Minimum AC Flight Requirement - Why?
 

I'm curious why AC has a 5 segment/10,000 mile AC metal requirement for Altitude qualification. I know other airlines have it (UA, BA four segments each) and some don't (A3). What's in it for AC, and/or why do they bother? Is it to discourage UA flyers from picking up AC 50K for domestic US lounge access?

Hi,

Just a few years ago, AC had a requirement of 35,000 miles for star gold (elite), and no requirement to fly AC metal. Over the past few years, AC has been tightening up their FF program to make the requirements more difficult to meet, also adding the condition you mention to fly on their own metal.

There were numerous threads a few years ago talking about possible MR's on United/Continental/US Airways that concerned obtaining AC status the quickest and cheapest way possible. I suppose you could just say that it's been changed in line with industry standards.

A3's program probably won't exist in the same form forever, either. And there are many other airlines that are changing their programs in favour of a dollars spent system, rather than miles flown.

Actually I am surprised how low the flight requirement is on a lot of airlines FFP. For example BA is only 4 and LH doesn't have a requirement but M+M is lowering the miles you get on other alliance members like TK in a subtle way to make you need to fly LH group to get to their already really difficult status levels.

Status has a cost to the airline. Airlines need to recoup that cost, so by mandating a minimum number of miles/flights means that they can assure themselves of a minimum direct revenue.

Your lounge thoughts are pretty much dead on. Remember, AC and AP are different companies. So if you accrue 50K miles on other airlines to AP, AC gets little to no cash for those transactions. However, the $35 per person, per lounge visit, would be billed to AC. They are not interested in covering that cost for someone who has given them no revenue.

I believe the real question should be why is it so low?

From a business point of view it makes absolutely no sense to grant AC status to someone who may potentially do as little as 5%-10% of their flying with AC.

And while 10,000 / 5 segments is IMHO acceptable for 25k status, when you are looking at 100K status I feel it should be more in the range of 40,000 / 40 segments.

Totally agree. Status is quite easy to obtain compared to pre-alliance days.

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 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.

While I fully agree with you! There are some people who do achieve high AC status with just meeting the minimum segments and/or miles. And to your point, I don't fully understand why they don't go with another flyer program.



Yes, this I would love! :) OR how about offering more eUpgrade credits based on AC miles flown. They brought it down to 12/20,000 for SE, maybe they could put it back up to 15/20,000 if those 20,000 are on AC?

Could not agree more. I'm surprised it isn't a 50% of total mileage flown requirement. That would make more sense from a business perspective.


It depends on one's situation. Say you fly mostly transborder flights on UA and most of those happen to be on RJs, but you also do two or three TATL or TPAC trips each year on AC. Then, it could be worth crediting miles to AE just so you can upgrade those long hauls. And, you would still get priority boarding and US lounge access with UA.

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?

+1

+2. ^

Precisely.

In fact, I think it should be much much higher than it generally is, for all airlines! The most crass example of this (and I can't see it lasting much longer) is A3 (Aegean) in *A. That programme must have the lowest ratio of genuine A3 flyers to members!

BA has a lot of members in the US who get their minimum four flights on BA metal, but then have gold status for flying AA and get their 'free' lounge access as OW Sapphire.