Penguinmoon

SE Asia based, not much onboard AA metal:

66 hours in the sky
5 times around the world
8 destinations visited
11% top

Appreciate they do this. Made me chuckle yesterday, even though I'm top 11% missed my first upgrade yesterday MCI-ORD no less

ORD-DCA Flyer

Mine is fairly accurate - I do like that the BIS percentile is included. Of course I wish the EQD percentile were included, which for me is definitely not in the top 2 percent!

My checked bag savings is also much lower than it should be, as most of my checked bags are overweight and that's definitely not counted here. That should probably be more like $8000.

andersonCooper

There's no way they know about overweight fees (if they were not charged) though. I sometime have 0.2 or 0.3 kg overweight from LHR but the agents did not even bother to mention overweight fees(even when I was Plat). But I do agree they need to improve the accuracy on these reports.

ckx2

That can't be right tho. My usual route was SIN-HKG/NRT-LAX-LAS/DEN and return. I did that a lot tho - but 28 times would be the equivalent of over 650k miles flown. In no way have I done that.

jsieds

From the email, my year was:

1. 208 hours in the sky
2. 3.5Times flown around the world
3. 18 destinations visited
4. Boston - Most visited Destination (one of two home airports)
5. December 1 - Earned EXP
6. 128,414 from Elite bonus
7. 66,581 miles earned without flying
8. 67,500 miles used80+ Upgrades received.
9. $50 Checked-bag savings (I rarely check luggage)

No percentage given - currently $24.4K EQD, 117.8K EQM, 122 EQS

Malchior

Agree that ran95k based on rolling EQD would have been nice
My Stats:
227 Hours in the sky
4 Times flown around the world
15 Destinations visited
September 11 Earned EXP
80,832 Bonus miles from elite status
95,238 Award miles earned without flying
70+ upgrades

No percentage given

C17PSGR

For comparison purposes, I'm 5.5 times flown around the world at top 8% -- 193,000 EQM YTD

SeattleDavid

I've done some quick calculations based on the numbers here.
Hours looks like it is based on the actual hours flown on AA flights, whereas 'times round the world' is based on actual flight miles (not EQMs) with AA and partner airlines. And the % position looks to be given for the top 25% in each band – for EXPs 4.5 times round the world gets you at 23%, where 5 times is 11% and 5.5 is 7% and 6 times round is 3%.

Based on the assumption that an hour in flight is 450 miles and that it is 25000 miles around the world, I generated the following graphs ... (apologies for the small fonts)



Distance by hours against distance by times around the world.



EXP position by distance flown.

onobond

*small rant about AA statistics, nothing aimed at FT member quoted*

Since Concorde was grounded 14 years ago, no supersonic passenger aircraft has been available. It's certainly impressive to find AA calculating that flying 5 times around the world is possible in 133 hours. Not knowing the actual flights, earth circumference at the equator is 24,901.55 miles. 5 * 24.901 / 133 gives a mean surface speed of 936.13 mph, which maybe could pose some problems to achieve IRL, i.e. around-the-world in 26.6 h. More impressive, however, is doing only 8 destinations on 5 times around the world, implying 1.5 stop for every lap around the world. One might wonder which super-aircraft that has that capacity?

Finding myself way down the list with mere 3 laps around the world, wasting propably unnecessary 103 hours, equalling a lap time of 33.34 h. Comforting myself that re-qualification for EXP was on May 7.

My thoughts go to the classical comparation: Lies, damn lies, statistics

[/RANT]

teemuflyer

Well, the "*" footnote does say the following: *These numbers include travel with AmericanAirlines, oneworld®airlines and partner airlines.
Also, not sure of the % position, since I'm told I flew 5.5 times around the world, but no mention of where I stand as % of EXPs. I suspect it is more related to spend, where I will be in the bottom 5%

SeattleDavid

Yes, the footnote does say that, but there is no footnote for 'Hours' and there is no indication in the footnote if they are considering flight miles or EQMs. So, I was pointing out that hours would seem to be AA flights only and "Times around the world" is flight miles, not EQMs.

It is odd that one or two folks above 4.5 times round the world do not have a % position – I would have predicted that they were CKs, but you don't seem to fit that description. But the posts by people with a % position clearly indicate that it is based on miles flown (and not on spend one would infer).

teemuflyer

I would go by the presumption that those that are not noted by the "*" are AA only, since the "*" is clearly called out distinctly to be "different" from the other stats. What else could the non-"*" be? I would also point out that I used quite a few award miles both on AA and OW partner airlines this year, and those are not included in the "Times around the world" since many of these were to SE Asia from AUS, TX, otherwise my number would be way higher than 5.5.

And, yes, I'm nowhere close to qualifying for CK by any measure

C17PSGR

I'm 5.5 times round the world (and 25k spend). Definitely not CK. It's based on unknown factors (profitability/spend) but not EQM. I believe a couple of CK's above, are in the 8 times round the world range.

GNALUZU

Mine says that my most frequent destination was Miami. I never flew to Miami this year. lol

enviroian

Anyone out there that hasn't received it yet? I haven't. I feel slighted.