Not in that sense. But I will say I have yet to find an idea raised here on FT which management (of any airline) has not already conjured up in some form and as there's a strong "herd" mentality with the players within the domestic US market, and to a lesser extent, the global aviation market, some alternatives could have been to consider:

• what DL's doing with partner fees/3 tiered awards
• what US is doing with elite bonuses
• what European carriers have done with fuel surcharges for awards (bleh!)
• what NZ has done with correlating a mile directly to a $ reduction in the ticket price

...and so on.

I would argue when any airline was facing a sky-rocketing fuel bill (and we're still not quite out of that woods yet) pressure is created to reduce costs...which translates into devaluation. And I suspect one of the first places any airline would look to is to their piers - both domestically and globally - to see what they've done, how their customers have reacted, has it really produced a change in behavior, etc.
I agree -- but if you permit me to put on my bean-counter hat for a second (and please forgive me ) here's the crux of the issue:...and that's a very reasonable position and one's that's practically impossible to argue against.

Hence you've got to argue that any increase in benefits (the cost) will be at the least offset by an increase elsewhere. For example consider E+: yeah you might loose X seats if you were to put in UA style E+ but you'll gain back Y $'s + product differentiation (hard to quantify in $) as well as customer loyalty (again hard to quantify in $). At the end of the day you've spent a dollar but you've earned back a dollar-ten + a few intangible assets.

So why in the hell doesn't every airline start beefing up the bennies? Well, because not everyone believes the bennies can drive the behavior of customers - or better yet - the right kind of customers.

From the little I've read on the industry, what airline need is high-yielding customers. The largest percentage of "high-yield" customers are what we refer to as business travelers; travelers who're not necessarily constrained by a budget and value schedule, flexibility and product. Or in other words the most important factor for these customers when selecting an airline are:

1. Schedules (how many flights, non-stops, etc.)
2. Flexibility (can I change/cancel/refund my ticket
3. Price
4. Loyalty Aspects, if any

Thus from CO's standpoint with significant fortress hubs in EWR, IAH and CLE they've already got the number 1 driver of high-yield customer behavior: schedules. For example, if a NYC based 1K is schedule constrained and needs to get to some secondary European market where CO has the only non-stop, CO will get the J fare. No SWUs or CR1s needed. Just the right flight at the right time. Or consider a IAH based schedule constrained EXP who needs to get to Paris, CO gets the J ticket despite not having eVIPs.

Even if that customer buys full Y (could not buy J for whatever reason), and even if s/he is congnisgent of upgrade instruments (and the implied knowledge of nuisances between the various programs) the scheduling constraints still cannot be easily overcome...even if it means sitting in a crappy Y product.

(And the airlines match each other on price so that's not really a deciding factor...but it will be interesting to watch DL's front-end CASM compared with CO's in a new config 777, but that is for a different threat)

Now the catch (and what many here allude to): where CO does not posses a scheduling advantage they don't offer any enticements to the same top-tier customer. A PDX based 1K / EXP needs to get to CDG and for the particular day in question 4 airline offer similar hypothetical 1-stop schedules:

• AA via JFK
• UA via ORD
• DL via MSP
• CO via EWR

Moreover as we'll assume the prices are roughly the same we can cross of the first and second behavior drivers from the list and we're left with loyalty considerations. This customer might have an affiliated CC as well as material point balance at one of these carriers and thus s/he'll award the travel based on loyalty considerations (be it miles, product, upgrades, etc.) but in any event the loyalty scheme has brought the airline a desirable high-yield customer.

(And in my opinion UA and AA compete far more aggressively on reward aspects (SWUs/eVIPs) than DL or CO. Likewise I'd argue CO and DL compete far more on the actual premium (J) product...but that's just me.)

But back to justifiable costs: if CO has a bunch of captive people due to their n/s and/or network, why would they need to offer more benefits to capture the customers they've already got?

(My answer: the world's just not IAH/EWR/CLE; they're other markets out there. Plus new (and far better capitalized) carriers will happily enter those lucrative long-haul markets and the primary advantage used to compete for high-yield customers will be eroded. Chances are you're also see reduced J/Y fares at the best or a fare war at the worst so don't look for a pricing advantage (plus the new entrants will probably have a better CASM and cash reserves, be it real or artificial, anyway...so don't wage war on this front.) Thus those once captive hubbies will look to loyalty programs as the 3rd tie-breaker. And it's most off putting to be treated as "just another Plat" or with a "what have you done for me recently" attitude. Plus there's the whole selling miles for cold hard cash...don't kill the goose laying the golden egg by destroying the value of a mile in the public eye.)
I'd like to know that too! But methinks that might be a bit on the confidential side. However I would venture a guess and say mileage earned by any elite of any program is more likely to be redeemed than mileage earned by a non-elite. <shrug>

If Golds get *G than Plat's largely lost it's luster (at least to me) - my thoughts on the matter