brunos

I had fun discussion with my daughter, who is beautiful and smart

She is Gold and was unhappy a couple of years ago to be downgraded due to reduced business travel coz baby. She figured out how to stay Gold for the next baby. She will get close to Plat level by the end of the summer holidays and will stop flying AF once she reaches 69K. Plenty of opportunities to fly OW where she is also Gold. Then she will rollover 29K for next year which will make reaching FB Gold again trivial, even if she plans a new baby.
And all she needs from elite+ is delivered by FB Gold.

Vitali

I believe Flying Blue offers a "soft landing" - so if your daughter gets platinum status, the following year she will be able to drop down just one level, down to gold, assuming she takes at least one flight in that year.

KLflyerRalph

Correct.

brunos

Indeed, there is a soft landing but that is a bit unrelated to my point.
There is some "vicious" asymetric effect in granting rollover miles only on OLD status level (earned the year before).

Gajan

Comparing SkyMiles to Flying Blue both programmes are comparable in this aspect, but depending on which situation is applicable to the member one may be preferable to the other:

- Delta SM: all EQM's can be carried over, no soft landing;

- AF/KL: only level miles above the same level threshold can be carried over, soft landing available.

A few examples (comparison based on same thresholds - not 100% correct, used this as "average" as FB has threholds for France and non-France members):

1. A current PE member earns 31.000 EQM/level miles during a year:
- SM: this person is Silver next year and rolls over 6.000 EQM for the next year;
- FB: this person is Gold next year, does not have any roll over (soft landing).

2. A current PE member earns 124.000 EQM/level miles during a year:
- SM/FB: both carry over 49.000 EQM/level miles.

3. A current Gold member earns 35.000 EQM/level miles during a year:
- SM: this person is Silver next year and rolls over 10.000 EQM for the next year;
- FB: this person qualifies for Silver, does not roll over any miles.

Conclusion
Depending in which category you fall way of implementing may be more beneficial:

- If you do not qualify for the one elite level below, thus dropping you down two elite levels the FB way may be preferable (as you have a soft landing);
- If you qualify for the one elite level below, the SM way may be preferable (as you have roll over EQM).

Gajan

RigpigMalta

I have tried to fathom the reasoning behind the "roll over" concept and I still have concerns that this will backfire on AF/KL by either creating too many elite plus members for the infrastructure of SkyTeam to cope with (meaning pax contentment with service) and that FF's such as myself who will reach plat again next year before year end on roll over miles will choose and who can choose their routing and airline to fly other airlines to beef up their miles/status.
I am not anti-rollover, but to me it just does not make sense, I thought they would have chosen to use the rollover at higher thresholds than "bang on the money" level miles......Not a gripe, but the reasoning has been bugging me.

stimpy

I don't see how rollover can create EP members. You have to do the 70K (90K in France) to become Platinum. There is no getting around that and only a small subset of the total FB members fly enough to reach this level. The rollover can help you maintain this level if you miss a year, but that is only for one year. You have to go above 70K again the next year to keep Platinum.

irishguy28

Except that the other suggestion is much easier (and cheaper).

If your daughter stops at 69k this year (just to have 29k in rollover miles to start off 2013 with) she will require a further 11k status miles to be earned in 2013 to secure gold again for 2014.

But if she got to 70k this year, then all she needs to take is one mileage earning flight in 2013 in order to secure gold again for 2014.

So, if she thinks it's better to stop now and then have 11k to fly next year, when instead she could just take one flight next year in order to have the same outcome (Gold [or higher] until at least the end of 2014) perhaps you should have another word with her...

irishguy28

Or if you go up a level...

orbitmic

I agree with all of your examples, but to me, the issue is not between FB and something else but in terms of unfairness within FB (between FB members). I just think that it is simply unfair that people who are downgraded lose the benefit of the rollover process. At the end of the day, to answer an earlier question, the whole logic of the rollover process is to make the system 'fairer' by rewarding those who fly more within a given card level and also evening out differences in flying across years.

Taking downgraded members out of the equation takes them out of both fairness mechanisms:

(1) someone droping from platinum to 69k and someone dropping from platinum to 1k get exactly the same situation at the start of the next year

(2) someone flying 70k, 71k, 69k gets will get platinum all three years, someone flying 70k, 69k, 71k will get platinum, then gold (lose credit toward plat for life) then platinum (start plat for life calculation at 0).

Of course, no system can be totally fair, and some people will always get short changed. However, in this case, it seems that the system is made unfair 'for no reason' either ideological or technical. I see no 'substantive' argument for the difference made, nor any technical difficulty in sorting out the difference. This is what makes it shocking in my opinion. I hasten to add - for those who have not followed my 'numbers' that I make this observation without any self-interest. I'm well beyond thresholds and am getting my platinum for life (well-deserved I would argue as i have regularly qualified with twice over the threshold across the years ) at the next 'check' anyway.

irishguy28

I'm a bit surprised people are talking about the "unfairness" of these corner cases, when what FB have done is quite generous.

I don't think it's unreasonable for FB to require you to at least requalify for the same level you held before the issue of rollovers comes into play. It's a benefit that has to be earned (by requalifying, or going up a level). Flying Blue is a frequent flyer programme, after all, and is at least partly intended to encourage/reward frequent flying.

To operate things in the way suggested here (allowing carryovers above the new, lower, threshold for those demoted) would lead to a further charge of being unfair. If some people get a rollover based on a threshold below the level they held last year, shouldn't those people who maintained status this year also get a rollover based not on the threshold for this level, but for the level below? If not, then why would those who have been downgraded be given this privilege? (For it would represent a greater privilege than that extended to those who requalify or go up a level).

cityflyer369

I fully agree with the previous comment.

While the thought experiment in the last paragraph might go a bit too far for some people, it illustrates exactly what happens when a new benefit is introduced: there will always be people who complain that it does not go far enough. This reminds me of my students. Whenever I am generous with some aspect of the homework or the exam, there are some students who complain about it and want more. Instead of just being happy about what has been offered to them. People can be strange sometimes.

(That said, FB could have communicated this better.)

brunos

There is no doubt that this rollover is an improvement of FB (while its communication is not).
But you cannot avoid that there will be some gaming by a few FB members. It wont happen for those who qualify on segments. It wont happen for corporate flyers and the frequent flyers who earn Plat in a few months of flying. But a few Gold members who can direct their business to different alliances might game the system. Apparently, many posters here have status in different alliances. It is easy to conceive that a few pax will adapt their flying patterns every other year to gain lounge access in different alliances. But that will be very marginal.

orbitmic

I must admit I do not get the argument. I don't think that why I find the new system unfair in its implementation is all that obscure: basically, I find it unfair that somebody who qualifies for gold with 41,000 miles flown in the year (but with gold or silver the year before) will start the next year with a balance of +1000 but someone who qualifies for gold with 69,000 miles flown in the year (but with platinum the year before) will start the next year with a balance of 0. Surely if, as you say, we are talking of a 'frequent flyer' programme, then the more one flies the more one should be rewarded. By contrast, the rollover is seemingly designed as a 'flying more and more' programme which is quite a different spirit.

I similarly don't see why the system I propose would be unfair. It means that ALL people who get, say, 60,000 level miles accrued in 2012 would get exactly the same card with exactly the same starting balance (I leave out the issue of French/non French residents for the moment), as would ALL people who get, say, 100,000 miles (again, same card and same starting balance). So that system would just mean that the more you fly, the higher your card and the more you fly within a card category, the higher your starting balance.

Gajan

i.e. abolishing the soft-landing feature.