RustyC

I guess my gut says the K.I.S.S. principle has to apply as far as it being anything good for flyers. I think it'd be something done To us, rather than For us (though certainly it won't be pitched as such). Seems the best you could hope for would be no degradation of the status quo. But you're creating three parties (airlines, programs, customers) where there used to be two, and in other triangle situations (think TicketMaster, concert venues, fans) you wind up with two parties both trying to satisfy their interests at the expense of the third.

I think the different structures also would give the IRS more chances to ruin things. If Congress can start a mileage tax on miles bought by those other than airlines, they can certainly put new taxes on third parties.

I have a feeling the transparency is the deal-breaker from the airlines' point of view, though. But we could get other types of "restructuring" in coming years that make things far worse for people with miles. I've been saying for some time that the unredeemed-miles thing will hit the fan with the baby-boom retirements (2008 and after for 62, 2011 and after for 65). Fuel costs could make it worse or be used as a reason to hike award levels. Or we could see something really cute such as Rule-Busters losing seat availability on many routes and seats getting allocated to FC or an E+ for 3-4 times minimum rather than 2x minimum. At the same time the LCCs are reducing the perceived value on many domestic-redemptions, leaving the long hauls as the ones everyone seems to be fighting for. Rather than burn 25K to see Aunt Selma in Baltimore more people will want to fly that one on a paid LCC ticket and build the 25 up to 35 in heightened hopes of going to Hawaii. FTers already tend to do that, but I think the thinking will become more widespread.