Okay, so this type of more narrow discussion on fare classes/type of fares and their impact on benefits for flyers on AAdvantage future could be much more insightful than the generic EQP conversations we have otherwise had (although, the reason for the concern is not that different). Sadly, Delta has been the recent "innovator" in this area (E fares) and United to a lesser extent has had related policies for years.
First, the question on why there are such low fares was reminded today (and the details are helpful).
More than half to the company's revenue - and 87 percent of its seats sold come from passengers who fly American once a year or less. That's made it essential for American to complete on price with low-cost fliers, and other legacy carriers..."
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-percent.html/
I don't think the AAdvantage program cares about those once a year flyers who accrue such miles as they are NOT redeeming for QF/EY/QR F awards or getting upgraded on these fares. No program change needed.
Now when frequent flyers buy (I think it is mostly O and S class in today's system) these fares, it becomes an issue. A perfect example is the AA Vacations situation, but buying low fare matches is not discouraged in anyway. Coincidentally, I just met an AA frequent flyer who for the past 15 years has spent close to $5k annually to get to EXP. He talked to me about many sub $100 AI RT fares for relatively long distances (2500+ EQM) that he does, and of course, he is burning on QF F awards. Well, we know that those fares are targeted to the low fare occasional flyer, who has lots of travel flexibility. There are obviously (a few?) EXPs who have lots of travel flexibility too.
It does seem the easiest change is to reduce the potential for complementary upgrades and EQP/EQM for these matched fares. This to me would be much more effective than larger program changes across the board. I do not know though how many of these $5k EXP flyers exist, but to me, this is really the only group who receive benefits that may far outweigh their spend. Funny enough, paid upgrades might still be fine because that is pure profit for AA. Now as an EXP, I don't want these changes, but I don't see how we avoid any inevitable bad "innovation". Probably also because we are not sure what more AA could add to the program in a positive fashion without added cost (when it doesn't need to do so based on the program's popularity already).
Do we think AA will keep its focus that narrow in its changes? Seems unlikely.
Rasheed