Originally Posted by
Covidian98
That explanation is inconsistent with the words "if any" that were specifically added to this sentence:
"based on the status they would have earned otherwise (if any)".
The words "if any" clearly relate to a situation where you have not earned any status.
All they do is acknowledge that it's possible that the status you've actually earned is nothing. You're choosing to interpret it as a blanket exemption from the requirement to earn any status to qualify for the rollover. But that's totally illogical. Why is it that everyone else would have to qualify for status to achieve a rollover, except people who got some status comped?
Also, it seems unfair "If AC comps you 25K and you qualify for nothing, no rollover." Why would rollover eligibility be related to the question of if your status was earned or comped ? People that have status, are eligible to all the status benefits, regardless of how they got the status. It doesn't make any sense to differentiate between people that have the same status, just because they got it using different ways.
Your complaints are inconsistent with the fact this is one of the few places AC is very explicitly treating comped status differently.
If you want something that's unfair, how about an SE who qualifies on segments and therefore gets zero rollover, whereas someone who qualified for 25K with 34K SQM would roll over 9K? The rollover program is full of quirks that mean various people will get very different benefits out of it.
The only thing that makes sense, is that you need to have status to be eligible to rollover any excess SQM. So, if you were comped 50K status, but you also accumulated 24K SQM, then the full 24K SQM should roll over.
As is often the case, we're debating over T&C that AC hasn't bothered to draft clearly.
But what actually makes sense is qualifying for no status means no rollover, because the entire rollover program requires one to have achieved status.
You're trying to read this in a way that presumably benefits your own situation, but isn't logical when considering the program as a whole.