Originally Posted by
ibuyyoufly
I totally and entirely agree with your post. If it were my business to run, I too would want the FFP based on economic contribution versus frequency.
So I'll ask, do they have the system tools to determine the difference and, do they have the system tools to hopefully change the customer spend behavior and manage a program that looks like that?
If the answer is No, or don't know, to either, then they made some poor decisions effecting the relationship of some vitally important customers for this early and interim period.
If the answer is Yes, then I have to ask, why would it take, I forget what we were told by UAInsider, but either the end of the year or in 12 months time, that long to formalize a program, get it in front of us and have the system ready to execute it? It just feels like something is amiss.
Since GS qualifications are based on economic contributions, I would venture a guess that UA has the system tools to determine the difference.
I think the challenge is some elites flip out the moment it looks like the program is going to change. Some elites feel entitled to receive certain benefits for a certain amount of flying because that's how it has worked in the past. Go look back at the threads from last summer when there were rumors about about having minimum spend be part of the qualification process...
The legacy carriers created a monster and it will be very difficult to tame it.