If they do that they they should equal the same mileage too. Mileage runners are more expensive than segment runners.

You always get more miles segment running than direct flights. So are you saying to cut segment runners miles today?

What I was saying is they should just give the same AQM based on the direct flight regardless of the number of indirect flights one took to get there.

So united gives zero PQS on an AC metal flight booked in a tango fare? And only 25percent miles? Wow

You're being pedantic
The poster was asking for people who purchase Full-J fares.
Why are you replying at all? Let alone, entirely off topic
That would have been great a couple years ago to de-clutter the skies, if even just a little.
The min spend will take care of that now.

I think an interesting approach for AC to take - no doubt highly unpopular around here would be to "reward" as follows:
AQM: based on the great circle map or equivalent between point of original and destination/legal stopover.
AQS: offer the same number of AQS irrespective of the number of flights taken between origin and destination. Perhaps 0.5 for Tango, 1 for Flex and PE lowest, 1.5 for Latitude, PE Flexible and lowest J and 2 for higher J. In the process reducing somewhat the number of segments required to requalify.

Doing so would eliminate the incentive for people to find "creative" routings to maximize segments or miles earned.

Now time to for me to duck for cover. :D

The problem is you assume people are making bookings to fly A to B, and just adding connections in between.

What would you credit me for: YQT-YWG-YXE-YWG-YQR-YWG-YXE-YWG-YYZ-YQT ? Every single one of those cities (except YYZ) was an important destination on the trip. And this was just a one day trip.

0 AQM, because YQT-YQT is 0?

For a less "gamey" example, I've called in and said "I want to fly YYZ-YVR at 1000 and YVR-SFO at 1700", and they give me a price. It worked out to a YYZ-SFO fare because there happened to be under 4 hours in YVR, but YVR was a destination for me. I had things to do there. I didn't ask for YYZ-SFO, but that was the fare they chose to use.

In your first example, AC would have called one of your stops the "destination" - likely YXE, so I would credit you for YQT-YXE and YXE-YQT - unless you've found a magical way to book this itinerary for free. The fact that you have done business (or seen friends) during your 4-hour window isn't my concern - indeed AC can re-route you if it so chooses. If you want to earn the miles/segments, then book them as separate tickets/hard stopovers.

If your "stopover" in example 2 is below the maximum window, then it's an intermediate point, not a stop-over in my earning suggestion. The price you got wasn't a "stopover" price, so no need to reward you extra for it - even if you were able to make use of the time... that alone is benefit enough.

In example 1, I go to YXE twice though.

AC cannot reroute me, because I didn't book YQT-YXE. I called and said I needed to fly to YWG, then to YXE, then back to YWG, then to YQR, etc.

And again in example 2, I know exactly what price I got, because I understand how the fare works. But I didn't tell them I wanted to fly YYZ-SFO. I told them I needed to fly YYZ-YVR, and then later that day, YVR-SFO. If you want them to withhold miles because they're jumping to a conclusion that I don't actually want to go to YVR (which contradicts what I told them), then there are going to be problems.

First off, my suggestion aint gonna happen, so this is all moot. However, if AC ever were to implement such a system, they would need to clearly ask you which were your stop-overs and price you accordingly. If you don't declare any particular stop-overs, then don't complain about what you accrue.

I disagree with you, but won't hurl anything in your direction because I understand where you're coming from :)

I do think this policy would be pretty unfair on the AQM side. I'll use YYC-CDG as an example. Webflyer puts the distance at 4570 miles. But there's no way to fly it direct. Right now, if I fly the most convenient route (YYC-FRA-CDG), it's 4949 miles (4670+279). Of course, AC wants me to do all my flying on AC metal, so would prefer I fly through YYZ. That lengthens the journey considerably, to 5410 miles (1670+3740). I would be hopping mad if they cut nearly 20% of the AQMs I could have earned because when you apply COS bonus for J and SE bonus miles, it really starts to add up.

I see it having more merit domestically and on itineraries that can be flown direct. So if one can't fly YYC-YQB direct, credit the miles for what's actually flown (e.g. YYC-YUL-YQB).

But it could potentially be reasonable to limit someone from doing, say, YYC-YEG-YXE-YYZ-YUL-YQB - maybe given them credit for whatever the most direct possible routing is (i.e. YYC-YUL-YQB).

And for international itineraries, I don't think I'd apply it at all.

But I suspect this would be far too complicated to implement.

On the AQS side, I think you have more of a point. It would definitely require lowering the number of AQS for any given status. But yes, rename them AQ Journeys or something like that, where a single one-way fare from origin to destination counts as 1 AQJ, regardless of how many segments. I don't know how exactly it would apply to cow's journey, but he and others will spend a great deal of time figuring out how to best work the system for EYW regardless of what the system is.

But here's the thing. I think that AC has already largely accomplished this. The first whack they took at people doing MRs/SRs was doing away with the 500 AQM minimum. For instance, YEG-YYC-YVR used to be 1000 miles. So was YUL-YYZ-LGA. Now those are both sub-700. Doesn't really do anything to catch the segment runners, but makes it a bit harder to add AQM with circuitous routings.

Then there's the AQD requirement. That one will really hurt the segment runners, because the guy who flies YUL-YVR in 5 segments to run up his AQS is going to have a lot more trouble meeting the AQD thresholds than the guy who flies YUL-YVR direct 5x.

EYW is independent of AQM/AQS/AQD. Sure, it contributes to all of those, but there are MUCH easier and cheaper ways of earning all three of those than by playing EYW.

Right.

Are you really going to deny someone who spent $30k SE because they routed YVR-YYZ-YUL a few times?

When segment running let you earn SE for $3k spend, awarding 1 AQS per ticket/journey/whatever might have been a reasonable option. But now, there isn't much point in limiting it.

I don't think the guy who does YVR-YYZ-YUL a few times is a really target. The guy who does YVR-YOW-YYZ-YXE-YEG-YVR is.

But my point was that the guys doing that are likely to get crushed by the AQD requirement anyway, so while The Lev's system might have some philosophical merit, it's essentially moot.

I would agree 100 % to this and also count it as 1 segment if it was direct or 5 stops. Maybe this would have stopped rev. coming into play.