As I am slowly becoming more systematic in evaluating my options for the future (again, already GGL guaranteed till 30/4/26 so I can now start from an almost blank sheet if I want despite having already made a few bookings on BA in coming months I may not have made had I known about the 30/12 announcement), and noting that I am only considering top status (GGL -- compared to MM HON and FB Ulti), I was struck by a particular oddity.

So in a way, BA is portraying to be less prescriptive than the other two by needing "only" 80% of GGL spend on BA. However, I'm only now struck by the fact that BA is the only of the three programmes that counts that "home spend" only on the basis of BA only as opposed to IAG group (which would include at least IB and EI assuming Vueling was excluded) as opposed to Ulti (AF or KL) and HON (J and F only but from any LH group airline and there are now many).

This, to me, and given BA's glaring network omissions makes the "home" component of GGL a lot harder to achieve than for either Ulti or HON. Of course, BA does codeshare in part with - say - QR or IB which increases theoretical coverage, but 1) the codeshared itineraries do not always appear from non-UK originating itineraries (I'm sure they might be bookable in principle but often don't show at all if for instance booking a trip from France or Italy or Spain) and 2) typically increase prices compared to booking the prime flight direct with QR or IB.

I know it's not a big point, but I think that this specific oddity is one of the few we don't seem to have discused in well over 3000 posts on this thread now!!