Apologies if this has been raised, but I find myself looking through sites like Faredealalert and mentally trying to calculate if a fare like, say, ATL-DEN for $116 RT on UA is a good deal.

Irrespective of FF earnings it likely is IF you want to go anyway or have a good reason, but what about incentivizing a trip that wouldn't otherwise happen? But then ya realize the the thing would earn maybe 500 "miles" under the new system rather than at least 2,400 under the old.

And so the question: Should DL, UA and soon AA still be calling them "miles?" Or is that now a misleading term left over from a system that no longer exists?

I think they need to change it. Points, AirRupees, SkyPesos, or invent a term.

This is more than just semantics. If they have to describe it with a new term then it serves as a reminder that things have fundamentally changed (which they have). There's also stiff competition on the credit-card front from points-based programs like US Bank and CapitalOne, so the giant banks with "miles"-based cards may resist it, as they've essentially bought exclusive rights to convert purchases into "miles" directly within the program.

But eliminating distance-based earning in favor of revenue-based would seem to make "miles" patently misleading. Maybe they try to cling to a thread that some things like status qualification are still tied to miles flown, but that's a separate count in which no miles/points/whatever are awarded. The "miles" are a function of revenue, not miles flown.

OTOH, if they have to come up with a more accurate term (revenue points?) going forward it'll remind Joe Sixpack who's been saving up for years for a trip to Hawaii with mostly non-flight points that there's a new order now (and maybe he should adapt, like by getting a cash-back card instead). The only link left to miles was flying for them, and now that's being quashed.

I'm not a lawyer but maybe someone should raise this with 'em.