That concept is, if you'll pardon my saying so, rather simplistic. It may be true for some, but for others it is simply not the way the world works.

The thing being overlooked with this analysis is that actually flying on the airline or actually buying anything from the airline (both of which being the activities that actually put dollars in the carrier's bottom line), is not what is being required. You could have a very loyal flyer who buys expensive tickets frequently but who would lose miles under the "new, enhanced" program.

"Never happen," you say? Not so fast.

One of the original members of this board used to do something similar. He wanted to be top elite in two Star Alliance programs, one of which would grant the status for two years at a time. He flew quite a bit, often on around-the-world tickets or on premium cabin tickets, and on both airlines, but he would put all of the activity on one of the Frequent Flyer programs until he got status with that program (and often, because of the bonus miles he then would earn because of his status, would continue that year putting all activity on that one program).

If this status was earned in the "good for two years" program, the next year he would put all of his activity on the other program. Or, he might arrange to "bunch" his travel so as to again qualify on one program during the "carryover" period the year after he failed to requalify.

[For example, a person might qualify as elite in the first two months of year 01; that elite status would continue for year 02 and the first two months of year 03. The flyer might credit no activity whatsoever to the carrier during year 02, and thus would not "requalify" for elite status, but if the flyer flew intensively during the first two months of the year 03, he would again "earn" elite status in year 03 that would take effect immediately (in February of year 03) and continue through year 04 and the first two months of year 05.

[Thus, for intensive crediting activity in early 01 and in early 03, he enjoys elite status for over four years. If one looked only at the crediting activity, though, it looks as though he had not flown on the carrier at all for 22 months!]

If you had someone like this would you say he was "an extremely, extremely, extremely low-value low-importance customer"? Would that be the sort of person you would want to force out of your program by changing the rules after he had earned his miles and his status?

You may argue that it would be easy for the person to save his miles by simply altering his crediting pattern, but the point is what would a sensible airline (which, remember, is selling this person thousands of dollars of tickets each and every year) think to gain by requiring the customer to modify his crediting behavior that is anywhere commensurate with what they have to lose by irritating him?

In any event, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this and other threads on the subject, the point of these programs is to try to increase sales. If an airline sells a flyer a ticket even only once every three years, that should more than pay for the administrative cost of keeping the account alive on electrons for another three years. This change of the rules after the consumer has done what was asked of him is economically unwise (and possibly legally perilous as well). It makes no long-term sense.

It is no coincidence that these "race to the bottom" changes are introduced at times when the load factor is high and the airlines sense prosperity; when the situation turns, whether from economic turnaround or from too great an increase in capacity, then you start to again see the "race to the top" changes. But what the short-sighted bean-counters fail to recognize when they alienate their customers is that it is easier and less costly to retain an existing customer than to entice a new one.