You are entitled to your beliefs and your opinions, but you have to be more specific. Exactly which part of my post do you disagree with?

- That FF programs are intended to influence future behavior, not to reward past behavior? That is simple logic.

- That low-fare buyers are more influenced by these programs than those who pay for F/J? That is well documented via reams of research. (Again, FTers are not typical.)

- That a given set of FF rewards will therefore influence low spenders than high ones? That follows directly from the preceding point.

- That low-fare travelers are more profitable than empty seats? I don't think anyone can, or cares to, argue that.

- That the benefits of an FF program should, from the airline's point of view, designed to be as cost-effective as possible? Any business manager can explain why this is true.

- That the value of a benefit is basically its degree of influence on each type of customer times the profitability of a customer of that type? That's elementary microeconomics. If Joe Bargainhunter is influenced five times as much by FF benefits than Fauntleroy Moneybags, he should get five times the benefits that a pure spending ratio would suggest. Since their spending ratio is much higher than 5:1, J.B. still gets a lot less than F.M., but benefits proportional to spending would be way out of whack.

- Something else? Please be specific as to exactly what you disagree with and why. Every part of my post is simple logic, Business 101, or documented fact based on thorough research.

Airlines know this, too. I don't believe this. I know this. Consider: many North American FF programs have started or undergone big changes since AAdvantage was introduced in 1981. If any airlines thought that rewards should be proportional to spending, at least one of them would have tried it. If it worked better than the existing model, the others would have followed long ago. None has tried it. They all follow the model I described: to provide more benefits to big spenders, but less than proportionately to their spending. That should tell us something.