Then I suppose you ought to file a class action lawsuit against the US government. Why? Because the dollar has been devalued as a result of inflation. A dollar won't buy you what it bought you in 1950, so sue the government.

Your "logic" is the same here.

Go on, file that class action lawsuit. The lawyer that files it for you will get millions, and you'll get a coupon. AMR will settle without admitting any wrongdoing, paying off the sleazeball that took your case in the process, while you get NOTHING!!!!!!

Why so vehement, mdtony? I've noticed a number of places on the board where you've posted emotional comments of this nature. Did you once lose a lawsuit or something?

If you have an opinion, why not just state it rather than resorting to paralogisms and calling people names?

The fact remains that fundamental fairness and consumer protection is still a consideration, and in the past complaints (and yes, even class action lawsuits) have altered proposed actions by airlines and others to suddenly change the value of points/miles already earned. Could it in this case? Who knows, but to some it may be worth trying.

You may think it won't work (we've gleaned that); now let's move on to something that hasn't already been said.

I have to say that I too find the idea that the airlines can change the rules whenever the want to be very disturbing. And, recent developments, and the reports of others I have read on FlyerTalk have made it seem moreso.

As some posters suggest, I find it a common practice for contracts to contain patently illegal language, put there in hopes that the other party will not question it. Here, in San Francisco, many Rental Agreements have clauses that violate the Rent Ordinance, and I am certain that many people have been harmed by that.

But, let's be clear about some things:

Whatever language lurks in the fine print, the airlines by the design of their programs intend that I consider the value of their programs in choosing to deal with their airline. I mean, what purpose do these miles serve if they don't cause me to believe that they add value to my use of their service.

There is no reason I should feel guilty for buying a product at the price that they have sold it to me for, and then expecting them to honor the promise they intended me to believe they were making.

By constantly adding to the ways that I can earn miles, the airlines demonstrate that they consider these programs to be an effective way to promote their products -- until the time comes for them to make good on the commitment.

After enticing the public with promises of free travel, and upgrades, suddenly there are capacity controls, and when the economy shifts and people start wanting to use their miles, suddenly the price goes up.

I'm not even questioning the legality of this, but ask yourself, did they intend that you believe that when the time came you would actually be able to use the miles the way they "sold" them to you?

How are you supposed to feel when a "loyalty" program promises you one thing, and then delivers something of lesser value?

And, then, let's say you have been flying so much that you have built up say a million miles, and the realities of your travel cause you to behave in a manner that the airlines decide, unilaterally, with themselves defined as the only arbiter, that your behavior has, inadvertently, without your knowledge, violated some rule of their program, and in one capricious moment they wipe out years of your "investment?" (Sounds crazy? Right? Has it happened? Possibly! Is it likely to happen to someone? Probably!)

Sobering thought -- I know I won't be building up more miles that I need. Nor deluding myself to feel that any thoughts of "loyalty" I might have will be reciprocated.

I disagree. Miles are not subject to inflation like money is. While a Big Mac might cost more today then it did ten years ago, the number of miles to travel from Los Angeles to New York did not (ruling out plate tectonics).

When FF programs first started, you could fly coast to coast four times RT and get a free ticket (20000 miles for a domstic reward). A few years ago they changed it so that you now have to fly five times for a free ticket (25000 miles for a domestic reward); inflation had nothing to do with it. We are talking about an unabashed devaluation.

devaluation = inflation

They are one and the same.

That also sounds like the textbook definition of inflation to me.

Mike

I knew I should I have left in that last paragraph I wrote, which was something like this:

I know that inflation is a type of devaluation, but for the purposes of my argument I am differentiating the two in that devaluation is a more bare-assed unabashed gouge vis-a-vis inflation being a slow, gradual, uncontrollable devaluation.

(I left that paragraph out since I thought it went without saying. ah well)

Devaluation: Reduction in value of a currency or of a standard monetary unit.

Inflation: An overall rise in prices which results in a decline in the real value of a monetary unit

So its not the same thing exactly; rather one leads to the other.

Now, just as an aside, how about deflation: less miles and less flights

No, I'm just sick of sleazeball lawyers who pretend to be suing on my behalf getting millions while I get a coupon worth ten bucks or something similar. And I'm disgusted with people who encourage such behavior.

I just got my notice that I was entitled to one commission free trade due to something that one of my former brokers was alleged to have done. They settled the case without admitting wrongdoing -- just like AMR did -- and the scumbags that filed the lawsuit walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Me? I get one free $19.95 trade.

There's another case where the sleazeball lawyers who filed a class action case against H&R Block will walk away with tens of millions of dollars, while the people who they are supposed to represent get coupons for tax prep software. Hello? The reason they went to H&R Block in the first place is because they don't do their own taxes!

You ought to be as adamently opposed to these lawsuits as anyone, because they make members of your profession look like shysters who all work for the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.

If you believe in the free market, you should believe that companies can set the price of their product at whatever rate they want. You are, of course, free to not participate in AMR's program if you don't like the new terms. But in a free market economy, companies can set the price for their product as they see fit. The price can be expressed in dollars, miles, kumquats, or whatever else AMR decides to take in exchange for their tickets.

My opinion on this is that AA has done nothing wrong. When they post an award schedule they're saying "right now, you can get these awards for this many miles." They're not saying you'll be able to indefinitely into the future. Some of us have made that assumption, and are now ticked off at AA because our unjustified assumption was wrong. I don't see why that's AA's fault. Six months notice of a change, during which you can get a ticket for yet another 11 months out, is more notice than anyone else gives of price changes.

The analogy of a department store raising the price of a coffee maker to $22, five months after you got a $20 gift certificate with the intention of buying that coffee maker, is apt here. For how long does anyone expect them to hold prices steady in case someone wants to use an old gift certificate? And, while I think grandfathering old miles to use an old award schedule is nice, does anyone expect a store to say "if your certificate was issued during 2002, you can pay our 2002 price for anything you use it on?"

Another point (unless I missed it) hasn't been made. AA does not run AAdvantage, nor does any other airline run its FF program, for our benefit. AA runs it because it generates more profit through customer loyalty than it costs. The business balancing act is to maximize the difference between those two. That's a fine-tuning process. If they make it too generous, the added costs are higher than the benefits of the increased loyalty. If they take too much away, losses due to decreased loyalty outweigh the cost savings. They have to keep adjusting to find the optimum, keeping in mind that this year's is not the same as last year's - and without yanking things around so much that the number of changes becomes a source of customer dissatisfaction independently of what those changes are.

So, if they decide that too-generous awards are costing them too much and feel they won't lose much loyalty by cutting back, they will. If they're right, they'll come out ahead. If they're not, customers will defect. That's what free choice and a free market are all about.

Efrem is entirely right that the ASSUMPTION that you will be able to get awards at the same level as were in effect when you earned the awards is UNJUSTIFIED. Certainly you cannot blame AA for that assumption. From the AAdvantage terms and conditions:

"American Airlines may, in its discretion, change the AAdvantage program rules, regulations, travel awards, and special offers at any time with or without notice. This means that the accumulation of mileage credit does not entitle members to any vested rights with respect to such mileage credits, awards or program benefits. In accumulating mileage or awards, members may not rely upon the continued availability of any award or award level, and members may not be able to obtain all offered awards for all destinations or on all flights. Any award may be withdrawn or subject to increased mileage requirements or new restrictions at any time.

American Airlines may, among other things, (i) withdraw, limit, modify, or cancel any award; (ii) change program benefits, mileage levels, participant affiliations, conditions of participation, rules for earning, redeeming, retaining or forfeiting mileage credit, or rules for the use of travel awards; or (iii) add travel embargo dates, limit the number of seats available for award travel (including, but not limited to, allocating no seats on certain flights) or otherwise restrict the continued availability of travel awards or special offers. American Airlines may make any one or more of these changes at any time even though such changes may affect your ability to use the mileage credit or awards that you have already accumulated. "

Thus, if anyone believes they are entitled to "vest" in a current award structure, it is not an expectation which AA has created, but rather wishful thinking on their part.

Djlawman

[This message has been edited by Djlawman (edited 01-06-2003).]

Another illustration to show the difference between inflation and the devaluation of AA miles:

With inflation, you can expect that your pay/salary will keep pace with the rate of inflation. But with airline mileage, the amount of miles you earn when you fly from point A to point B will not change to keep pace with the amount you need to get an award!

Exactly: inflation <> devaluation

When comparing dollars (or euro's or whatever) to miles with respect to inflation, devaluation or anything similar, there is a major difference between money and miles. When you have money in your bank account you can take action to protect it against inflation by trying to earn interest on it or by investing it.
When you have miles in an FFP account there is nothing you can do to protect them from inflation, except spending them.
Also the "powers" that cause miles inflation and dollar inflation are totally different. Especially miles inflation seems to be very unpredictable, whereas dollar inflation is more or less predictable, at least within certain ranges, giving you a way to estimate your exposure which may lead to taking appropriate action.

Anyway, my point is that comparing miles with dollars is like comparing apples with oranges




[This message has been edited by ql2112 (edited 01-06-2003).]

I think seeking government involvement over changed FF rules is rather silly. There is, however, a resource which I believe can and should do more.

That resource in Inside Flyer and Randy's organization. They do a delicate balance of working with both customers and airlines and when one of the airlines just ups the costs of an important award, Randy should make sure they aren't let off the hook easily. I was suprised that there wasn't a bigger uproar when UA raised overseas upgrades by 50% last fall. CO's move in the mid-90s which took above coach overseas travel virtually out of reach of most non-Golds wasn't emphasized enough, in my view.

Earning miles is important but Inside Flyer needs to get going on measuring, comparing and holding programs accountable on the award side, and especially on true availability (try getting overseas on a CO Saver Award). Articles on who gives an extra 100 miles with a car rental are fine. But like a lot of people, I've got a big bucket of miles and I'd like information on who is keeping their word and who is using "change at any time" escape clauses, so I can give my future business to companies that deliver what they promise.

[This message has been edited by Mountain Trader (edited 01-06-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Mountain Trader (edited 01-06-2003).]