Originally Posted by
greenpau
Seems that way. Apple is rumored to be $150M in annual value for UA, and Roche, McKinsey, Facebook, Google all $30M+ and they get allocated significant GS and other amenities per year. Seems this is designed to scale back double dipping and give control back to corporate travel managers. The Corporate Travel Manager I spoke to that I referenced upthread mentioned that discounts were expanded for 2024, as were the amenity pools.
So I read this as meaning that they want only X GS for some particular corporate account, and they were already granting Y GS by normal review plus Z GS through allocation, with the problem being that X < Y+Z. So their solution was to simply cut all Y GS and increase Z to X.
Seems like another approach would have been to grant GS using their regular metrics, then do a tally of GS granted per corp account, and subsequently reduce the amenity pool offered, i.e. set Z = X - Y.
Gaming that out further, perhaps they expected or knew that their account managers at Apple, McKinsey, etc would have taken issue with having their allocations reduced, which means that they decided it was better to confuse and annoy the Y GS rather than explain to account managers that they already had nominated several of their employees for status.
Perhaps that is the right choice? But if it is, perhaps more than a minimal level of communication to members ("welcome to 1K") would have been helpful? 🤔