Originally Posted by
adambadam
I just want to point out one thing that has been bothering me. A lot of people are saying that any of the caps whether it be 25/50/100 EQM or 30/60/120 EQS are all rather arbitrary numbers to cut off when recognizing your loyalty, and that the switch to 120 EQS was to align with the 30/60 levels established at the inferior ranks. The only problem I have with that is that to me the only number out of all of the numbers that ever totally made sense was 100 EQS. That was the number for all the travelers out there that 50 weeks of the year, without fail, they do one r/t. That takes some dedication and some persistence. It also means that pretty much 100% of their flying is on UA. At the lower levels I think it is more fair to justify 30/60 as it helps UA retain fliers though one you pass 100 EQS it just seems hard to speculate that a flier is going to jump ship very easily. It is a shame that UA is making it hard for that category of traveler to qualify for 1K.
And just for example, who is more loyal in the following scenario, you decide:
- A person who flies 50 times a year SFO-ORD on UA
- A person who flies 8 r/t SFO-HKG gets 1K status, then switches to AA and flies SFO-HKG 8 more times that year and get top AA status and maximizes SWU usage on the two carriers, for a total of 16 r/t
Look at the programs listed on anyone in this thread. I have ONLY looked at the person above you, that was LH SEN and UA 1k. Top tier on (2) different programs. I am sure if I tallied, many people have status, even at the 1k level on more than 1 airline. Nothing against them, for me, the primary reason a person should fly isn't the loyalty program, especially when they may not be paying, but schedule. Of course if you are paying, and your time is yours, then use whatever works for you, but when flying on behalf of someone else, and either the flights, or the times, are paid for by another, I would think one would have a morale obligation to minimize their cost, prior to maximizing your comfort at their own expense. If that makes you gold status on 4 carriers, and top tier on none, then so be it. By no means are *most* top tier elites, the same level on 2 or more carriers, while the siler, tend to be at least that status on multiple carriers, so in effect, they are more "loyal", but this may not be true loyalty, but it could be a captive market they base in, a corporate contract, or possible, yes, true loyalty.
Who is more "loyal"? Not the one who gets his goodies and then runs to someone else. That by no means fits any definition of loyal. The 2nd guy shows his intent, beyond the qualifying miles, of flying on AA as well to use those. Again, "self serving" and "loyal" are not on the same side of the spectrum, but more opposites. If by "loyal" you mean "profitable", then without knowing cost to UA and cost to passenger, as well as displaced revenue of others that may have booked had someone not flown, we can never tell. We need to separate the term loyal from the term profitable, or the term self serving. They each have unique meanings, but what should an airline encourage more, loyalty, or profitability? I say profitability. The Saudi prince that buys 1 F ticket from BJS to ORD may not end up with any status, but he is most likely more profitable than most of UA's "elite" flyers, and more than many "loyal".