Originally Posted by
mrswirl
I remember lilfe as a 2P and was 1P for many years.... even then I never understood why the EQS ratio was 30/60/100 instead of 25/50/100.
If you think about it, there is absolutely no correlation of EQM to EQS. One is a measure of distance and the other frequency. It's like Hertz vs. Watts in measuring electricity - they're both related to the same topic but totally different units of measurements.
If UACO really wanted to squeeze in a 1P+ tier the "most fair" way would be to standardize the tiers to 25/50/75/100 across the board for both EQMs and EQS.
It seems to me that the only internal discussion was centered around how "90 is too close to 100" so they raised the later instead of thinking through the ramifications to those impacted. The message it sends is: "we only care about the mileage flyer. The rest of you can get bent."
120 segments is a really high bar to clear for almost all but the most dedicated of segment flyers. 100 is tough enough as it is. I've said it before: if you think it's "easy" to make 1K on segments then you've obviously never done it.
using your own logic that eqm has no correlation to eqs, there is no logical reason that 1 eqs should equal 1,000 eqm. ie, no logical reason that eqs should be 25/50/75/100. in fact, by your logic, it coudl be 30/60/90/120 or it could be 10/20/30/40 or it could be 31/62/93/124.
i actually agree with 120 eqs. i never understood why the 1k level got a dicount from 30/60/120 to begin with. and yes, i've been a segment flier for many years. i first qualified for exp at 101 segments and did it on segments for several years before switching to ua when i qualified on 103 segments.
honestly, for the small segment of the population that is ft'ers, you can add in 20 segments over the course of a year for zero cost by being diligent about following the nonsensical ft ways.