![]() |
Ironic that they embargoed the story but then published the website earlier than that. Screws the people you've promised an inside scoop to when you don't actually honor the embargo you've created.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23749059)
Ironic that they embargoed the story but then published the website earlier than that.
|
Originally Posted by IMH
(Post 23749122)
It appears that anyone accepting an embargoed advance briefing ended up behind those who just watched the AA website or the TB/FT threads.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23749059)
Ironic that they embargoed the story but then published the website earlier than that. Screws the people you've promised an inside scoop to when you don't actually honor the embargo you've created.
By distributing but embargoing to bloggers AA kept the bloggers from speculating/talking and got to tell the story themselves while the bloggers are still under embargo. Tricksy! And brilliant. |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 23749294)
Ironic or brilliant!?
By distributing but embargoing to bloggers AA kept the bloggers from speculating/talking and got to tell the story themselves while the bloggers are still under embargo. Tricksy! And brilliant. American Airlines is certainly not the only company to implement this procedure of how the release of news is controlled... |
Originally Posted by IMH
(Post 23737290)
But why would an independent blogger accept advance information with an embargo?
[...] Time to analyse, to compare [...] and to prepare a detailed and thoughtful post
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23739412)
I do it all the time. [...] in order to provide what I believe is the best analysis and content for my readers
I'm not sure that Mr Leff's "It's REALLY Good!" quite cuts it. |
Originally Posted by IMH
(Post 23749567)
So: has anyone spotted a thoughtful post about AA's 2015 FFP yet?
There's not a ton of insight to be offered given that they didn't really change much. Most of the other posts I've read talk about how it is good or bad for the author, not for customers in general.
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 23749294)
By distributing but embargoing to bloggers AA kept the bloggers from speculating/talking and got to tell the story themselves while the bloggers are still under embargo.
n.b. The link above is to my blog or to one which I am a regular contributor. FT rules require that I disclose that in the post. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23749644)
There's not a ton of insight to be offered given that they didn't really change much.
Very little on what some US Dividend Miles customers will lose and nothing at all on when people might be better off in a different oneworld FFP. |
Originally Posted by IMH
(Post 23750367)
AA is probably really happy with the coverage so far, ranging as it does from "nothing much happening" to "really good" (sorry: "REALLY Good!" :rolleyes:).
Very little on what some US Dividend Miles customers will lose and nothing at all on when people might be better off in a different oneworld FFP. But, of course, what blogger worth his weight in credit card applications would miss this PERFECT opportunity to pimp the US Barclays and the AA Citi cards!? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: |
Based on this post I would think Gary isn't aware of a major devaluation on the horizon:
http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea....-miles-89-can/ Either that or the "Here’s What You Can Do With the Miles" falls squarely under the subject of this thread. :p |
Originally Posted by HikerT
(Post 23751901)
Based on this post I would think Gary isn't aware of a major devaluation on the horizon
Regardless of future devaluations, VFTW's claim (in the blog post you link to) that 90,000 AA miles for getting for two new credit cards is "one of the very best deals of the year" is plain wrong. The threshold for qualifying as one of the very best deals this year is quite clearly 100,000 miles for a single card. The next tier down would probably be the 70,000-point Chase cards that were being pushed ike crazy earlier this month (unless of course you're not a business and don't want to pretend you are). |
FWIW, yesterday OMAAT had 2 posts about Delta dropping stopovers. VFTW had one, FTG had one, DP had one and FM had one.
Except that Delta didn't actually drop stopovers. The website stopped booking them but the rules still permit them and they can be booked if you call in. Didn't really take long to verify that with a call to CorpComm this afternoon. Oopsie. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23752771)
FWIW, yesterday OMAAT had 2 posts about Delta dropping stopovers. VFTW had one, FTG had one, DP had one and FM had one.
Except that Delta didn't actually drop stopovers. The website stopped booking them but the rules still permit them and they can be booked if you call in. Didn't really take long to verify that with a call to CorpComm this afternoon. Oopsie. DL actually dropped free stopovers on delta.com and is still planning to drop free stopovers. The "glitch" was that the public got a glimpse into what DL management has plans to do. That is all I'm going to say about the free DL stopovers being dropped this month -- before this week, for those who paid attention. About bloggers posting wrong or misleading advice, it would be fascinating to know who has what investment (including long and short) positions and other financial relationships with the airlines covered. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 23752771)
FWIW, yesterday OMAAT had 2 posts about Delta dropping stopovers. VFTW had one, FTG had one, DP had one and FM had one.
Except that Delta didn't actually drop stopovers. The website stopped booking them but the rules still permit them and they can be booked if you call in. Didn't really take long to verify that with a call to CorpComm this afternoon. Oopsie. Thanks for the informed response sbm12 |
I have never had the old AA cookie, I hear it was REALLY good :D #cookiegate
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:07 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.