Parker: "To try to change the program (to revenue based) right now would be foolish."
Aug 7, 2014, 8:36 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I think in part because, as mentioned upthread, it doesn't really reward those who travel on very high-dollar fares with the cap on RDMs, and because there are a fair number of kettles out there who will be turned off by earning in a program they have no chance of making status in, regardless of whether or not they actually had a chance beforehand.
(And also because SMI/J is still having a hard time living down his over-entitled comment.)
(And also because SMI/J is still having a hard time living down his over-entitled comment.)
75k seems a bit skimpy when you're buying a 16k ticket. Then again, that would get you just about anywhere UA flies in saver F, so I can see UA (and DL for that matter) not really wanting to give a 2 for 1.
The only way around that is buying 2 one way tickets, which isn't always feasible or can cost a good bit more internationally.
Originally Posted by BearX220
UA has a doughnut-hole problem which is reflected in lagging PRASM: it's held onto a core of HVFs, mostly via sweetheart corporate contracts and hub captivity, and it attracts non-loyal Kayakers with low fares. Those in between don't have much reason to fly UA anymore. I doubt AA wants to replicate the UA situation.
Aug 7, 2014, 8:41 am
#47
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin,TX (AUS)
Programs: AA, UA
Posts: 767
FWIW, I would like to pay Mr Parker a small compliment...from my observations, perhaps the most headstrong of the legacy managers, he has adopted a cautious attitude on many of these merger issues. I do believe the remark about foolishness has a particular target in mind...United implementing all these "changes you will like" without having their house in order is the height of foolishness.
Aug 7, 2014, 8:45 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Even if you went with the simple 10 cents a mile for qualifying (2500 for gold, 10k for EXP, etc), it would take little to qualify for someone on a high priced ticket. I buy international Y/B tickets for work, with BWI-ICN/NRT easily running north of $6k. I'd be a plat in one ticket. 2 trips, I'd be an EXP, and other than high spend, I'll have shown absolutely no loyalty to the airline.
At least with earning EQ points, miles, or segments, I at least have to park my butt on their planes a good bit to show enough loyalty to earn that status. I think increased spending could accelerate that earning, but it shouldn't replace it.
Aug 7, 2014, 8:46 am
#49
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 514
I'm almost certainly in a very small minority on FT who feel this way, but I actually think a partially revenue-based program is most appropriate.
Unfortunately, right now, there's little reward for someone who buys some high $$$ tickets and some less expensive ones (other than a few bonus RDM's on first and business class tickets). Therefore, I think EQPs and EQMs should no longer be separate. I also think there should be a bonus for higher-fare elite-qualifying segments (though I also think the segment qualification should be restructured somewhat more broadly).
I am not saying that the program should be entirely revenue based or that many fare classes should only earn 0.5 EQPs/EQMs as long as 25K/50K/100K are required for status, as even pure mileage runners are at least adding some marginal revenue, but there shouldn't be a bunch of people qualifying for EXP with annual spending of $7K.
Unfortunately, right now, there's little reward for someone who buys some high $$$ tickets and some less expensive ones (other than a few bonus RDM's on first and business class tickets). Therefore, I think EQPs and EQMs should no longer be separate. I also think there should be a bonus for higher-fare elite-qualifying segments (though I also think the segment qualification should be restructured somewhat more broadly).
I am not saying that the program should be entirely revenue based or that many fare classes should only earn 0.5 EQPs/EQMs as long as 25K/50K/100K are required for status, as even pure mileage runners are at least adding some marginal revenue, but there shouldn't be a bunch of people qualifying for EXP with annual spending of $7K.
Aug 7, 2014, 8:57 am
#50
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold, UA-Premier Silver, AA EXP, Hilton Gold, SPG Plat.
Posts: 191
I'm almost certainly in a very small minority on FT who feel this way, but I actually think a partially revenue-based program is most appropriate.
Unfortunately, right now, there's little reward for someone who buys some high $$$ tickets and some less expensive ones (other than a few bonus RDM's on first and business class tickets). Therefore, I think EQPs and EQMs should no longer be separate. I also think there should be a bonus for higher-fare elite-qualifying segments (though I also think the segment qualification should be restructured somewhat more broadly).
I am not saying that the program should be entirely revenue based or that many fare classes should only earn 0.5 EQPs/EQMs as long as 25K/50K/100K are required for status, as even pure mileage runners are at least adding some marginal revenue, but there shouldn't be a bunch of people qualifying for EXP with annual spending of $7K.
Unfortunately, right now, there's little reward for someone who buys some high $$$ tickets and some less expensive ones (other than a few bonus RDM's on first and business class tickets). Therefore, I think EQPs and EQMs should no longer be separate. I also think there should be a bonus for higher-fare elite-qualifying segments (though I also think the segment qualification should be restructured somewhat more broadly).
I am not saying that the program should be entirely revenue based or that many fare classes should only earn 0.5 EQPs/EQMs as long as 25K/50K/100K are required for status, as even pure mileage runners are at least adding some marginal revenue, but there shouldn't be a bunch of people qualifying for EXP with annual spending of $7K.
Aug 7, 2014, 9:37 am
#51
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Programs: UA GS, UA 1.6MM, AA LT PLT, AA 2.6MM, Intercontinental Royal Ambassador
Posts: 838
Aug 7, 2014, 10:03 am
#52
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ELP
Programs: AAdvantage, Amex MR
Posts: 2,314
Why not let the flyer decide how they want to earn RDM? Elite qualifying will be set for everybody, but give the flyer a choice for RDM.
Like how Hilton gives you a choice of douple dipping or extra points, and used to award miles based on stay or spend. Why not let the AAdvantage member choose their earning option in their profile from a drop down? Either distance based earn, or revenue based earn. Then everyone is happy.
Like how Hilton gives you a choice of douple dipping or extra points, and used to award miles based on stay or spend. Why not let the AAdvantage member choose their earning option in their profile from a drop down? Either distance based earn, or revenue based earn. Then everyone is happy.
Aug 7, 2014, 11:15 am
#53
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC LAX RDU
Programs: US-Plt;Concierge key; American AAirpass; Delta Silver;Starwood - Platinum; Amex Cent
Posts: 710
Plus 1 to that. I will be doing monthly trips to nrt in j class - can't think of a reason why I shouldn't credit to dl or ua and get 65,000 miles instead of 25k miles per trip.
Aug 7, 2014, 11:27 am
#54
Join Date: Oct 2013
Programs: DL PM
Posts: 700
Because you'd have to make the tier thresholds ridiculously high if you just went to spend.
Even if you went with the simple 10 cents a mile for qualifying (2500 for gold, 10k for EXP, etc), it would take little to qualify for someone on a high priced ticket. I buy international Y/B tickets for work, with BWI-ICN/NRT easily running north of $6k. I'd be a plat in one ticket. 2 trips, I'd be an EXP, and other than high spend, I'll have shown absolutely no loyalty to the airline.
At least with earning EQ points, miles, or segments, I at least have to park my butt on their planes a good bit to show enough loyalty to earn that status. I think increased spending could accelerate that earning, but it shouldn't replace it.
Even if you went with the simple 10 cents a mile for qualifying (2500 for gold, 10k for EXP, etc), it would take little to qualify for someone on a high priced ticket. I buy international Y/B tickets for work, with BWI-ICN/NRT easily running north of $6k. I'd be a plat in one ticket. 2 trips, I'd be an EXP, and other than high spend, I'll have shown absolutely no loyalty to the airline.
At least with earning EQ points, miles, or segments, I at least have to park my butt on their planes a good bit to show enough loyalty to earn that status. I think increased spending could accelerate that earning, but it shouldn't replace it.
Perhaps six one-ways (so three round trips) for Gold, ten for Plat, 14 for EXP. Or even 6/8/10, in addition to other requirements.
A mixed-airline itinerary should count as long as one segment each way is on AA/Eagle metal.
Aug 7, 2014, 11:32 am
#55
Join Date: Oct 2013
Programs: DL PM
Posts: 700
I think if AA does it right it could be a good thing. Why not give miles for distance or dollars, whichever is greater? That way there is an incentive and reward for spending more while at the same time rewarding those who have to endure those really long international flights back in coach? It would make AA a very attractive program but there are only so many miles they can give and only so much supply they can burn it on so they have to have balance. With that said, if they did do it, they would attract tons of flyers from UA/DL/WN etc... and probably be able to charge more with the higher load factors which would more than make up for the additional miles being allocated.
Perhaps this could be done with something like 3-5 "miles" per dollar. The vast majority of passengers would still earn more miles based on miles flown.
Aug 7, 2014, 11:32 am
#56
Moderator: American AAdvantage & Marriott Bonvoy
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHX
Programs: American ExPlat; Marriott/SPG Lifetime Plat; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 8,116
At which point they'll need to reduce the payout of miles elsewhere to pay for it. Which will come from those on cheaper tickets, in the back of the plane.
This will happen, it's just a matter of exactly when.
Aug 7, 2014, 1:10 pm
#57
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AUS
Programs: AA Exec Platinum/MM, DL Gold/MM, Hilton Diamond, Accor Platinum, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 6,980
At this point Parker is just exercising common sense. To do the IT work to integrate the programs and simultaneously to convert to a revenue-based system would likely be a disaster. He has a lot of experience with integration fiascoes. The integration is a higher priority, but it is certain they will change the miles earning formula as soon as they can.
I fly a lot but I still earn more miles via CC spend than by flying, even now. I don't see such a change making much difference to me. Tinkering with elite status qualification is more dangerous, but if they, like DL, give you the option to satisfy a "revenue" requirement by either ticket revenue or CC spend I'll be fine.
I fly a lot but I still earn more miles via CC spend than by flying, even now. I don't see such a change making much difference to me. Tinkering with elite status qualification is more dangerous, but if they, like DL, give you the option to satisfy a "revenue" requirement by either ticket revenue or CC spend I'll be fine.
Aug 7, 2014, 2:35 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Frankly, I think there should be a minimum requirement of trips on AA to get any kind of status - it shouldn't be four and individual segments shouldn't count for this. This also shouldn't count codeshares (other than Eagle, which isn't really a codeshare).
Perhaps six one-ways (so three round trips) for Gold, ten for Plat, 14 for EXP. Or even 6/8/10, in addition to other requirements.
A mixed-airline itinerary should count as long as one segment each way is on AA/Eagle metal.
Perhaps six one-ways (so three round trips) for Gold, ten for Plat, 14 for EXP. Or even 6/8/10, in addition to other requirements.
A mixed-airline itinerary should count as long as one segment each way is on AA/Eagle metal.
Besides, if they're flying partners mostly, their status won't have a big impact on anyone else.
Aug 7, 2014, 2:44 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
At this point Parker is just exercising common sense. To do the IT work to integrate the programs and simultaneously to convert to a revenue-based system would likely be a disaster. He has a lot of experience with integration fiascoes. The integration is a higher priority, but it is certain they will change the miles earning formula as soon as they can.
I fly a lot but I still earn more miles via CC spend than by flying, even now. I don't see such a change making much difference to me. Tinkering with elite status qualification is more dangerous, but if they, like DL, give you the option to satisfy a "revenue" requirement by either ticket revenue or CC spend I'll be fine.
I fly a lot but I still earn more miles via CC spend than by flying, even now. I don't see such a change making much difference to me. Tinkering with elite status qualification is more dangerous, but if they, like DL, give you the option to satisfy a "revenue" requirement by either ticket revenue or CC spend I'll be fine.
Dougie has an advantage here. First off, he's sitting on the sidelines as he has his hands full enough merging FFPs and reservation systems. Any major overhauls to the FFP should wait until that's done so they can focus on getting that right. Secondly, he can also see how it plays out with 2 large but very different customers. DL, on one hand, is working to improve its product while changing its FFP. UA, on the other hand, is continuously gutting its product while implementing the same changes.
Both programs have a donut hole in earning where they're essentially firing their midrange customers. AA can watch and see what happens in both programs. If both companies continue to be profitable, and probably more importantly, grow at AA's expense, then they can look at implementing it. AA can also market to both airlines' pax that fit into that donut hole and offer them something better. If that approach works, then AA would be foolish to change its program.
The lemming mentality is scary - both in airline management and in the FT mentality.
Aug 7, 2014, 3:12 pm
#60
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Programs: UA GS, UA 1.6MM, AA LT PLT, AA 2.6MM, Intercontinental Royal Ambassador
Posts: 838