lotrbfme

Not true...

Arrival needs a minimum of 10,000 points to redeem with the new changes.

So it would be:

Arrival still $40 and no way to redeem those useless points.

TYP:

Pay $8 and 2,000 TYP for AA charge

Happy

But you do not need to put that $2000 non category spend on TYP - we have already covered that topic many posts ago, there are no fee cards that earns straight 2%, your $2000 put on such card directly gives you $40 cash rebate without having to go thru the Travel items only redemption and soon will be subject to the $100 threshold.

This is also mentioned tens of time, it only makes sense when you practically live overseas and incur Tens of Thousands of spend each year - then yes, the A+ would be your card even though you would need to spend quite a pretty sum to just breakeven to cover the AF.

For many people who only make a few overseas trips a year, the card simply does not compute when there are better alternatives. In our scenario while we do not live overseas our overseas trips add up to 3 to 4 months a year basically all over the world from Europe to Asia to Australia to South Africa. We still dont think this card is worth the annual fee even before the announced devaluation.

Yes, a hard calculation takes inventory of your actual spend history with all things factor in, is in order even for those who live overseas to see how much the card "makes" more than the alternative. Even assuming the Visa exchange rates are always worse than the MC to the tune of 0.5% difference, for every $10000 forex spend, the difference is $50. $100000 spend saves you $500. How many $10000 a year you spend overseas that is all out of your pocket? That would be the first question to ask - the SIZE of overseas spend does make a difference.

Dont forget the $100 threshold as well. When I look at our spend history, well over 80% of the items were BELOW the $100 threshold. For those above, they were way above as they were mostly for cruises (in thousands of $ a transaction) and hotel bills. It is a tall order to earn north of $2500 in 120 days so I can redeem against one travel item. I literally asked our cruise agent to break up the total payment of a cruise into 3 to 4 partial payments so I could realistically redeem at least some of them before the eligible items expired. Luckily we also have had many above $25 but below $100 items to redeem against - they mostly are LCC flights, trains, buses, ferries etc. Now none of them would be eligible after the devaluation.

You need to do a detailed Hard Calculation based on your spend history to really see EXACTLY HOW MUCH, this card would earn you, after factoring the AF, and comparing it to the alternatives out there including the no fee cards.

Mountain Trader

I went back and checked my accounting books.

2.1% is still more than 1%.

NYCFlyer10001

Is 2.1% more than 2% after taking into account an $89 annual fee? Come on.

penguintalk

If I could turn back the clock a month, I'd have skipped the Arrival+ and applied for:

1. Bank of America Travel Rewards since it has no foreign transaction fees, no annual fee, and the EMV chip.

2. Blue cash Preferred AmEx. $75 fee, but includes 6% cashback on groceries and 3% on gas. You also get a $150 statement credit if you spend a grand in the first 3 months.

3. Citi Double Cash to use on everything that doesn't pay over 2% cash back with the AmEx and for anywhere the AmEx isn't accepted.

For what I want/do, that seems to be the best mix of things. Oh well. Anyone know how long the credit ding from applying for the Arrival+ lasts? And, if I did decide to get these 3 cards, is it best to do the instant applications all in one day? Lastly, is there a better choice for the category 1 I listed? I just chose that BoA one as an example.

shinjukuflyer

Right, you're absolutely correct that with the (as yet unannounced) new changes the equation is different and quite unfavorable. But people are making it sound like the Arrival+ is a bad deal even in its current form. I don't believe that to be the case. Also, if the word on the street is true, I still have till October next year with the current rules.

shinjukuflyer

Don't disagree with anything you've said here. Currently with no AF the first year, a decent signup bonus, existing rules on redemption that for me will likely hold until next year, this card compares quite favorably to other alternatives. Once the AF comes up then of course I will reconsider. Even without the rule changes it's a totally different comparison. $89 is quite steep compared to a no-fee 2% card.

Auerbach

I just successfully redeemed for a Disney trip as a travel expense. Booked it 3 weeks ago, redeemed today. Have had the card since May. I know the new rules are that you won't be able to redeem for Disney going forward, but just though I'd share that it still works as of right now.

Mountain Trader

After you've been around FT a little longer, you'll have a keener eye to spot sarcasm.

Not to mention irony.

patrick.barnes

LOL. No one (apart from maybe you, on purpose) is confused or fooled.

2.2% up front on *non bonus* spend to be redeemed on *travel* was the *entire point*. I don't see how this can be argued with.

No one is redeeming their "miles" on non travel related expenses.

Contrary to your belief, most people aren't idiots and are perfectly capable of doing math.

Yes, the equation changes now. No one is arguing that. But you're not understanding the role this card played for a lot of people.

Virus4762

What does this mean?

penguintalk

You can't redeem it for line items less than $100 now. Like if you had a $25 charge on a metro card before, you could do it. Now you can't. Before you got a 10% bonus back on the 2% if you used it for travel. Now it is 5%.

Virus4762

Oh I see. Thank you.


You don't think you could apply for those right now? I apply for credit cards all the time and have never gottan rejected. Also, I'd do all 3 applications on the same day. Coincidentally, I applied for 3 cards last night (Wells Fargo Propel World, Citi ThankYou Premeir, and British Airways Visa) and got approved for all three.

Virus4762

Thanks!

tmiw

To me the $100 minimum doesn't seem like a good way for Barclays to save money. They still have to budget for every single "mile" earned until it's used or the card's cancelled. Judging from the posts in here, the latter became more likely (but at the cost of a portion of the swipe fees, possible finance charges from those who keep a balance and ultimately fewer people signing up for the card in the first place).

IMO they may have been better off improving incentives for people to hold the card past the first year instead. On the other hand, there's only so much they could do without losing money on the card since as others have said, there are no AF cards that give 2% back.