Originally Posted by
mrswirl
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.
Sortof. There is average stage length - both operated and flown - so there are some ways to correlate the two.
Originally Posted by
mrswirl
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.
If they aren't correlated then why is that the "most fair" way?
Originally Posted by
mrswirl
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.
Very few people make 1K on segments. It is a very small fraction of the overall 1K population.
There are two ways to look at segment-based qualification:
- Some are going to be folks who find 4 hop transcon runs or the like. Generally not as profitable to the company as someone who just flies the non-stop of single connection.
- Some are going to be non-hub residents who connect on all their itineraries. In many cases those customers are paying lower fares than the hub captives. Again, not as profitable per segment flown than the folks who are connecting less.
- Some are going to be flying very expensive point-to-point routes and are going to be tremendously profitable to the company.
If #3 is a much smaller population than 1 & 2 (personally I believe this is the case but it is just a gut instinct, not something I can back up with proper data) then the net effect to the company is that alienating #3 might actually be a profitable move.