oliver2002

I doubt we 'fix' things at FT to suit LH so that we gain favours of any kind. LH learned of the LPJ promo and the implications (a few dozen CessnaHONs) via FT

However I must admit that I refrain from posting everything on FT or VFT I hear and see because it ends up in some blog, tweet or mydealz.de

GUWonder

Some things occur even without intention of organization targets, and some times those outcomes take place even without the "targeting" organization having explicit intent to control the dynamics.

Increased corporate representation on FT is a sign of FT's success but also may be a sign of risk that the "message" becomes increasingly "corporate" even if that may not be an explicit intention of one or even both parties. Part of the consequence of such shift is that more material will go deeper underground than is already the case. Another consequence is that those who don't tow an official line or cower in front of it sufficiently may face additional risk.

This pursuit of litigation is unfortunately not going to change a thing in that regard. I wouldn't even be surprised if some of the involved parties gets something tossed their way by LH to keep the settlement details underground as much as possible.

oliver2002

Hmm.... valid point. I suppose if we had representation from LH there would be a balanced discussion and not every controversial topic would be fought out between the 'cheerleaders' and 'bashers'. OTOH if you are not (positively or negatively) passionate about a topic you don't get inspired to post about it. If this forum would have been a LH prayer group Randy would have merged it with OEFFP years ago

Representation on FT is far from the best thing since sliced bread: LH Relate often just stated that things are what they are and Roger is getting nowhere to get a response from LX's lurker about the O in OPC for the UK

I doubt there is so much material getting generated nowadays. FT came along during a time when loyalty companies and travel providers were migrating their sales channel to the web and the associated lapses were profited from big time, including the pricing mistakes associated from wrongly filed fares, currency conversions etc. Gary Leff blogged about the big mistake fares yesterday which I read during my commute home and was reminiscing about: these kind of deals will become rarer as travel providers will monitor all possible channels and various repeaters will make sure that either the 'harmed' are quickly informed or the 'benefactors' are too large in number for the 'harmed' to just let go and adjust the damages under 'lessons learned' or 'goodwill'.

captainiglo

Okay, call me stupid, but I really don't get the point.....

This guy sues LH because M&M changed (= raised) the price (in the virtual currency 'miles') of awards and not give advanced enough notice of doing so.

Well, I hate to tell you all, but the last time the gas station raised their prices, they did not give me a lot of notice, either. Actually, they did not communicate that at all with me, they just changed it....!! Can I sue them for having done that (multiple times over the last year)????

I do understand that we all are unhappy about this 'price' raise, but please, do we really believe that a company raising a price is a reason to go to court?????

weero

I grudgingly agree. They should have chosen a place with a less polarized legal system.

I mean what can they hope for in post-Kohl Germany where the system frees LH from strike related delays of their customers and allows travel organizers calling pretty much any decent offer an "error fare" post factum and getting away with it .

Even the crippled Swiss system is lightyears ahead.

weero

To adhere to this logic: there is actually never ever any real reason for the 'cost' in miles going up as the award scheme is a percentage of the spending on flights and hence if flying gets more expensive miles would do so.

So raising the percentage is much like your favourite petrol station rose its gas price from 1 liter per liter to 2 liters per liter.

All these increases are almost exclusively based on erroneous speculations of the management with the awareness that a crony-legal system will back whatever scummy excuse they come up with by providing some weak law and policy washing to make it smell more legalese .

TRAVELSIG

Well, I would never call an FTer stupid.

The M&M program has Terms and Conditions including a notice period.

While I cannot discuss with my gas station the price per litre of fuel, the garage associated with it services our corporate automobiles and has a contract per vehicle/per km- and that is renewed on a yearly basis. So- they cannot change this contract for example without following the written notice period.

TRAVELSIG

Thanks Oliver for such a detailed response. As you have said LH is taking a serious risk, and I really cannot see the reasons behind it in the current trading and competitive enviornment.

Just as LH has a duty to their shareholders- anyone who is travelling for their company for work has a duty to ensure their costs are kept to the minimum possible- and the elimination for example of the D booking guarantee for HON and C booking guarantee for SEN is not assisting this situation.

True, suppliers need to adjust- and it is also the responsibility of the customer to ensure the supplier does not adjust too much- or the responsibility of the customer to actively search out other suppliers.

Want to increase margins and differentiate- driving higher ROI, EBITDA, or ROE? I am all for this- however it really does begin to rise the question for me if Lufthansa knows what they are strategically doing to attract premium passengers when the response to Googling the word Lufthansa in Europe is : "Lufthansa ® - Cheap flights from 99€". Combine this with the NEK business product which is brutally uncomforable- and it begs the question- "commodity" or "differentiation"? If "differentiation" why on earth have the first words communicated on Google as this? Cheap flights? Really?

Lufthansa needs to get more competitive with their product- and this includes their frequent flyer program.

IAN-UK

The "don't rock the boat!" argument is one of the less appealing I've seen in this thread dominated by Lufthansa's praetorian guard.

To suggest that the opportunity to attend a marketing shindig is in any way a quid quo pro for the opportunistic devaluation of a currency system is absurd.

DownUnderFlyer

Accounting purposes sounds as if this was mandated externally. The redemption levels were raised to make more money. BA has decreased levels on many routes, increased on others.

weero

Patently absurd to someone - like me - who lost interest in LH as a company and institutions and to whom operational insights. announcements, management reasoning, and IT functionality are hence as vain, void, and empty as the rites of a long extinct cult.

I wouldn't trade a 1000 miles for more knowledge about and around LH.

dracjimm

Completely agree. I see no benefit to accumulating 100k miles to make senator with lufthansa when I can get the exact same privileges & more by accumulating 20k - 50k miles to make gold on another pgm. It ought to be renamed miles & less.

CalFlyer

Eggendorfer is not my hero, but I think it is a very good thing that someone is suing LH about this. I have myself seen my millions of M&M miles devalued with the introduction of the new redemption scheme; I complained to LH and asked for compensation, but no willingness at all. It is very clear I cannot spend millions of miles within a few months.

What I am really angry about is the fact that LH did not only change redemption levels for future miles earned, but also for existing mileage balances. This is a retroactive reduction of a "discount" (which miles basically represent). Interestingly, also for miles that I earnt through non-flight transactions or even through direct purchase against cash.

The solution would have been simple. When Delta raised their US domestic mileage levels in the 1990s (eg economy RT from 20K to 25K) they were forced in a lawsuit to retain old program miles and redemption charts next to new program miles and redemption charts. For more than ten years my account statement showed both balances. LH should have gone this way right away if they truly appreciated their customers.

I am sure Eggendorfer would win his lawsuit; LH will try to settle before a final verdict, but any such settlement will trigger another flood of lawsuits from other members who understand that Eggendorfer got what he was looking for.

NickB

It is indeed not entirely clear that the BA changes are accounting-related.

There was a clear example of BA wanting to decrease its balance sheet liability with respect to miles in the past when reporting requirements changed a few years back. They did not increase burn levels. Instead they let you book for a short period all awards at 50% of their normal level. Now that is an idea for LH to ponder.

FLYGVA

It was only a sidenote, not the whole argument - in so far this is taken a bit out of context. At least I know, that this is marketing and you only get the honey on such events.

From my view, the announcement of the higher number of award miles necessary to use for an award was sufficent. Within the T&C of M&M is no paragraph that says, that the announcements have to made a certain period of time in advance. Aside that, prior to January 1st, 2004 the same number of miles were necessary for the most awards like it is now. And like everything else, prices could rise and fall and have done so in the past and for the most FFPs.

One accecpts the t&c if one joins M&M. If you are not satisfied with what you get, simply leave the programm as you will not fly an airline, you are not satisfied with again or would not return a hotel, which does not treats you well. But to sue LH is in my eyes not the way to deal with a situation like this.

LH does not promise you anything concrete like fly five times C FRA - LAX and get a free flight. In so far you could not expect to need the same number of miles for the lifetime of the programm.