Should the Freddies methodology be changed?
 

I don't know, but when Southwest can win "program of the year" after imposing capacity controls on its reward seats and taking away bonus credits, something is very wrong.

The fact that they also came in 3rd for "best elite program" -- when they don't really even have an elite program -- also leads me to wonder.

Capacity controls started in mid-February 2006, whereas the Freddie voting is based on 2005. The online booking bonus died in 2005, and that was a major devaluation. My best guess is that the other programs deteriorated in value even more rapidly than Southwest's, and that Southwest's program pre-2005 was very generous to short-haul flyers so it had some value cushion. Check out the Freddies thread in the Southwest forum for other observations, some of which may be new to you.

I don't give a s**t for the Freddie's anymore. How can TAP Air Portugal an SN Brussels win all the European categories? TAP wins for best website, but it really sucks! Try click on the Business Class link, and ... nothing happens.
FT is the forum where you find information about who's good and who's not. Not Freddie...

I certainly agree with that one......... ^

Oh, please. They announced the change in August. It's really twisted logic to think that impartial voters said "Boy, that really sucks. But since it doesn't go into effect until 2006, I'll vote them best program for "2005." :)

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...-rewards_x.htm

I think a reasonable person would say that their selection as "top program" after a year of reducing benefits is strange.

I understand this, and you are not alone. In the past, programs have often announced devaluations just after the Freddie voting for this reason. I wouldn't want us to encourage that sort of gamesmanship, not when making changes on a calendar year basis is much more favorable to us (for purposes of choosing which program to focus on in a given year).

Second, in the case of the capacity controls announced in August, we had no information by the time of Freddie voting about how tight the capacity controls would be. Then there was a programming error making the availability ridiculously tight for the first two weeks or so. By next year's voting, we will have excellent data on Southwest's capacity controls. So far, availability looks a lot better than for domestic saver awards on other airlines.

So if you voted for the 2005 Freddies based on that August announcement, you were voting based on a 2006 change the effect of which you did not know. That's a vote based on fear, not fact. Next year's vote will be fact-based, win or lose.

I didn't expect Southwest to win, and I doubt they did either. But the other programs are getting worse every year (some inflation, but mostly worse redemption), so you can win even if your program is worse than the year before.

Agreed -- ALL the ff programs seem to be getting somewhat less lucrative, especially regarding redemption. But I think I can objectively say that Southwest's program took the biggest dive last year. As you know from moderating the WN board, many loyal Southwest fliers have been very unhappy with these changes (and I can't blame them when it takes twice as many flights to earn a ff ticket!). It just doesn't make sense in light of this outburst of legitimate disappointment that WN would win best program. Somehow the Freddies are not reflecting the pulse of the "true" ff community. That's why I've suggested they might need a new methodology.

Absolutely correct. That's why I didn't expect Southwest to win this time. Perhaps Southwest far so far ahead the year before that the big dive still left it in first place, or perhaps people unfamiliar with the demise of the online booking bonus voted for Southwest based on outdated information. The primary reason is probably not knowable, but I wouldn't jump to blaming the voting methodology, especially when the margin of random chance exceeds the gap between first and second place.

OK, then what about them finishing 3rd in best elite program when they don't even have one? :)

I guess some would argue that their "companion pass" is an elite benefit, but it's so difficult to obtain (100 flights in a year!) and of fairly limited benefit (they make you designate only one companion, and it's cumbersome to change it), that I can't believe "real" WN travellers are salivating over it.

I have platinum and gold elite status on CO and US and while the benefits aren't always fantastic, they are real and achievable (upgrades, companion upgrades, significant bonus miles, special check-in and boarding priority, elite seating, free lounge access on int'l flights, elite telephone lines, upgraded award availability, fee waivers, comparable alliance benefits, etc.). I don't think anyone could objectively say that "companion pass" is in that league. Indeed, if WN offered some of these real perks, I'd be happy to go for "elite" on their airline, too!

So something remains rotten in Denmark about these results.

The 3rd place for elite could have been a protest vote against devaluation of legacy elite programs (fewer upgrades, for one thing). I can't think of another good explanation for the result.

Incidentally, in the era of double credit (just ended last month for SWABIZ customers), companion passes were quite common. 50 flights was do-able. By the end of 2007, CP's will be pretty rare.

Companion Passes are used, IIRC, an average of 4 times per year. Four free trips (even if the holder is traveling on an award) is a reasonably good perk. Yet top level elite status on a legacy carrier is more useful to most people, primarily (in my opinion) if it can break loose award seats for redemption.

That someone was trying to "fix" the vote, or (charitably) at least encourage individuals to vote mindlessly on WN's behalf?

I obviously don't know, but it seems more likely than "protest voting" -- especially when folks had more reason to "protest" against WN than anyone else this year!

That's certainly possible, but I didn't hear anything about such an effort other than the now-customary web site links to get out the vote.

Other unexpected results in my opinion were the strong showing by Choice (yes, their promos have excellent value, but the product is weak) and the complete shut-out of Hilton from the top 5 places.

Yes, the Freddies have some strange methodology. Overhaul needed.

I still amazed (after all these years) that Diners Club still wins any awards. Their annual fee is high; and, they charge to transfer points. I'm still amazed by this. :confused:

Why wouldn't all those DC members switch to the *wood Amex card? It's free the first year; then $30 a year. With the Starwood Amex card, you can transfer your points to many airlines. 20,000 points = 25,000 airline miles, except UA.
Seems like a much better deal to me.