That would be an extremely sensible way for them to accomplish much of what they want to accomplish.

They'd have to grandfather (or free upfare, etc.) tickets already bought, but then eliminate or reduce EQM earning on some of the cheapest fares going forward (in addition to the other takeaways from those cheapest tickets.) No much bigger changes really needed at that point.

Regarding AA introducing something like DL's basic economy fares: it seems to me like that's a place where AA's sticker system could lead to actual innovation that protects their revenue while still offering frequent flyers something (for Golds and Platinums). If you're using $60 worth of stickers to upgrade a basic economy fare on a flight from the northeast to Florida, that seems like extra revenue for AA that would make the upgrade totally reasonable. AA could tweak free upgrade earning: you don't earn miles towards elite upgrades on basic economy fares, for example. Or make EQPs the counter for upgrade earning instead of base miles.

Well, that really is the point of earnings call, after all. They're explaining to analysts and shareholders what they'll be doing to increase profits. So "better" for that audience really does mean more profitable rather than better for frequent flyers.

Delta just introduced a new fare class (E) for basic economy. I'd think that would be easier than (for example) AA making S fares highly restricted in this way. No tickets would have been sold in this new fare class without the new rules, so no need to grandfather anything.

I was the one who said re-vamp but that was of course in my own words and I did not quote anyone. But if you listen to the call they made it sound like major changes would be ahead in terms of using their IT resources previously tied up with the US Airways reservations system merger

You're right, of course, but I've always been under the impression that AA has exactly zero "spare" fare buckets-- which is why a few do double-duty presently (-A- being the most frequently referenced.) I suppose if it's important to them, they can free one up, but again I've been led to believe much harder than it sounds as everything is used as-is.

Interesting. Your post reminds me that DL did do some reshuffling (having various two-letter buckets for upgrades, RP and RO or something, for example) to free up X, V, and E for new, cheap, more-restricted fares, so it wasn't trivial from an IT point of view for DL either. (In DL's case, X had been a complimentary upgrade bucket before it was made into a cheap revenue fare class.)

Who knows-- this might be a similar impetus at/for AA.

Occam's razor could lead to:

H, K, L, M, W, V: 100% EQM

G, Q, N, O, S: 50% EQM

or some variation thereof. Relatively minor changes required, establish tickets purchased by DD MM 2016 earn at one chart level, after at the new one.

Other "enhancements" could restrict "sticker" use, SWU applicability, etc. from that lower band of fares.

In the past, iirc, O class fares did not earn on certain flights, e.g. S. America?

Okay, so this type of more narrow discussion on fare classes/type of fares and their impact on benefits for flyers on AAdvantage future could be much more insightful than the generic EQP conversations we have otherwise had (although, the reason for the concern is not that different). Sadly, Delta has been the recent "innovator" in this area (E fares) and United to a lesser extent has had related policies for years.

First, the question on why there are such low fares was reminded today (and the details are helpful).
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-percent.html/

I don't think the AAdvantage program cares about those once a year flyers who accrue such miles as they are NOT redeeming for QF/EY/QR F awards or getting upgraded on these fares. No program change needed.

Now when frequent flyers buy (I think it is mostly O and S class in today's system) these fares, it becomes an issue. A perfect example is the AA Vacations situation, but buying low fare matches is not discouraged in anyway. Coincidentally, I just met an AA frequent flyer who for the past 15 years has spent close to $5k annually to get to EXP. He talked to me about many sub $100 AI RT fares for relatively long distances (2500+ EQM) that he does, and of course, he is burning on QF F awards. Well, we know that those fares are targeted to the low fare occasional flyer, who has lots of travel flexibility. There are obviously (a few?) EXPs who have lots of travel flexibility too.

It does seem the easiest change is to reduce the potential for complementary upgrades and EQP/EQM for these matched fares. This to me would be much more effective than larger program changes across the board. I do not know though how many of these $5k EXP flyers exist, but to me, this is really the only group who receive benefits that may far outweigh their spend. Funny enough, paid upgrades might still be fine because that is pure profit for AA. Now as an EXP, I don't want these changes, but I don't see how we avoid any inevitable bad "innovation". Probably also because we are not sure what more AA could add to the program in a positive fashion without added cost (when it doesn't need to do so based on the program's popularity already).

Do we think AA will keep its focus that narrow in its changes? Seems unlikely.

Rasheed

There are many permutations they could carry out using the IT tools already at hand, with minuscule modifications. I do opine we're in for some changes, but what and when we'll just have to speculate about. But each day that passes is bringing us a day closer to the day we will find out how this is going to go down.

Maybe that leaked BA chart was accurate after all!

Huh! Good point

I never thought it necessarily wasn't. Leaked too many places, IMO.

I fully realize that AA reserves the right to adjust EQM/RDM earnings at anytime. Nonetheless, I think that changing earning on existing fare buckets (even if you grandfather already purchase tickets) in the middle of the year would be a crappy thing to do.

Doesn't mean they can't/won't do it though.