I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I mean yes, I'm sure many people do, but equally, many people don't.

Perhaps more to the point though, I don't think that reducing numbers of status passengers is in fact the goal at all, so unless you are suggesting that the new model will largely increase the numbers of status holders, then I'm not sure what the logic would be to further increase thresholds already?

Remember BAC's initial assertion that they expected the changes to supposedly be number neutral. Even more importantly, despite what many FTers think, from the point of view of an airline as well as an FFP, having a lot of high status passengers is actually a good thing, not a bad thing! The whole point is that FFPs are inherently potential profit centres, not cost centres. In turn, the whole question surrounding the changes that have happened to BAC as well as very different choices made by other airlines is: how do you optimise that profit centre? FFPs are not here to reward people, they are here because they represent potential added value for the airline as well as the loyalty programme itself.

From the airline's perspective, they are historically used to boost loads (you create a large basis of faithful customers who bring you custom) and yields (you create customers willing to pay more to fly with you because they value status, so overall, you can sell your plane tickets for more than what you could do otherwise). They also serve as an insurance policy in contexts of economic downturn or other external crises (traffic and yields decrease so you lose less on both fronts thanks to that loyal basis you have created at the time you need it most).

From the point of view of the more "mercantile" side of the loyalty managers willing to monetise the FFP, they create a loyal basis which potential can be sold to interested partners for a fee. That's a bit similar to how a professional would use their own reputation to sell their clientele to a newcomer when they retire. From that point of view, the value of your FFP "database" if you will is directly related to the size of your FFP and in particular the number of high status customers. They are the milkable golden cows whom whatever credit card, wine selling or subscription business the loyalty programme is negotiating with will drool about. As a result, any decline in number goes flatly against the very purpose of your (in this case BAC's) changes.

That is undoubtedly the story behind ringfencing the bonuses (chances are numbers went down, probably more so than the pretty slide claimed and they are trying to correct the trajectory without losing face to come up with decent numbers post 1/4. The reason some people on this thread suggest that there will be some discretionary status rollovers is because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that this won't be enough to maintain those numbers, and therefore a further correction will be necessary come 1/4 in the form of preventing some people from losing their status, perhaps primarily at the top level (GGL), precisely because decreasing numbers would be counter-productive.

Now to be clear, the airline and the loyalty programme do not have synchronised interests here: IAG L will literally only care about the numbers and won't give a toss whether you lose some very frequent flyers who sit on BA planes and replace them by twice a year customers who achieve their status without ever setting foot on the airline. By contrast, BA will care and that is why many at BA opposed the changes in the first place. For them, losing frequent flyers in favour of other card holders is a massive problem. However, whilst they disagree on that key question of replaceability, what both have in common at least, is that both sides need the numbers to remain strong at all elite levels because numbers going down, far from being applauded by shareholders and investors as a way to save money, would be badly criticised as a loss of attractiveness and value for both the FFP and of course the airline.