Might I suggest a solution - one that seems to have worked reasonably well in the past?

Certainly we can't require the airlines to never raise the "price" of the award travel (although a good case could be made for tying any "price" increase for awards to actual fare increases or actual cost increases - haven't quite figured out the details on how that would work, though). However, I'm not sure the "six-months notice of increases" is sufficient protection for the consumer.

Remember, unlike with "real" currency (that you can take to a store down the street if you don't like the prices in the store you happen to be in), the airline itself is the only game in town. They not only are determining the price, they're also determining availability of the awards.

If your experiences are anything like mine, you will have discovered that finding award availability is not always easy. One time trying to get an award ticket the reservations lady and I went through a six-month period and didn't find *one* award seat available on a particular itinerary during the entire period! (Not an unusual itinerary, either.)

So, I can't agree with you that "If this is not enough time, then I suppose that no amount of time would be enough."

TWA, and other airlines, used to "grandfather" the existing miles when they made a changeover, and allow the holder to use those miles against the "old" award structure. That usually lasted 5 years or so (by which time most of the miles would have been used), although I seem to recall TWA allowing the FFB miles to be used against the old award structure until about a year before they finally were bought by AA.

That seems a fair result to me - grandfather the existing miles and allow those (and only those) to also be used against the old award structure for a significant period of time. I'd say five years should do, but that's a detail that can be worked out.

I agree it is inequitable to the consumer when the folks printing the currency can devalue it willy-nilly. That's a third-world trait.