Trippelone

Gold renewal is at 1.500 TP. GGL renewal is at 3.000 TP, twice the amount for Gold. Gold for life is at 35.000 TP. The most logical threshold for GGL for life seems then 70.000 TP and not 100.000 TP as it is today. Many frequent flyers become frustrated after reaching Gold for life because the next 100.000 target is almost unreachable. Setting a realistic target for GGL for life would probably benefit BA as more frequent flyers would give it a try. Am I wrong?

nachosdelux

Sorry - misread your post. I think this would be great (would actually have a shot at it)

KARFA

Why would BA want to encourage more GGLfLs?

I understand where you are coming from and it makes sense in the FT world, but you know normal people aren't flying in order to hit TP lifetime targets?

fdem

I am still waiting hoping for lifetime silver to be introduced ( in my dreams!)

KARFA

you’ve always got lifetime blue to fall back on tho, so it’s not all bad

ratypus

First qualification for GGL (rather than renewal) is at 5,000 TPs - so over 3x what you need for Gold. By that measure, 100,000 TPs for GGLfl is a "bargain" compared with 35,000 for Gfl....

as others have commented - very few people make it to those levels, and those that do almost certainly do not do so out of "choice" to travel but probably "necessity" to travel - they still (may) have discretion over their choice of airline, but at the working annual TP rate to even contemplate GGLfl they are probably solidly GGL every year anyway, so I don't think the incremental "incentive" of GGLfl is ever going to be that big.

I agree it would be nice, at 70,000 TPs is somehow vaguely achievable by "moderate" travellers (whereas 100,000 is just ridiculous, for "normal" people). But I doubt there is really a commercial reason to lower the threshold. I don't think it would drive incremental revenue for BA, really.

Krisz

I don't think it would make any difference if that target is 70K or 100K or 500K. I might have a chance that in a few years time I will reach GfL if my work travel continues as is. I opened my BA account in the early 2000s so let say in 20 years of loads of travelling I might reach GfL. But I have no incentives to carry on like this for an another 20 years as there are many more important things I have in life.

orbitmic

Maybe Ba want GGLfL to be “almost unreachable”? After all it’s a status very close to Premier which is invitation-only in terms of perks. Ba is kind enough to extend it to a few people who have shown exceptional loyalty to Ba over the years… “exceptional” being the operative word here.

ps: I’m saying that as someone who’d sure benefit from the threshold you suggest as it would be within easy reach for me and 100k not So much

PETER01

I think 100k is probably about right for GGLfL? I'm sure BA have done their homework on this, as well as setting the 35k threshhold for GfL.

The difference between GfL and GGLfL is huge though, really, as the latter also gets you 1 Gold Card, 2 Silver Cards and CCR access as well as other benefits published or not.

I think any GGLfL would also achieve that (100k) for natural 'organic' flying and not specifically going out of their way to get it as in TP Runs like some FTr's perhaps chase GfL although a few fly a lot for work and/or fun.

xenole

I personally wouldn't go out of my way to ever try and hit 100k TP. I've got over 20k at present, but fly everything from Y to F on whatever airline I choose, randomly.
By the time I naturally earn this amount, I'd be long gone I expect!

I suppose someone doing say MAN-LHR-JFK in CE/F once a month for a year would pull in 6k TP (12 x 500TP). Less than 17 years of travel there, and I expect there are doctors, business people etc. who fly BA / AA etc. easily exceeding that.

I find GGL to be rather lacking, so if it were out of my own pocket, I wouldn't be putting myself out for something that potentially has zero value. I'd need a lottery win to achieve that realistically and if that were the case, private jets would be something i'd look at rather than flying lacklustre commercial airlines.
(that said, if I'd really have been up for a totally nuts challenger a few years ago, when you could do the dirt cheap US 16 segment runs from the west coast to the Caribbean, I may have given it a good shot!)

gliderpilot

I mentioned this in another thread but I’m intrigued why GGLfL has such a high CIV score compared to other GGL. Once someone is retired it makes little commercial sense to value them more than active GGLs.

maybe BA should have two CIV score for GGLfL. 97 /98 for those who wouldn’t have qualified in that year in their own right and 100 for those who do?

xenole

Well, perhaps they'll fly loads of times for leisure, or it's just a way of saying thank you to someone who they know won't fly often with them so it won't ultimately cost them anything?

Not even sure these CIV scores mean a lot anyway. Sort of like these credit scores from Experian etc. (999 out of 1000)
Proof is how you're treated by the airline and we all know it's a very, very mixed bag.

ratechaser

9 consecutive years of Silver now for me - admittedly through a lot of different and very specific circumstances over time. Even so, I must be close to earning some sort of lifetime honorary award, no?

PETER01

Post on here another 7,933 times and you'll become a Flyertalk 'Evangalist', people will take more notice of you and that's something money can't buy

Tobias-UK

What makes you think GGLfLs are retired? Many, certainly those I know, are far from retired and their travel patterns are just as heavy as they were prior to qualifying.