Wow, Ben really excoriated AA!
OTOH, AA would not be sad to lose customers whose travel purchase patterns resemble Ben's. @:-)
When Southwest changed to a revenue-based program they knew it would upset everyone who had learned how to game the old program. From the company's point of view that effect was a benefit. The company's objective was a program that benefited the 95% who are NOT willing to take the time to become experts.
I predict that FF programs will eventually have both revenue-based redemption without capacity controls and chart-based redemption with capacity controls. The former will satisfy the 95% who don't want to do any homework (including current Capital One customers), while the latter will appeal more to the other 5%, including FT'ers.
Both the 95% and the 5% abhor breaches of trust. I don't believe that zero-notice change is in the interest of any type of program, but management seems to disagree with me.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you were running Chase Ultimate Rewards and you decided that you were "overindexed". Too many people were redeeming for United, Hyatt, and Southwest points. You needed to devalue those redemption options. Would you give advance notice, risking a run on the bank? Remember that unlike, say, AA miles, UR points can be redeemed in a flash without any need to lock the points into a specific trip.
I am shocked that anyone is shocked by this. Hotels frequency program point earning has been revenue-based since their inception. And it's a far more logical way of measuring how 'important' a customer is in a de-regulated airline industry, too. So we need to get used to it, prepare for it, and act accordingly.
As for the lack of notice, to me that's a natural result of the oligopolization of the airline industry. As I said in one of the blogs' comments section: anyone who rooted for the AA/US merger, or who criticized the DOJ for trying to stop it, was NOT on the customers' side. Ahem,
http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthew...far-from-over/ 