Originally Posted by
Passmethesickbag
Correct. If I had been based in the US, that would have been the case. Being based on the UK, I can only buy AA ticket stock when travelling in a westerly direction. Any discount fares for travelling eastwards or southwards will be 50% EQM or less. Added to that, as I'm not based in the US, spending limits do not affect me (at least not yet).
So the new program looks set to drive away discount fare EXPs, like me, who do not live in the US. I don't believe this is even intentional — it's more to do with IAG slashing earnings for their own frequent fliers, and it was really just a matter of time until this was going to be reflected on AAdvantage earnings for BA and IB flights as well. Maintaining 100% EQM on AY would have softened the blow, but that was not to be. Earning rates on QR, QF, and OW's Asian partners were always abysmal anyway.
There's no question that any non-premium, international-based AA loyalists are hurt by this. It's simply not possible to be loyal to AA metal only when living overseas, and the new discount EQM earning guts the ability to acquire status. For those who are laughing at us "bottom feeding cheap elites", it's not the bottom of the barrel N and O fares that are causing the problem, it's nearly everything except full Y/B fares.
That being said, I still can't/don't trust UA operationally or loyalty-wise. If I stay loyal at all, I'm sticking with AA/oneworld.
I'm considering using 2016 to do a full analysis/experiment to compare my total costs for the oneworld experience with the equivalent experience being loyalty-agnostic. This would require me to price each itinerary both ways, including the costs of lounge access, excess baggage, buy-up to economy comfort or exit row, etc to come up with a true economic calculation of which way benefits me better. Since I average 100-150 flights a year, it may be too much work, but would be fascinating data if I can actually manage it. Anybody else want to join this experiment?
(I'll publish but anonymised)