

To my mind that's been the problem with every idea that's been floated for the Dome. They're all weak attempts at knocking off things that make other cities special.  Even the most creative idea, stripping down the Dome and turning the area into a park, was ruined when Chris Alexander, the project director, described it as "a potential Central Park in Houston".  The problem here obviously being that the Reliant Complex is NOT centrally located and that Disco Green was supposed to be "Houston's Central Park" and you can't have two.

Outside of the obvious, a casino - currently illegal in Texas - there's not much there that's going to be approved by both the Texans and the Houston Livestock show and Rodeo.  Given this reality we're running full steam toward the point where we demolish the thing, fill the hole, and build either a parking lot or garage. When this happens there will be much wailing, gnashing of teeth and blame casting.  In reality, the blame falls with the contract that was written with the Texans and the HLSR back when Reliant was constructed, and the fact that Houston has allowed those with a chronic lack of imagination take charge of planning and ideas.

Houston needs a creativity infusion and it needs it soon. The same ol', same ol' from the Sardine Urbanists could be the one thing that causes us to grind to a halt.