The article is fundamentally flawed, in that it conflates two things: accruing miles in an FFP and certain actions that some people take because of real or perceived rewards from those FFPs.

There is no cost or penalty to sign up for an airline's FFP and accrue miles in it (in the U.S. - I realize there are a few foreign programs that may charge an enrollment fee). It is only when a flyer makes irrational decisions because of that FFP membership, that there is a potential for a net negative. Yet the article mostly implies that merely belonging to an FFP will cause most people to engage in these behaviors. And implying that one should not even accrue miles in any program because of this.

Will my miles in a given program be worth less due to devaluation one day? Yes, but does that necessarily mean I shouldn't bother accruing them at all, assuming one doesn't make stupid decisions because of it? I don't think so.

Also, the article uses poor decision-making regarding elite status to conclude that FFPs are a fool's game in general. Do some people make poor economic decisions because they're trying to hit an elite level, for example? Sure. Does that mean everyone should ditch FFP mileage accrual? Nope.

Early termination fees and FFPs are not identical. I understand the potential psychological equivalency in some minds. However a cell phone termination fee is an absolute penalty that is quantifiable and legally enforceable. A perceived loss of a reward program benefit isn't. The article provides no substantiation for its assertion that most or all consumers behave as if the reward loss is the same (surely some do, but how many?).