|
Originally Posted by theseatbelt
(Post 23380293)
I think they should lower the status qualification if you fly over 80% in air canada. E.g. 40k miles to hit e50k and 80k miles to hit super elite. People would fly more of air canada for sure.
|
Originally Posted by Clipper801
(Post 23381507)
I agree.
I have previously asked a similar question why a person who flew 50K AQM ("Status Miles" or "Q" miles) wholly and exclusively on AC is less desirable in AC's view than someone who flew a total of 100K AQM of which only 10K on AC metal? The 100K is offered superior perks than the 50K and yet the revenue contribution is likely to be less than the 50K. Is Altitude about "loyalty" to Star Alliance rather than the sponsoring airline AC? The minimum AC miles requirements need to be raised significantly. To take it 1 step further a revenue based system is the most accurate method of rewarding those who are the most valuable customers. |
Originally Posted by Tractor Boy
(Post 23381824)
.......
To take it 1 step further a revenue based system is the most accurate method of rewarding those who are the most valuable customers. |
Interesting replies. I can see almost no value for AC status sub-50K for non-AC flyers. So to rephrase the question, why does AC _not_ increase the AC metal/miles requirement for 50K+?. Is there any airline that does something like this?
|
Originally Posted by Clipper801
(Post 23381507)
I agree.
I have previously asked a similar question why a person who flew 50K AQM ("Status Miles" or "Q" miles) wholly and exclusively on AC is less desirable in AC's view than someone who flew a total of 100K AQM of which only 10K on AC metal? The 100K is offered superior perks than the 50K and yet the revenue contribution is likely to be less than the 50K. Is Altitude about "loyalty" to Star Alliance rather than the sponsoring airline AC? Also, codeshares booked by AC/AC.com are a good source of revenu for AC, and these do not apply for AC metal miles or segments (if I recall correctly). I agree 10k or 5 segments is low, but there is a fall-off point where they would lose business by making it too high. Maybe a graded level with each qualifying level? Like, for example, 25% of miles/segments on AC metal for each level? |
Reading this thread is amazing. It shows the insular perspective of what are likely to be mostly Canadian-based flyers. There are AC Altitude members all over the world. They can not fly AC 100% or perhaps even 25% - however - they have some connection to Canada (perhaps business-related) from which they make AC their anchor program and then dedicate themselves to use *A wherever possible. The whole point of the Star Alliance is to promote the use of all the carriers and cross-market to eachother's frequent flyers. Why would you not allow people to make status because they are dividing themselves up between many airlines?
People will decide which airline is their best to use the program from. However - to say that you need to get to 50% AC is really not in line with the promotion of the use of the Alliance as a whole. Those who fly around the world and use many carriers in *A ultimately have to decide which program makes sense for them to be the primary one. Why are some of you so harsh against those who maybe fly 25% AC and make E75? The less they fly AC - really the less they get the benefits such as upgrades etc. (and the less they get in your way I suppose). Somehow I am sensing a sense of superiority from those of you who are over 80% AC flyers. Many of us have no choice - - except perhaps to go to One-World or Skyteam. If I did not get my AC status - I would fly BA 100% of the time to North America as they are almost always cheaper or KLM - which is usually the cheapest by far. Instead - I fly AC almost every time (even that crazy 777HD plane). Then for travel to Africa, Asia or within Europe - I have to use someone else. However - - AC is the glue that holds all this togethere - - so ultimately they benefit and so do all the *A carriers here in Europe from my loyalty. |
Originally Posted by yhm71
(Post 23381996)
Interesting replies. I can see almost no value for AC status sub-50K for non-AC flyers. So to rephrase the question, why does AC _not_ increase the AC metal/miles requirement for 50K+?. Is there any airline that does something like this?
|
Originally Posted by hearna
(Post 23380205)
But just how many SE's meet the strict minimum of 5 and 10k? If you are crediting that much to AC, stands to reason that you have to be flying them to use the perks of being an SE (upgrades/concierge service, etc).
If you are flying 120k a year and only 2 segments on AC and everything else on UA, for example would it not make more sence to credit to UA and hit 1k to get earlier boarding, GPU's; etc. |
I think it should be much higher the minimums for either $$ spend on AC or actual AC metal flights. It is way to low presently. In my opinion anyway.
|
Originally Posted by zrh2yvr
(Post 23382429)
Reading this thread is amazing. It shows the insular perspective of what are likely to be mostly Canadian-based flyers. There are AC Altitude members all over the world. They can not fly AC 100% or perhaps even 25% - however - they have some connection to Canada (perhaps business-related) from which they make AC their anchor program and then dedicate themselves to use *A wherever possible. The whole point of the Star Alliance is to promote the use of all the carriers and cross-market to eachother's frequent flyers. Why would you not allow people to make status because they are dividing themselves up between many airlines?
|
Originally Posted by yhm71
(Post 23381996)
Interesting replies. I can see almost no value for AC status sub-50K for non-AC flyers. So to rephrase the question, why does AC _not_ increase the AC metal/miles requirement for 50K+?. Is there any airline that does something like this?
Originally Posted by tireman77
(Post 23382321)
Just to play devil's advocate, AC doesn't fly to most of the destinations I travel to. The reason I am with Altitude, is because of the *A association. By having a threshold AC is getting more of my domestic, transborder, Caribbean flights but if that threshold were too high, I would probably be less inclined to use AC on some flights and even choose another airline or alliance.
Also, codeshares booked by AC/AC.com are a good source of revenu for AC, and these do not apply for AC metal miles or segments (if I recall correctly). I agree 10k or 5 segments is low, but there is a fall-off point where they would lose business by making it too high. Maybe a graded level with each qualifying level? Like, for example, 25% of miles/segments on AC metal for each level? If the objective of Altitude is to recognise those who fly Star Alliance a lot, there should not be any minimum AQM on AC metal. If the objective of Altitude is to recognise those who fly Star Alliance a lot with a minimal symbolic no. of flights on AC, 10K/5 segments are adequate. If the objective of Altitude is to recognise those who fly AC a lot and contribute significantly to AC's revenues, then the minimum AQM on AC metral should be raised significantly and the way AC awards COS should also be changed to recognise the different fares. |
Maybe we're making fuss over nothing.
How many people out there with status don't fly 25% on AC metal? It could be such a small number that its not worth making a fuss over it. |
Why on earth would someone advocate for an increased minimum flying on AC ....... :confused:
If AC wants to increase the minimum they will do it. And while we are tinkering with Altitude, why not increase SE to 120k ;) |
Originally Posted by zrh2yvr
(Post 23382429)
Reading this thread is amazing. It shows the insular perspective of what are likely to be mostly Canadian-based flyers. There are AC Altitude members all over the world. They can not fly AC 100% or perhaps even 25% - however - they have some connection to Canada (perhaps business-related) from which they make AC their anchor program and then dedicate themselves to use *A wherever possible. The whole point of the Star Alliance is to promote the use of all the carriers and cross-market to eachother's frequent flyers. Why would you not allow people to make status because they are dividing themselves up between many airlines?
People will decide which airline is their best to use the program from. However - to say that you need to get to 50% AC is really not in line with the promotion of the use of the Alliance as a whole. Those who fly around the world and use many carriers in *A ultimately have to decide which program makes sense for them to be the primary one. Why are some of you so harsh against those who maybe fly 25% AC and make E75? The less they fly AC - really the less they get the benefits such as upgrades etc. (and the less they get in your way I suppose). Somehow I am sensing a sense of superiority from those of you who are over 80% AC flyers. Many of us have no choice - - except perhaps to go to One-World or Skyteam. If I did not get my AC status - I would fly BA 100% of the time to North America as they are almost always cheaper or KLM - which is usually the cheapest by far. Instead - I fly AC almost every time (even that crazy 777HD plane). Then for travel to Africa, Asia or within Europe - I have to use someone else. However - - AC is the glue that holds all this togethere - - so ultimately they benefit and so do all the *A carriers here in Europe from my loyalty. |
Just to take this one step further. Although I have benefitted greatly from 15 years of Star-Gold - I believe that *A needs to find a way to even find a higher-tier. Not that they should raise the level for Star-Gold - but - since Star-Silver is basically worthless - why not get rid of it entirely and make a new level - like a Platinum. This would be something that *A would have to ensure that the airlines contribute their best group of Frequent flyers. For AC - this would be SE - perhaps for UA it's 1K (or whatever their equivalent is). When flying around the world - having *G has been very good and provided us with lots of Op-ups (including AKL-YVR - which was really great). However - why me if perhaps there was a "SE" equivalent on the flight and I'm only at E75?
Other thoughts - Perhaps SE could be raised now. We have so many levels and the difference between E75 and SE is not that great - - As well - there are so many bonuses being given out to the higher levels that it is probably getting easy to reach for frequent international travellers. As for the minimum requirement on AC? I think it at least serves the purpose of ensuring the US-based flyers don't just get AC numbers to get gold faster and free lounge access. If you happen to be flying to Canada - - Great - we will let you get your status for AC- as long as it is more than one token round trip. So - I think it is meant to be a deterrent against the mainly US-Based flyers who have to deal with different domestic program structures that don't provide lounge-access for free. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.