http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/business/21road.html

Essentially, the author states that being an elite flier doesn't get one much nowadays. And cites FlyerTalk, too.

Registration Required.

Here's the text.

I have to say his "experiment" regarding seat availability was not a valid test for elite benefits. I don't know any FF program that gives elites a different choice of seats than a non-elite flyer. Airlines want to sell seats and if they have one available they'll sell it to anyone. Hasn't that always been the case?

The other points about lack of upgrades, surcharges for awards, etc are valid points, but I felt his experiment about seat availability was odd.

several things not said in this article:
while he bemoans the fact he got middle seats, he neglected to say if there were any other seats available. if no other seats available then it's hardly the fault of the program.

Mr. Fudd would have got stuck sucking his carry on or gate checking which Mr. Gold was able to board first and grab the overheads.

Mr. Fudd would likely have had a problem with security given his propensity to travel with a shotgun while Mr. Gold at certain airports would have gained access to the elite security lines.

As well, Mr. Gold didn't wait ti file the story to see if perhaps his upgrade status would have moved him forward given that he had 3 calendar days to get that chance, a chance that Mr. Fudd did not have. And Mr. Gold might have been able to upgrade his traveling companion while Mr. Fudd did have to sit with Sylvester.

And of course, when it came time to vacation Mr. Gold might have grabbed the last free seat available to Hawaii (better award availability for Golds) while Mr. Fudd was left home alone.

While "cute," it's the stuff left out (such as - was there really any aisle or window seats available to anyone) that make this story. Me? I would have known to book a different flight or at least check the alliance partners of Northwest and Delta to see which had less full flights to get the benefits I had earned.

Finally, after years of toiling in near-obscurity here on FT, I've achieved the status of "Intense yet Civil Expert" according to no less an authority than the Times itself.

Congratulations fellow flyertalkers, Elmer Fudd says we've made it.

:-:

The author is mixing a few different topics together and what comes out is a mostly incoherent article with no point.

He devotes a chunk of his space to rising airfares. OK fine...nothing to do with loyalty programs.

He posts an anecdote about getting middle seats offered for his test flight. Sounds like a full flight, with his Gold Elite status getting him a guarantee that he'll be on the plane. By contrast, I booked a DL flight three months ago where the seatmap showed no seats available. I still booked it, thinking "No big deal...it's an airport-control thing...I'll get a seat when I check-in on the day of the flight." Nope - these days that turns into an IDB, even when you arrive 3 hours early like I did. I was handed a $400 check and told to go away until the next day. A low-elite status would have prevented that. (Of course, the airline even attempting the old VDB process might have too, but DL apparently does not do that anymore.) Elite status gets you on the plane, even if the seat assignment is lousy.

Then he talks about how lower F fares are inducing business pax to buy F, reducing upgrades. Okay...I suppose he's onto something here - had he done an article on this topic, that would make sense.

To me, elite status is more important now than ever. It is the only way I will risk flying any of the legacy six. They have (intentionally?) made the non-elite travel experience as miserable as possible. At every step of the way from seat assignment to phone support to check-in to boarding, the airline goes out of its way to make sure you not only get poor treatment, but you know why you are being mistreated. From Flight #1, you are made aware that you must proceed through the 25,000 mile rite of passage in order to gain marginally humane treatment. Just this past week, I asked for (and received) my once-in-a-lifetime status match on United to lowly Premier. I'll fly 'em maybe 15,000 miles this year, but the difference between non-elite service and low-elite service has never been greater than it is now, so it's a worthwhile time to play that card.

The author focused on upgrades, but upgrades and the bonus miles are far down on the list of benefits I value out of elite status. Just being treated like a human being is #1 on the list, and elite status gets me part of the way there.

Of course you're right pinniped, as was Randy in his allegorical-addendum: the story sucked, or in another words, the accusations are without merit. Note to the editor who okayed this story in its current form: you work for the New York Times, as does your writer. Show some decency and do some background please.

----

Yet some of the points (inadvertently made in the story) are valid, and Randy, in your post above you yourself pointed out the slide of ff programs' quality when you defended marginal perks such as the "last award seat available" et al.


Keepin' it intense and civilized ya'all.

Oh dear, just thinking of the times when I was a nobody with AA (1996-1999) makes me shiver. It is such a huge difference: formerly, there was no problem that could possibly be avoided. Now, in the fifth year in a row as EXP, there is no problem that cannot be resolved. Thus, can only confirm what you are saying.

I agree, but I know that as an elite with United, I get a different seat map to choose from than a non-elite. I learned this when I was purchasing a ticket online before logging in with my MP number. When I went to select my seat, only non-economy plus seats showed as available. When I logged in, voila!, the good seats became available. So, for preferred seating choices, shorter check-in lines, free (limited ) upgrades, priority on wait lists, etc. I think elite status is still of value to me.

True...the author was getting close to making a couple of decent points, but couldn't pull it together coherently.

Generally, if I stumble across an article in a mainstream paper or magazine about a niche topic in which I have a specialized interest, I'm willing to cut the author a little slack if he/she keeps the article at a level designed for mass consumption. I don't expect the sportswriter in the KC Star that does one distance-running article a year to be as good as the guy who does race reports every month in a magazine devoted to marathons. Likewise, I don't expect this NYT writer to be as good as Randy when it comes to analyzing the details of an FF program.

But still...is it too much to expect a little factuality? It just makes me cringe when the writer makes a broad fundamental claim - that FF loyalty is "loony" - based on a flawed experiment and other supporting evidence that is unrelated to FF programs.

Continental Airlines does this when you book a ticket, you are able to, as an Elite to reserve a "Premium seat" in the Economy class, being the bulkheads, the first few rows to the wings and including the exit rows (at least on a 757 and 737)

Reread your first sentence. Then reread it again. It's the New York Times. If the editor and/or writer were into good journalism, they wouldn't be working for the New York Times.

I agree with the consensus. It was a silly and pointless article.

Not the most informative article, but this part:

On Flyertalk.com, a popular frequent-flier Web site distinguished by its members' intensity, civility and expertise...

...can help us feel better about ourselves, and forget that we're a bunch of travel geeks.

Civility rules!

Thread discipline is nice, too.