Really not understanding how this is news - AA (and UA) are already both "frequent spender" (or high spender, as it were) programs, and not frequent flyer programs. On UA, if you do the math, the spend requirement is vastly more difficult to meet than the segment requirement, unless you're flying infrequently and spending vast sums of money on tickets.

What this boils down to is that these programs are already revenue-based. A devaluation of benefits, or increase in requirement to obtain status, could certainly happen, but this doesn't change the structure of the program.

There's also no benefit at all to most customers to drop/reduce the mileage/segment portion but increase the spend portion - if you're spending more, you'd be hitting those mileage/segment requirements anyway, again with the except of the less frequent traveler dropping a lot on flights.

I'm also struggling to see how people who consistently pay for business class find much value in loyalty programs, as others have mentioned. There are certainly some perks, but if you're already paying for the biggest ones, why would you care much about status? This is directly connected with EQD requirements that are too high - the airline has to figure that there is a sweet spot where individuals are paying "a lot" but can still obtain good value from earned status (e.g., a person buying main cabin very frequently) - that person could qualify for status, and get upgraded from time to time. If AA prices status so high that you'd essentially have to already be paying for the services that you'd get free for status, then how would anyone see that as a winning proposition? A $25,000 EQD requirement for EXP just doesn't mathematically or logically make any sense, unless we're talking inflation-adjusted dollars in 2040.

I have very little experience in the status game, but have been researching which to pursue in anticipation of a lot more travel in 2022 and freedom with who I book it though, but as I research things, AA is simply cheaper to qualify for: It costs $15,000 to qualify for EXP vs $18.000 for 1K (in addition to mileage/segment requirements). This could, of course change, but that's the bottom-line math, and that math is revenue-based.

Finally, I'm also not understanding those who are using this as an example of how AA is any worse - don't others (save, Southwest and budget carriers) all have revenue-based requirements? Isn't American's cheaper? How is any of this news, or - if it is - bad news?