Originally Posted by
sbm12
Well the example is ridiculously over-simplified and it attributes 100% of the reward miles to half the travel in the round trip scenario. Moreover, since one-way rewards would be available the implication is that all rewards are such. So there is no more round trip and the math no longer applies.
In other words, come up with something else that actually isn't so flawed as an argument. This one is a joke.
I suppose you just don't understand the principle involved, since your objections have no bearing on the simple example I posted.
I did not attribute 100% of the reward miles to half the travel in the round trip scenario, I attriributed 100% of the reward miles to 100% of the travel.
Perhaps it would be easier to understand like this:
Again, a simple example, just for argument's sake, to explain the principle.
1 award seat available.
1 passenger using a one-way award at 12,500 miles
1 passenger using a roundtrip award at 25,000 miles
Total miles in this universe: 37,500.
If the roundtrip redeemer gets the seat, CAL has given up 25,000 of the 37,500 miles available.
But if the one-way redeemer gets there first, CAL only gives up 12,500 miles and the roundtrip redeemer cannot redeen his 25,000, meaning that an asymmetry has been established and CAL has only given up 12,500 miles.
This has the net effect, in the macro sense, of reducing the seat inventory for round trip redeemers who, by definition require two seats (symmetry) to redeem their awards.
Yes, somewhere, somhow the roundtrip redeemer will be able to get his or her award, but not without leaving at least one seat unreedemed in the system.
Since there will always be more roundtrip redeemers than one-way redeemers, this has the effect of increasing CAL's value in the miles.