jacobguo

Hence my comment. Although one certainly could hope they treat students better because future revenue growth blahblahblah

Often1

The spend requirement was a conscious and well-researched decision. No, AA is not weeping. If it were, it would do what businesses do when they mistake. It would simply get rid of the requirement.

It's a business.

Austin787

AA likely lost some elites, but they also picked up elites from other airlines. So it's basically a wash.

PHLGovFlyer

A fair number of those "former elites" were not actually lost. They're still flying AA, just with lower (or no) status. A bit of a double win for AA.

Antarius

The only elites I know that really bounced were the ones who book paid J/F. For them the devaluation of AAdvantage meant that status didn't give them as much value as before.

For people like me, who fly domestic Y and some paid intl J, I chase status. I feel I get more in terms of upgrades and stuff than being a free agent (still batting 95% as an EXP). What AA has managed to do is make me watch $$$.. meaning previously if Y was 300 and J 450, I'd book Y.. but now they have me looking at paid J too.

Point being, I think they came out well ahead.

cova

I don't think AA misses low spend Elites. Flights out of my city (DCA) are full all the time and can have as many 20 EXPs on one flight. Many flights are being upgraded from 738s to the larger 321s, and still packed. AA could really use 757 replacement aircraft if Boeing ever makes them. With as many as 50 elites on the upgrade list - no AA doesn't need more Elites.

Often1

Full doesn't matter. Anybody can fill an aircraft if they price the ticket right.

What's up are AA's profits. While that isn't directly due to moving its FFP to a spend-based operation, that is part of it.

Anybody who thinks that AA suffered financially because a few people who pay attention to this stuff are miffed, sorely overestimates their value and underestimates their impact.

brewdog11

With AA's current profitability, I don't think they really "miss" their old elites (save for CKs and high-dollar EXPs). I think AA makes a decent effort to keep their solid upper-level elites happy, and they've done well to retain me. I seriously doubt they'd shed a tear if I quit flying AA, realistically.

Hey, you forgot to mention that all those flights were in F/J! Oh, and the HKG and GIG/GRU flights in J as well.

Seriously, though, this made me smile. I've been a "legit" EXP with solid EQD and EQM numbers for a while now, but my first year as EXP may have been funded by student loans. I remember my first trip IAH-ORD-China in 3-class F for $700, most of which was covered by a VDB voucher. Good times, good times...

cova

I would agree. Never bought paid J before, but now have three up coming domestic F trips booked in discounted J (I class). With double EQM and the higher dollar spend for EQD, only made sense. But one of these trips J was cheaper then a cheap discount coach fare - so no wonder I bought First.

My upgrade rate is way down - as EXP - I can be # 15 of out 20 EXPs on the upgrade list. EXP seems to be the old Platinum level.

rbAA

Or, still AA elites but flying premium cabin on OW partners. Since the EQD requirement, I've spent considerably less on AA and about the same overall using CX, QR and MH, but enjoying it more. Only using AA to burn SWU's (low fare HKG-LAX RT's,) as well as some domestic segments but only if AA is lower priced or more convenient. DL and UA (depending on which is cheaper and more convenient,) gained business that would have in the past been AA's. I hadn't flown on DL in so many years until this past Feb (LAX-MCO) and they seemed fine. Status matched to UA 1K but not as excited about them.

Maybe not the most profitable customer AA has/had but previously would have flown AA even if they were higher cost or less convenient. That's a good way to end up losing customers; let them have (positive) experiences with your competitors.

$1299 for PLT is a waste.

FlyingEgghead

People here seem to be talking about different things. Indeed, the airlines on net have not lost heavy-flying customers. As PHLGovFlyer alludes to, they probably have lost unprofitable freebie-grabbers (what I and many FTers aspire to be!). That is, any "loss" is by re-rating pax as non-elite (or lower elite), rather than by defections (which cancel out).

rjw242

Not an annoyance, but certainly a statistic (even CK). If the raw elite numbers tick down but the revenue/profit ticks up, they're happy (vastly oversimplifying of course, but you get my point).

fotographer

I have been EXP for at least 7 years that I can remember, all my travel for work is self-paid, If I get a contract from the company , the cost of travel sort of pays off, if not I eat the cost. (my accountant does not like me very much)
Thinking when they first introduced the EQD, I was screwed,prior to that I was able to attain EXP with lots of trips to Asia buying cheap tickets, spending less that $4500 .
Now, with cheaper J tickets , I have done fewer trips, passed the EQD easily without really too much effort, (last year $27,000)
Since most of my travel is one stop in the US , have not taken notice of upgrades. mainly because of course I am buying a J ticket.

CityFlyerNYC

Can someone break down for me what are considered the "high spend" thresholds for elites? Is it 20K, 25K, 50K? What is are the numbers for EXP and CK?

bse118

It's widely accepted on FT that droves of elites have been "lost" as a result of EQDs. That's not the same as there being any actual evidence of that having happened.

I for one have found earning status no more difficult under the new rules.

Ah, FT trope #42 : There's only two types of flyers: people spending their own money, and people on corporate contracts. Much more complex that that.

And AA doesn't "care" about any of them - they employ different revenue capture and marketing strategies for different types of customers.