Normally I would be very opposed.
But since I do not credit any flights to AC anymore, go ahead
(on the other hand, don't do it as I really do not want AA to match.)

As noted, the UA changes don't affect how elite status is earned. EQMs are still mileage based. And COS bonuses accelerate that earning for those who buy full Y and J tickets so this is already revenue-based. As for RDMs, after a certain distance, the revenue based system delivers fewer miles than the mileage approach and UA caps the earnings...not to mention ends elite tier and COS bonuses.

So OP's inability to understand what UA -- and DL before it -- has done negates the whole premise of this thread: That those whose companies pay their travel tab in high fares should get the all the personal benefits.

The real benefit to UA of this new scheme is that it will save millions (perhaps just book transfers, but the accountants can use it in the overall quarterlies to show cost savings) by not having to purchase hundreds of millions of miles from MP. It's just another of Smisek's desperate attempts to shave $2 billion off annual expenses and trying to turn a profit.

AC has already gone through such a process in a different fashion, by reducing the miles earned (both EQMs and RDMs) when lower fares are purchased. The US carriers have resisted this approach and adopted the one being discussed. And AC itself realized it had to reintroduce EQM (well, now AQMs) to Tango fares.

I have a better solution. Sell status for money. I am perfectly happy to purchase SE for cash and stay home!!! Short of 50K miles to SE, spend the cash and get it.

US Air did this. You could buy *G back in the day before they were merged

I don't care... I was responding to another post, to show that it would not be easy to switch a program to a full revenue model.

Whats wrong with rewarding loyalty based on how much $ you spend with them? I must be missing this

Because how much you spend is not directly related to loyalty?

Who is a more loyal customer?

1 ticket a year at $5k (and then goes off and flies others)
or 25 tickets a year at $200 each (on one single airline)

The one who spends the most, lets say annually, from a total standpoint. Is that not irrational?

Of course it is. I fully agree with you that the one that spends more should be rewarded more.

But that is not rewarding "loyalty"
A spend based program no longer rewards frequency of one's purchases with an airline - it rewards a one-off more than it does 'loyalty'

Loyalty = who spends the most. No?

Yes. In this model, it certainly would be.

You dont think that frequency of purchases and not buying elsewhere are also part of loyalty?

Removing this double post

Seriously, there is no compelling reason to change the current two-track methods for attaining status. For those who do most of their flying domestic, segments bring status. For international travelers, mileage is the route to status. Those who fly paid J are rewarded with 150% AQM, latitude and PE with 125%. That means that for paying more, they qualify for status from 25% to 50% faster than their Flex purchasing peers. The differential AQM along with the delta between Flex and Tango add power to the already strong correlation between spend and status.

My understanding of the UA spend program is that it is conditional on mileage achievement. I stand to be corrected on this: you still have to earn 100K miles or 100 segmants to qualify in addition to a spend of $10K. Spend without miles will not qualify for status. There is no chance that an Airline willl give you top-tier status for spending 25K on one return J fare to SYD. If that happens, I will spend $100K/a year for 4 different top tier programs. Where is my loyalty?

As I have stated before, there is a good way to do both (BIS miles and spend)- with the benefit of removing the scourge that is AC corporate rewards. Keep the current system for status; bring in something like Delta SkyBonus to recognize/reward small company spend. Police it with minimum spend. Dump the corporate rewards program as currently structured.

"Loyalty = who spends the most. No? "

NO!

I think you confuse the purpose of loyalty programs with loyalty.

A person who buys J class all the time, gets many of the benefits (concierge, bigger seat, lounge access, priority board etc.) and doesn't need status to get them. Loyalty there must be encouraged through better product not status. They can take their business elsewhere and don't worry about status too much (I know there are always exceptions). Status doesn't matter-product does.

A person who buys Flex all the time and won't get those benefits unless they can achieve status. These persons are motivated to spend marginally more than they would normally spend or at least spend with one airline/alliance more than they would otherwise since they receive real or perceived benefits for doing so. This person can also take their business elsewhere but may be reluctant to do so if the value proposition is there. Status matters and both the pax and the airline benefit.

A large purpose of loyalty programs is to get those people in the second or similar scenarios continuing to buy into their system and hence more revenue for the airline. The individual annual spend may be the same or less than the person who buys J all the time but their motivations are quite different.

I am not opposed to spend as a criteria or as a way of determining status but to say $$$ = loyalty is not correct. It is much more complicated and the above scenarios are just a couple of ways of looking at it. Each of us has a unique reason why we want status (or don't care)--the airlines have to figure out a way to get more of us in their doors without breaking their bank. True bottomfeeders are likely rare and don't make a big difference positive or negative to the airlines. High spenders are also likely rare and could make a difference but may not be at all motivated by loyalty programs. The big question is how much of the status-seeking middle spenders can an airline capture with its status/loyalty program. Will be interesting to see how these spend/hybrid spend/BIS miles approaches play out for loyalty. I don't really think any of us know the answer but obviously some airlines feel they are giving away too much with just BIS mile-based programs.