Admittedly I did that calculation based on earnings table which I don’t have in front of me, but off the top of my head longhaul business class earned 150% of miles flown, didn‘t it? So CDG-LAX at something like 5,700 miles would give you 5,700 x 2 x 150% = 17,100. Is that about right?

Where you are right: I forgot the bonus for Plats of 100%. So the correct number should be 34,000. Still, the new scheme is better.

But the comparison also works for no status. It‘s less miles in total, but still an increase from old to new:
Old scheme: 17,100 miles
New scheme: 22,000-25,000 miles

Where status vs. non-status makes a difference is obviously in the earn/burn ratio. Awards cost the same for status and non-status customers. It takes a non-status customer twice as long as a Platinum to obtain the same award. But it‘s still faster than before for the above mentioned travel patterns.

In both cases I compare Platinum, which is why I needed to add the Plat bonus of 100% in the above example. In the new scheme, for instance, earning 52,000 miles means that you have 6,500 EUR fare - absolutely realistic.

I think it‘s rather 15-20% of people that are better off.

Take the above example of CDG-LAX-CDG. Previously a Platinum would have earned 34,000 miles. To be worse off under the new scheme, he would need to be on a fare lower than 4,250 EUR (4,250 x 8 =34,000 miles). For any fare higher than 4,250 EUR, he is better off. Looking up fares (without taxes) on expertflyer, all fares in J, C, D and many in I are above that. Only Z is always lower. The same is true on European flights: people on flex Eco or Business are better off than before. As shown above, both status and non-status earn more than before.

Is it realistic to believe that 15-20% of passengers fly on a high (P, F, J, C, D, Y) fare? I would think so. They are better off than before.

So, if loyalty programs shift towards rewarding and loyalizing the 15-20% high margin contributors and frequent customers, then that makes commercial sense for them and is better for those customers.

I said the burn said had remained stable on M&M (although they have just announced a few increases as well I think - but still not dynamic pricing and still better earn/burn than FB). What I looked at was high earnings compared to a to-be-expected award requirement. I did not even consider the promo awards. And I found that for every five flights in the higher fare buckets you get a free flight to that same destination in the same cabin. Buy five, get six, that‘s not bad.

In fact, it could be even better: fly once to West Coast from Europe and get 50,000 miles, and then buy awards in European Y. Those often go for 8,500 miles. So for once flying to California I can afterwards travel from Paris to Lisbon and return, from Paris to Rome and return, and from Paris to Berlin and return, all for „free“ (taxes are low on these awards). That‘s not bad at all - which was the point I wanted to make: there are scenarios where the earn/burn isn‘t that terrible.

Yep, I am afraid you‘re right. My logic is terribly flawed.

A better plasubality test than how many seats are sold at high fares - which was the wrong approach I took - would be to look at the population of FB members. As far as I know FB has 17million members. 1% would be 170,000 members. Are there 170,000 status members? I could be wrong, but I think I had seen somewhere that the number of Gold card holders was about 100,000? In any case, it is obvious that it‘s not 3 million.

So your 1% assumption sounds about right.

Thanks for pointing out. No idea how that is possible, They were blacked out the way I saw them on the screen. Took out the screenshot.

Based on those figures, it would be very substantially less than 1%. If we assume that 100 000 individuals are Gold or higher and there are 17M members, this means that 0.6% of the membership is at gold or higher. One cannot assume that all golds or higher are better off under the new scheme. The impression I get from these boards is that it is only a tiny minority of Gold or higher members which are better off earn/burn wise. We have even had some ULTIs pointing out how earnings had been savagely slashed on some of their flights.

I’m very sorry but your calculations do not make sense at all.
First, how on earth is it possible to earn 45.000-50.000 miles on a CDG-LAX J fare? Even assuming you have Platinum status so earning points x8 per spent euro, you would have spent 7.000 euro’s on a CDG-LAX round trip? That is at least 3 times the normal price. I booked that round trip in J for 1.800 euro’s this summer and that is even not the best possible price. 7.000 euro is WAY overpriced.
But yes you are right. If you are consequently booking last minute busy routes like CDG-LAX then you pay these kind of fares. But who does that? Maybe you do?
Actually I earn sometimes more now. Short haul Y trips cost often 400 euro’s which give me around 2/3.000 miles each. In the old days, the trips were paid based on distance and often giving me 1.000 miles or less.
But long haul Y is a total disaster and the losses there do not weigh up to the increased earnings on short haul Y.

Anothet thing are DoD upgrades. Before I was able to upgrade on CDG-JFK from Y (K-class ticket) to J for 35.000 miles. Today the amounts are often at 100.000 miles. That’s triple!?
Award availability is less now, but they promised more. Very disappointing. And despite FB will say: but we offer now 53.000 for a one way CDG-JFK leg in J instead of 62.000, the reality is that because of the dynamic pricing, these routes often lack availability and even if there is availability, the fares often exceeds 250.000 miles which is even higher than P fare on the same route. For me that is equal to no availability because who would pay, let’s say, 265.000 miles for a one way J leg when you can fly P for 200.000?

So in order to earn 200.000 miles, you have spent 25.000 euro’s (without taxes!) on flight tickets, even being a Platinum member. And be serious, who spends so much in a reasonable amount of time ? For the normal traveler like me, I need to book at least 70 short haul Y trips, which often are more legs. So that means flying around 200 flights to get 1 one-way J trip as a reward.

I don’t think this is attractive in any way.

yes I do not disagree with you. But the picture that is made here, is for 99% of FB frequent flyers totally not realistic.

I can live with the fact that people like above earn more miles on extremely high priced tickets compared to lower fare classes. And the other way around too, people earn less on lower fare classes.

I do have a problem with the fact that there is less availability and in general an extreme increase in amount of miles needed for a DoD upgrade or award seat. It is not balanced anymore. Plus there was no warning, FB painted a nice picture they couldn’t make happen and now I have a nearly worthless amount of miles.
The majority of FB frequent flyers lost value of their miles. It is a disgrace. A FU from FB to their most loyal customers.

Because *you* paid EUR 1,800 for a return (?) CDG-LAX and because *you* think that EUR 7,000 is not normal, and because *you* cannot imagine that there are people who pay these fares you come to the conclusion that the calculations I showed make no sense at all. When just the post before another poster explained how he earned 75,000 miles on a roundtrip to California.

Just a little random test: CDG-LAX-CDG, from February 26 to 28, Business Class: lowest fare EUR 6,774. That is not last minute. Yields 50,176 miles for a Platinum. Not everybody and probably not you fly at these fares, but some people do. And those are the customers they try to lure with more miles.

The fact that they have very little availability at lower redemption rates is a real issue. Which is why I also gave the example of M&M which has made earnings EUR-based but maintained awards redemption table-based. That then becomes more attractive for frequent flyers, as the price of awards is fixed and at higher fares it takes less flights/time to earn them. You may have noticed that my first post on the topic was in reaction to someone saying that M&M was a joke just like FB these days. I didn't disagree completely, but added another perspective.

let’s be real. I never said I can not imagine someone pays these fares. I don’t see any realism in the context you try to put together. Of course it can happen it is necessary to buy a high J fare because of unforeseen circumstances.
However, you describe in your example that you (or your employer) structurally purchases extreme high J fares. I hope for you (or your employer) it’s not the case.
In any way you look at it, your example is not realistic for 99% of the FB frequent flyers.