headingwest

What is quite telling is that the thread only started 4 and a half hours ago and already has 121 posts and 2,400 reads. Stirring the emotions I believe.

jmc1K

The way I read this is that post-Apr 8, the only way for ANYONE to qualify for GGL will be 5K TPs per year. Are others reading it that current GGLs will only have to keep doing 3K per year in perpetuity?

chistery

I wonder if there's any correlation between the posters that have sugested it should be harder to attain gold in other threads, and now not happy that GGL is going to be harder to get?

layz

Yes, in this case (and always has been for GGL) there's a difference between qualification and requalification.

Qualification was 3000 per year for 2 years (now scrapped) or 5000 in one year (still exists)
Requalification has not changed at 3000 TP

Dave_C

However everyone seems to be in broad agreement that it's a good thing. Rarely do we have this amount of unanimity here on FT.

MadProfessor

I'm not even in the realms of GGL land but unless my maths is shocking, they've basically said that instead of the option of obtaining 3,000 TPS for 2 years to qualify (6,000) that you need to get 5,000 in one year. So if you're a standard GCH and TP-run nutter all they're doing is forcing you to get a DVT and save you 1,000 TPs in total. So apart from some cash flow issues it's not a big change for standard GCHs to qualify for GGL.

The people it does actually hurt are those who are over or around 3,000 TPs each year without doing TP-runs or TP-maximisation. They now wouldn't get GGL. However:

1. The could do one year of TP-runs (< 2,000 TPs) to then have it in perpetuity afterwards, or,

2. If they have an established travel pattern of 3,000 TPs historically they should already be GGL.

So in effect, this hurts people who will in future but not at present get between 3,000 and 4,999 TPs annually.

Surely this is a small group, who could still take option 1 above if it matters to them?

Knickers. Twist. In. A. ?

The Bees Knees

Well I'm definitely one of the losers from this change. Business travel patterns mean last year (just ended) I exceeded 3,000 TPs for the first time and that was likely to continue for the foreseeable. I'm in no danger of reaching 5,000 though (and not interested in TP running), and have no chance of getting 3,000 before April. With already planned trips, I would have reached the hallowed halls of GGL by my year-end and was very much looking forward to being able to use the partner card to allow access to lounges when traveling en famille.

Ho hum, you win some and lose some. I agree with previous posters, though, that it seems very unfair to chose April as the arbitrary end date, rather than one's own year end. Those of us who have just started a new membership year are penalised through no fault of our own.

Since Lifetime Gold is at least seven years away, by which time it may well not exist, I think I'll look to maintaining Gold and then building status with another alliance.

jmc1K

Interesting. I rather think it would be better if it were 5K period. This really is not such a big change, then.

Globaliser

No, it doesn't sound like a big change.

If both qualifying and renewal had been raised to 5,000 TPs pa, that would be the same level as a CCR Card, in which case BA might just as well have folded GGL into CCRC. It seems likely to have been a deliberate move to keep this extra level below CCRC, but just make it a little harder to get into the club for the first time.

Blueboys999

Looks that way to me.

brentford77

Couldn't agree more on both subjects.

Now we have to sit through 44 seconds of compliance c**p before the phone even rings and then it is rarely answered quickly as in days of yore. Can somebody please tell BA that there is no legal requirement to insist that their regular travellers get the personal information disclaimer on every call? It's just an over interpretation by a lawyer who is doubtless scared of his / her own shadow.

And using joker...well I tried and tried to use it for the soon to be defunct Columbo route. But in school hols they only offered club seats in J - not C or the requisite D class. One year I tried to book Grenada for a trip over Xmas. I called the day the itinerary became available, 355 days before or whatever. No luck. I then asked for any caribbean destination and the lady tried numerous permutations. No luck there either!

paulwuk

I'd have rather seen a requirement for 3000tp on BA getting you in (and keeping you in) the club. Or something like the AA centurion card with a minimum spend of £30k or something.

BritNYC

This doesn't Impact me as I'm hitting 9-10k tier points a year, I'm wondering if with this reduction in future numbers there will be any changes to the program?

YClass

Hah what timing - just attained 3000 TP this year (without TP runs) after some 5 years attaining 2000TP+ and getting nothing for it (bar standard Gold). With new membership year starting in Dec, I was going to go for GGL in 2015. I guess that's it then - no reason to go for more than 1500 TP any more! And I'm certainly not doing a 2000 TP run or going to get 3000TP in 5 months.

At least it gives me an excuse to try other airlines..... haven't tried Emirates, Etihad or Singaporean F

I wholeheartedly agree with The Bees Knees

I disagree with Dave_C though. I recall there were only about 400 people with CCRC so about 400/year meet the initial criteria. Not many by the sounds of things....

vibguy

Indeed, time to have the GOLD threshold at 2000-2500 tier points, silver at 1000-1250 tier points and no longer priority boarding for bronze. I expect these changes to come sooner than later.