I expect that if people are going to be rewarded for 'loyalty', that it not be done at the expense of revenue passengers. The original intent of Aeroplan was never to create a two-tier experience at the airports itself, but rather, to make seats available, "for free", that had almost no statistical chance of being sold as revenue seats, to frequent customers.

So basically, if I was in charge at AC, I would remove the free MLL access for status passengers. I would remove any preferential treatment on-board the airplanes, including the free preferred seat selection, priority boarding, blocked seats, "priority" baggage, or meal preferences. And do away with the special line-ups and security screenings in the airports that have them. No complimentary upgrade preference either.

Rewarding loyalty is one thing, but its not something that should come at the expense, whether real or perceived, of people who are bringing the airline money today -- obviously, bar none, the most important customers of all.

In exchange for this, I look for stability of reward redemption levels (ie: no creeping devaluation as we have seen over the years, nor points cancellation!), and minimal probability-of-sale seats actually being released to reward inventory relatively close to flight time (but obviously not so close that AC kills their walk-up fare sales!!).

Would also like to see a true points-based upgrade program available. Basically like "Market Fare" rewards where AP points are essentially translated into a certain dollar value credit-able against LMU fees. Much like "Market Fare" is basically translating AP points into the cheapest revenue fare available.

You say the original intent of aeroplan and the you list a bunch of benifits to be removed from altitude? I'm having trouble following that train of thought since they are two different programs.

Altitude is just the AC specific component of Aeroplan. I basically am advocating the cancellation of Altitude altogether so that AC can focus on providing a consistent and high quality customer experience for everyone, based on their paid class of service, instead of being overly fixated on frequent customers.

AC's been degrading the 'benefits' to elites for years, yet load factors are better than ever. There's a pretty good argument to be made that loyalty programs add no value whatsoever, and for what customer goodwill is gained through the loyalty program, may very well be lost on the balance when service to non-elites is sacrificed.

But if they cancel Altitude, no one would have any incentive to fly AC over any other airline.

Right now, if AC is the best option on your primary route, there's an incentive to fly them on other routes where there may be competition because of things like lounge access, upgrades, etc.

Also, I'm not sure I understand your first statement. "I expect that if people are going to be rewarded for 'loyalty', that it not be done at the expense of revenue passengers."

Are these people not revenue passengers?

Is a passenger who buys a $1000 ticket every two weeks not more important than a passenger who buys a $1500 ticket once a year?

You mean fares, on-board service, nicer seats, etc., wouldn't be incentives to fly AC? Would you really tolerate a poorer on-board experience, merely to collect a few points and have a few drinks in the lounge?

Why not let the on-board product within a given class of service be the market differentiator? Instead of the Band-Aid of some shady system of effectively paying a personal kickback to people, primarily business or government travellers, who travel on your airline?

Also, for every upgrade that's given out, there's probably someone who paid good money for J resenting that the guy in the next seat is sitting there 'for free'.


Of course they are, but its a question of how much revenue on a given flight. A true 'profit-based' loyalty program probably would resolve this issue, which differentiates between people who merely fly a lot on cheaper fares, and those who buy the big full-J fares. Altitude/Aeroplan perversely rewards the frequent flyer more than the full-J big ticket flyer.

If that ticket costs the airline $1000 to fulfill per flight, the twice a year $1500 passenger is actually bringing more to the bottom line. AC should be targeting customers in the highest percentiles of spending above average class-of-service adjusted RASM for loyalty programs instead of just targeting revenue, or worse, "miles".

Don't even start me on that dumbassery - it is the only Altitude policy that makes me flat-out angry. What, they don't want 50/75Ks cheapening the Tango product?

I moved the majority of my US travel over to AA based solely on this; I'm a tall guy with a chronic back problem, so E+ is non-negotiable for me. I'll take an earlier flight and extra hours of layover if the properly-timed flight doesn't have an exit or bulkhead left.

I expect to get a volume discount for directing my business to the airline. I would prefer a cash discount or rebate, pro rated to volume. However, I am pragmatic and willing to accept non-cash benefits like priority services, lounge access, reward flights and upgrades.

I do think that as someone who does a reasonable amount of business with the airline that I should get meaningful benefits over and above what a credit card holder gets, in deference to my demonstrated loyalty.

For most people, this is the other way around, where Aeroplan is just a specific component of Altitude.

As it stands already - most people don't care about the Aeroplan miles.

What do people care about? Well reading this thread tells me; upgrade, priority service, lounge access, not waiting on the phone, etc. Well, none of that is part of Aeroplan, all of that is only part of Altitude.

If you're going to create a loyalty program you need to at least pretend to give the people what they want.

Case in point:
Aeroplan miles vs AQM / AQS.

You never hear anyone say they are going on a milage run to get Aeroplan miles. They do it for AQM / AQS. And if you ask them why - they say to get a higher status. What does higher status get you? Higher in the altitude program for all the things that are not part of Aeroplan.

IF (not suggesting just making a point) one of the two were ever to be cut out completely - it would be Aeroplan that gets cut because FF will stay around for Altitude (upgrade, lounge, etc) FF will not stay around to collect Aeroplan miles.

If the $1000 ticket costs the airline $1000 fulfill after costs such as CEO pensions and salary costs for employees, One could argue that it's better to for the organization to take that recurring revenue than not.

EDIT: Forgot to mention what I expect from a loyalty program. I expect to receive benefits equivelent to those I received from AC in 2014 when they truely made me feel I was a valued customer, and I almost always looked forward to my next flight. This year I'm not so interested because AC doesn't make me feel that they are interested.

For that subset of customers, I'd suggest allowing them to LMU-ize their Aeroplan miles at a reasonable redemption rate then. The LMU infrastructure and pricing algorithms already exist so it would be a relatively trivial change.

The phone situation at AC is clearly unacceptable, but merely giving elites priority into severely over-loaded queues is just a Band-Aid on the problem. For the goodwill and loyalty they gain from a few elites, they most likely lose it on the less frequent customers who have to put up with such nonsense.

Upgrades, again, damaging the customer experience of the paying, to cater to the non-paying. I don't see how that endangers loyalty, especially since many status passengers actually paid premium fares. PY is a great step forward in this regard and I believe it should be rolled out across the fleet including the narrowbodys. The situation where status passengers might pay a higher than required fare for only the chance of an upgrade isn't one that is particularly fair for anyone -- hence all the complaining we see in FT on an almost constant basis. ("why didn't I get my upgrade, there were 3 staff in the J cabin", "why did that AP J reward confirmed in Y get upgraded ahead of me", etc., etc.).

I personally believe the utility of FF programs has mostly come and gone. Outcomes are far too unpredictable for customers. The best loyalty programs are simple. I think they'd do better by stapling MLL cards to flight passes as part of the overall package, or including them as part of corporate travel contracts, than running the whole complicated status scheme. Reward loyalty up-front where it can be seen and appreciated for the moment, rather than rewarding people for past behaviour.

For business travelers, volume discount is not as important because the travelers are not paying. Status and points are more attractive.

I think that many of us basically place little to no value on the Aeroplan points we get. There is some value but many of us have lost the desire to get even more of them. Some of us probably have a 7-figure aeroplan balance and could never easily use all the points. Thus, it is the Altitude program that still has some value and causes us to fly AC. Because of all the difficulty in accessing seats and the international fuel surcharges (for us people below SE100), aeroplan is not as valuable as it was when these programs were introduced 30 years ago. Also - many of us are likely past our 30's now and can basically purchase the tickets we really need and so we don't have to wait to redeem for a "free" flight to fly where we want.

So - From my perspective - it is mostly about Altitude - but for the non-Altitude travelers, it is more about the aeroplan points.

Interesting observation. For all of you, especially those who don't pay for their own tickets, how many of you would fly AC if you were awarded 0 Altitude points?

I wouldn't. My experience with preboarding (one of the perks I value) on WS where there was like 1 or 2 people is much better than zone 2 boarding with AC

Well I pay for my own flights, but if there was no Altitude program - you would find me booking the cheapest ticket for the class I want. Which I haven't done for over a decade (case in point, it's been at least 10 years since I set foot on WS)

I suspect if I looked at my absolute spend, for booking around my FFPs, I probably spend 10-15% more than I could by booking the cheapest possible option.

...so, what I want from an FFP is that that 10-15% is generating some value.

For example, a beer at the MLL means I'm not buying an $8 beer at an airport bar, or a $7 breakfast sandwich, so we'll call that maybe $20 per round-trip in value to me (at a cost to AC of about $5 per RT).

My AA status provides $70-120 per trip in added value since I don't have to pay for E+.

My AC status doesn't provide E+ unless I pay an extra, best-case, $70-120 for Flex, so that's basically a wash. Since I need the seat, Flex basically gives me a few free AQM if I book early enough that Tango and Flex are still close. On Canadian travel, WJ also charges for E+, so that's a wash, but for transborder AAdvantage provides me with better value than Altitude.

Just two small examples, but that's generally my thinking.