I have no problem with AA adding a fourth method to qualify for each tier level based on revenue/fare component. Excluding the 'taxes/fees' part of the equation (and probably only counting fares bought from certain places or certain alliance airlines -- this is an easy way to leave out consolidator or other 'bulk' fares too rather than what DL is trying to do). I am not sure what this would be like, but I would guess maybe $5k for Gold, $15k for Plat, and $25k for EXP. Would there be EXPs who spend $25k, but not get to 100k who would stop flying AA before getting to 100k? Maybe some, but I think most at the EXP level fly AA because that is what makes sense for them. Would oneworld allow such a method of status adoption? I do not know.

EQP is likely not good enough, and I suspect that the best they could do is raise the EQM for each category only if they feel there are too many $5k spend EXP. Adding a revenue/fare component may well indeed cause disliked changes to EQM methods of qualification over time, but AA could then better measure this behavior instead of changing it immediately.

Further, AA then also rewards 'bigger spenders' which is fine with most I think.

If AA does that, they would be worlds ahead of JetBlue/Virgin America/Southwest where frankly my interest in those programs is not there. Not because I can't get status for cheap, it is more about the complexity of redemption versus what you can do with traditional awards/free tickets.

However, there is a circular piece to all of this status matching and whatever other complaints out there for making it too 'easy' to get to the level that is mentioned here, but not enough. Aside from RDM you already have or bonus RDM you earn for have an elite level, you have to pay and fly to make most of the value that EXP or whatever elite level offers. Even if you qualify for EXP on the cheap (milieage runs or other challenge offers), you need the status so that when you fly further, you get some of the perks.

I think this it the main reason that confused airlines with mileage runners. Why would mileage runners try so hard to fly 'useless' itineraries (short turnarounds, etc.) when you are trying to achieve status which is primarily useful for further flying (okay, maybe some benefit for free travel, but really there for further revenue travel)? Sure, there might be some value is achieving it early the first time around, but in future years, there is no difference I believe if you get EXP early in the year renewed (via MRs) or later in the year (where you might even get some bonus offers). And I know that getting 100k EQM on $5k requires a serious amount of time on a lot of long flights (and connections I suspect too). So, I am not sure I worry about the 'low cost' EXPs who might already be tired from most flying after their EQM MRs for the year.

Having recently sat in economy with an EXP who was apparently number 7 or 8 on the upgrade list for a recent flight, I think those above them are either paying the F-like fare or using other methods to 'guarantee' the upgrade, but not other 'lower spend' EXPs stealing their upgrades from my perspective.

Rasheed