It has occurred to me that there is something strange about this. First of all, let me make my position clear: not in a million years could I hope to reach either of those statuses, so none of this will ever affect me personally. Secondly, I have no objection to far more frequent flyers than I being accorded additional benefits. Nor do I object to people playing the system. It’s just that I find the current set-up odd and these are just my idle musings.

It’s just that it seems you don’t need to be very loyal to BA to get to their ‘super-statuses’.

Bronze, Silver and Gold equate to OW statuses. They’re recognised across the OW alliance, and offer OW benefits, across the alliance.
Emerald probably means flying a lot, but you only need four of those flights to be with BA, potentially south of £300 spend, to be a Gold Card holder if you’ve signed up to BAEC. Fair enough, these are rewards for OW loyalty across the piece.

But GGL and CCR are BA only ‘super-statuses’. No additional Oneworld benefits (still Emerald). not available to OW partners, but additional BA benefits. Yet they could nevertheless be achieved, still by potentially only spending £300 or less with BA, just by flying a lot more with partners. Someone spending 100 times as much with BA may not get there if they only travelled BA.

Seems bizarre.

Would there be a case for only including BA flights for GGL and CCR? Perhaps recalibrate to 4000/2500 and 4000 points, for example?
It does seem odd that by flying mostly a mix of other OW airlines, someone could be considered a ‘valuable’ BA customer, eligible for additional pampering, even though they hardly ever flew them or crossed their palms with silver, simply because they attributed flights on other airlines to the BAEC programme.