So, I was reading this thread....http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=593589

and the thought came to mind that as the FF programs have evolved, there seem to be *less* reasons to expire miles then before. To wit:

1. Perception: There's no way a customer can see it as a plus to have less time to use their miles.

2. Cost: While I know FF miles represent a significant liability on the books, I would assert that it also costs them money to remove the liability. :isclaimer:: I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. However, if the government has established enough "value" in miles/points that some programs charge a fee to offset taxes for transfers, it would seem that when an airline expires miles, the government would consider this similar to voiding a gift certificate. In these instances, the states usually require that revenues be disgorged to the states as unclaimed funds.

I'm not 100% sure my logic on #2 is correct. Nor do I think there's any chance the airlines would see it this way. I guess I just don't see the value in encouraging people to burn or lose. Since airlines are much more likely to raise the "price" of an award than lower it, letting them sit on the books would seem to increase the likelihood they don't get redeemed.

So, why eliminate something a customer earned but might not use when the act of taking back what they've earned might cause them to go elsewhere?