I wonder about all the people who never read FT, never heard of Milespy, who no longer get the 450 per dollar because of the dynamic generated by FT and Milespy (if this was in fact the cause). My point with regard to these kinds of activities remains, is it fair to the average user, the intended user at that, that the offer is truncated because of the profit motive of others (profit motive that goes beyond the intent of the offer... ). I see an accelaration over the past months in the zeal with which programs are 'attacked' for points and the reactions of the programs to those attacks.

I have no ill will to the milespy people personally, but I do believe that the concept poses a threat to the health of frequency programs in general. I would rather see most people get what was intended rather than a few to quickly hack off huge chuncks and see the opportunity reduced or eliminated. I realize FT is about getting ahead of the game, but again, where does the line of fairness get drawn. It seems to me reasonable to share opportunities and then take advantage of them in a way that benifits yourself and leaves the opportunity for others. It's a little too dog eat dog for me to say merely 'he who eats the fastest gets the mostest.'

Of course everyone will draw the line of fairness differently but the extremes of, for lack of a better word, greed, seem clearly over them. Frequency programs were not intended as businesses for others (see airline coupon brokers as an example. are all of you praising milespy in favor of selling miles...that's just someone making a buck) they are intended to reward the customer for actual purchases or travel or hotel nights, etc.

It's taking longer than I thought but I remain convinced that the growth of FT, with the concomitant rise in very large scale advantage taking of frequency programs is a very real threat to the programs in general. One 'Pudding Guy' event was a nice human interest piece and good publicity. A constant barrage on that scale will damage most peoples benefits and reward a very few with a lot. That sounds more like the lottery than a customer reward scheme. Even though I actively monitor FT for opportunities it doesn't mean I am in favor of the few who find out first taking everything and causing most others to be shut out. I self limit because it is in the common interest immediately, and I believe, in both the common and my own interest in the long term.