I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I just don't agree that a passenger who spends more with an airline is less valuable than a passenger who spends less.

I am not arguing that loyalty to an airline is a bad thing and should not be rewarded. (I am very loyal to my airlines of choice!) I just think the reward should be based on money spent as opposed to number of segments or distance of flights. Like Hawkeye said, the hotel programs do it and no one complains about that. How come?

My way of thinking is definitely affected by the fact that I buy a lot of full fare tickets

Hawkeye: Good point.

Punki: Real world example: suppose someone travelled once every other month full fare SFO-EWR on UA for approximately 30,000 miles/year. The cost is approximately $12,000. At the end of the year, the traveller gets Premier on United, which means that it is possible (but difficult) to upgrade.

Compare this to the traveller who flies monthly SFO-EWR on $500 discount tickets. They spend $6000 and earn 60,000 miles. At the end of the year, they make Premier Executive, which makes it easier to upgrade.

Both travellers are equally loyal to UA, but the one who has spent less money and cost UA more (because of taking up twice as many seats on their planes) is rewarded more. I can't see rewarding traveller #2 with the higher status.

pgupta011: What benefits is UA currently offering on full fare tickets? Last I looked, they were inferior in this regard to many other airlines, including CO, HP, US, TWA.