This is -not- what I was talking about. I specified "highest-economy/premium fares" The ones the airline in question would be looking to most reward.

To let you get some rest on this front (and get the thread back on topic) how 'bout this; in the cases where it makes sense (same price) a UA member (since that was what was being discussed when this came up) *might* do 2 one-ways vs. purchase r/t to yield the extra bonus miles as tom911 indicates is the practice in some cases in this post:http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25549872-post264.html

In the cases where it doesn't make sense (higher price one-way vs. r/t,) of course no one in their right mind would.

Not that this should have required this level of explanation. :)

Just a note, no one at AA has said there are too many EXP members AFAIK. We all saw a number of challenge programs in the late Q3 for large consulting firms so there is no clear messaging that the airline wants fewer elites at any level. The only change made in the area has been on segment flyers last year.

But, this is a speculation thread. The question is what part of the program is most costly and needs to be changed. I suspect it was the award categories they eliminated and sAAver business/first that they have mostly reduced already. What is next? RDM accrual? Award prices? Benefits versus revenue?

I am not sure the elite count themselves are the issue unless we feel there are a lot of low cost EXP out there.

Rasheed

I've never heard anyone from/at AA talk about "thinning the EXP population" either.

What they obviously do want is for a (much) higher % of EPs to be a higher percentile of the most profitable members. (And, yes, AA has a "profitability" figure for members, very rarely disclosed/discussed) and anything that accomplishes that, I'd personally think gets the job done better that a complete overhaul.

That is to say, obviously, if the intersection of the present EP population and AA's most profitable (but non-CK) membership is xx% presently, get that up to a much higher xx%. Not worry about the relative handful that find a way to game the system under whatever the new system is, but, to have as few, lower/middling-profitability EPs as possible, again, w/o excess concern that a small number continue to exist, doesn't make any real difference.

A given in this is that some members who are presently only able to reach AAdv Plat under the current system would be EP now (due to bonuses on expensive fares,) and that's a good thing. But, yes, an equal given is that in order for that not to swell EP ranks unreasonably, a certain % of people who currently achieve EP on cheapest fares, etc., would only be Plat going forward.

As for AA's desire to increase "profitability" of EPs, perhaps they should have thought of that before they got greedy and trashed the product.

Can we, please, have an adult conversation here on this specific topic w/o this kind of thing that pervades so many of the other threads? Is that too much to ask?

I'm often puzzled by the constant herd-thinning assumptions. It can't possibly be any airline's top priority. The goal is not to please the EXP, it is to sell seats. There are not 'too many of us' if we are still buying seats on planes. Full stop. No matter how many EXPs complain of not getting as many free upgrades. I can't imagine with the size of the merged fleet they are worried about not having enough seats. We may notice a difference in seat quality with some of the aircraft folded into the fleet but they are still, for most of the travelling public, just seats from point AAA to BBB. The more important it is for someone in AAA to be in BBB, the more they will pay to get there.

Even if they were concerned they didn't have enough seats, the solution would be to buy more planes, not cut back on customers. AA just offered free challenges on tiny amounts of points/miles. They want customers who will spend money, and if giving status is one way of achieving that, they will offer people status. There will be some who don't use it, but that costs AA nothing but the price of mailing the card. They have other ways of dividing us into true high value customers and $5k EXPs. Yes, they want more of the 'who cares about status because I buy full fare F and get all the perks anyway' flyers, but since that pool is limited, they will do whatever it takes to get the likes of me to continue purchasing whatever fare class I can afford on AA. Finding the balance between that point and the point at which we will start paying someone else to get us to BBB is the key, not 'thinning' a 'herd' of future ticket purchasers. Past business is just that--past. It's what any person, loyal in the past or not, will purchase in the future that matters to bean counters.
.

Definitely this.

Indications include

<redacted>

I still fly AA and will most likely re-qualify for EP and continue as long as my upgrade percentage remains at 90%+. But, I'm not a very profitable EP as I only do it on the cheapest O and Q fares, unlike before when I would willingly buy F. Now when I buy F, it's on UA or DL. When AA makes changes to eliminate bottom-feeders like me, I'll have no problem adjusting.

You cannot simply discount it as being irrelevant and ignore problems that face the airline. If AA wants a more profitable group of EXPs, then they need to be attracting them with a product superior to what competitors are offering. Without doing so, higher value customers search for a better product.

At this point, forgetting onboard product, AA has become increasingly unreliable from an operational standpoint. There aren't a lot of things pulling people towards AA and the primary one of them seems to be AAdvantage. It may not be devalued in the coming weeks (or maybe it will be) but we can all rest assured it's going to happen eventually. Once that happens, what is left to keep HVCs (or anyone for that matter) at AA?

With the slight, outside possibility of eliminating EQMs qualification for EP entirely-- EQPs only (as it was at the beginning.)

But I think all signs point to an approach of this type.

A big, fat THIS!! To your first paragraph. If AA want high value customers, offer the best product. But your first paragraph answers your final question, as a true HVC is much less likely to concern themselves with whether someone else gets upgraded. They can buy first, sit in first, and that's that. It's the not-quite-as-HVC to which FFPs are aimed.

Like I said, you can push aside numerous problems all you'd like, but they do exist. Pretending they are irrelevant and will not be connected to highly likely devaluations of the AAdvantage program is looking at the situation with tunnel-vision.

I'm just campaigning for a little maturity and adult self-control in this thread (and forum) so that people that actually want to discuss the topic-- and are able to pick up on the hints and read between the lines-- can benefit from those of us that actually know what's coming.

But since that isn't being allowed, I'll stop posting in this thread permanently.

Which is a true shame, because most of us truly appreciate a more civilized, fact-based discussion, and the information and insight you and others provide. At least in my view, sometimes the vocal minority makes it difficult to hear over all the noise and complaining.

If you travel a lot on long trips to ASIA as I do the 8 SWU are important and a MR is worth it.

In late August I looked at my travel plans for the rest of the year and the math showed that I was just under 5,000 short.

So I hunted for trips that were around 2500 miles or more at the lowest cost. I found 2 RT from DFW to LAX that offered same day round trips at $120 each. Best part was they were the same flight numbers.

So I fly to LAX get off, wait 1 hour and get back on the same plane and fly home. Got all 4 legs in FC. On one flight pair, I was in the same seat, same crew and the Flight Attendant noticed and laughed.

If the SWU and complementary upgrades are important to your comfort, the cost may be worth it.