I certainly was not trying to make the obvious sound novel and I apologise to all FTers (and to you hfly in particular) if it sounded as it I did. It DID seem obvious to me that KL could restrict the carrying forward of elite eligibility and therefore was curious to find out why some other FTers did not think so.

The only argument you put forward was that 3 US programmes and one European programme (2 now with Qualiflyer) had grandfathered certain rights.

That does not strike me as establishing that there is a worldwide industry practice of grandfathering FFP benefits. If that were so, we could disregard, for instance, changes in booking class requirements for upgrades or changes in partners as long as we would be using "old miles". To take another example, I do not think that I could book a 7 day GT Bucuti Beach resort at 60000 FD points during March as used to be the case (now 80000 pts) even if using "old" FD points.

It may well be that you have countless examples of the contrary and I bow to your superior knowledge of FFP programmes throughout the world, and in Europe in particular (if there is such a firmly established practice and the matter is so clear-cut, though, why did you feel the need to post that "piece of advice" for any KLM lurker: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../000928.html?)

I think, however, that one should be careful before inferring the existence of worldwide norms on the basis of examples which are primarily US-based. The US and European market are VERY different. There is a homogeneity in the US that does not exist in Europe; patterns of flying and fare structures are also different.

I guess I might perhaps again be "stating the obvious" and I apologise to FTers who feel annoyed by this. On the whole, however, in an international, multi-cultural board, it is probably best to err on the side of safety and not to assume that what is obvious to me is necessarily obvious to everybody else.