canadiancow

What I think might be more likely are higher AQM multipliers. Whereas UA gives 1x to 3x, AC gives 0.25x to 1.5x.

The E50K who only flies paid J but spends $50k could easily earn SE status through a simple change like that.

Tied into that, they could (and likely will) also decouple AQM from Aeroplan miles. I think that was a contractual issue with Aeroplan before, but obviously not any more.

But a lot of this comes back to @WaytoomuchEurope 's point about the MINIMUM requirements. People look at the $20k, say "I spend that much, therefore I should be SE", not realizing that it's the MINIMUM they'll accept, not the desired spend for that level.

I wrote a lot more as a reply here, but it mostly quoted an email thread I had with SAP 5 years ago about a discussion with Ben Smith's take on the whole thing, and I figured that's better left for a do.

AC7E7

Considering WS/Onex will be trying (again...) to attract business travellers away from Air Canada, I doubt AC will adjust the current required spend model any higher.

WaytoomuchEurope

We should have a DO soon.

Stranger

Actually AC has in recent years decreased the bottom to 0.25x or even nothing, and somewhat increased the top. Sure, they could keep P at 1.5 but introduce 2 for paid J. But somehow I suspect that would make little difference. In any event, one has the feeling that AC is reasonably happy with the current program. They have been quite successful in using their FF program as a tool to increase revenue, by getting people to buying more expensive fares, and paying for upgrades etc.

RangerNS

I don't understand how that is a distinction. Its not like people are hitting and they are like "nope, not actually good enough".

If they wanted the minimum to be 21 pieces of flair, they would make the minimum 21 pieces of flair.

I'm sure they have thought about a different minimum, but so what?

canadiancow

Because people are basically saying "I hit the dollars but not the miles so I should get it anyway because only dollars matter". And that sentiment has existed since the introduction of AQD.

RangerNS

Then AQD isn't the minimum requirement, its part of the minimum requirement. Which is to say, the requirement. (there is no maximum)

theBeachBoy

I agree status does steer $ towards AC.
In my case I have often chosen Flex+ vs lower for the change policy but also the 1x miles. And now that I am SE, I still choose AC over another similarly priced (even lower) carrier to get the benefits (lounge, eupgrades, priority, etc ) even though I will not reach the next gift threshold so not for the AQ_ anymore.

I think the current SE minimums are fair, you either travel a lot of miles or a lot of segments and you spend a certain minimum cutting out people getting only cheap long flights during the year.

After reaching SE I must tip my hat to every other SE as it takes a significant amount of flying in a year to reach that level! FT makes it look a dime a dozen and easy, but looking back at how many days I have been away from home this year (100+) makes me realize how much flying is involved to reach SE in a year.

BrotherBranwell

Then you would be completely wrong - at least on my part.

The Lev

In today's world of big data and cheap computational power, it actually would not be that hard to do (at least as a rough approximation). they could assign a cost to serve in each class of service for each route and compare to revenue generated. If they wanted to get more granular, add a cost for each lounge use, concierge call, etc.

canadiancow

I liked it until you went to lounge use.

For lounge visits, if they're treating my "I would prefer a cleaner bathroom before I go to the airport restaurant" the same as "I'm going to eat and drink here for 2 hours" (and I deliberately use an example where you're entering 2 hours before departure in both cases), you run into problems.

On board, your cost is the same regardless of what you consume (for the most part), since food isn't reused between flights.

But it would be interesting regardless of how they did it.

WaytoomuchEurope

You’ve never seen me drink on board.

RangerNS

Everything then becomes a shell game then of allocating overhead. The incremental cost of one single PAX on any given flight is the same as the incremental cost of a single cup of coffee to Starbucks: $0.

expert7700

Incremental cost of adding a pax to a flight is not $0. Fuel burn based on pax+carryon+baggage weight, allocation of J/Y snacks or catering.

As you inferred then it is a game of allocating overhead. Maybe a VERY slight change of more baggage handling labor, call center overtime, possible risk of EU261 cash/duty of care, or deflategate comp.

CASM is used by AC for financial reports

Passengers already have a Revenue per flown seat mile rating, if not very easy to calculate off Altitude dashboard.

The higher the revenue to cost multiplier, the higher the altitude status tier for 2021 could be

Stranger

All an exercise of (accounting) creative writing.

But anyway, there remains a need for translating into a simple, clear, published formula. They cannot just allocate status at their own whim.