As many of you know, in May of 2003, American will be charging 25% more mniles for certain award tickets.

I know the mice print says we can change anything at any time, even make YOU pay US for the miles, take your firstborn, blah blah blah. I also know that just 'cause it's in writing don't make it enforceable. Call me naive, but how can they get away with this?

If memory serves, the last time they tried this they ran headlong into a massive class action lawsuit that eventually prevented them from devaluing existing miles. Why is this time different?

Before all you In-A-Free-Market-Businesses-Are-Free-To-Stay-Up-Late-Nights-Thinking-Up-Newly-Creative-Ways-To-Screw-You types jump in, answer this: What if these were not airline miles, but instead something like groceries? So instead of having 500,000 airline miles (originally) worth $10,000, I had 500,000 Grocery Points redeemable for $10,000 in produce, eggs, and milk? And what if I had spent a lot of money getting those Grocery Points because of advertising encouraging me to acquire them because of what they could be redeemed for? And then one day, Ralph's or whoever is running the promotion says Sorry, we've decided they're only good for dried turnips? Do you think people would just go, "Oh well, F me. Better luck next time?" Or do you think they're be Ralph's execs hanging from the nearest lamppost? Do you think that would be legal?

As a Californian familiar with our state consumer protection laws, I can answer unequivocally: No. It wouldn't be. In my state, it's not even legal for gift cards to expire -- EVER -- even though it clearly states that they're no good after a certain date.

Does this mean that I think companies should have to honor their commitments even when they're stock is in the toilet, they're hemorraging money, and they find out they were way too generous in the first place?

If we're talking about previously earned benefits, yes. That's exactly what I think.

When they changed the program 14 years ago it was big changes so they granfathered the old miles a great deal for us. Then they decided to just change five to ten a year and then they can just do it without to much complaining. In ten years they will have changed it through annual changes.

Funny you mentioned Ralphs! Were you signed up for Webmiles with them? Went bust in the night with no notice?

Seriously, IMO Bidkat raised valid arguments here.

Under my sense of justice it's also very questionable to give points against paid services under a certain condition of the worth of them and later change the worth drastically.

And that especially becomes true if you earned the miles on a mileage run. Or if you bought certain products mainly because you could earn miles on them.

For another view think about the business-partners of a mileage programm: They buy miles for a certain amount of money and the airline just decides to raise award levels. That is even more a point where a lawsuit would be in order.

I would guess (but don't know for sure) that in the old days of S&H green stamps, the catalog of premiums was revised on a regular basis, and the number of stamps needed for a particular item likely to change at least occasionally. But this is just a guess. Over time, that would probably have had to happen - since the number of stamps correlated to dollars spent.

In the case of flyer miles, the inflationary factor would be automatically compensated since the premium is for miles flown rather than dollars spent.

Interesting topic, which by the way, is not AA limited, so please don't move it!

Funny that you would ask a question and then tell anyone that could answer it for you that you don't want to hear from them. I bet you think that raising the minimum wage to $10 would give everyone who is working at an entry level job at least a living wage. My question to all that think this is a true statement is why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour and then everyone will be wealthy. Well at least those that still have a job. BTW you answered your own question when you stated that "So instead of having 500,000 airline miles (originally) worth $10,000, I had 500,000 Grocery Points redeemable for $10,000 in produce, eggs, and milk?" If you had this situation when the cost of eggs went up you would get fewer eggs. Sorry but the economic law of supply and demand still applies and it really doesn't matter that we may not want it to.


------------------
"A day without Points is like a day without SUNSHINE"

OK, you're naive. The terms said that they can change the program at any time - this is what you agreed to when you signed up for their (not "they're") FF program. What is so difficult to understand? All you have is a gripe, not a valid complaint.

One airline's policy does not equal "supply and demand". Right now, American can unilaterally set new award levels any way they want, and for any reason they want -- which may or may not include "supply and demand". And they can do it with impunity.

My Ralph's example was flawed -- I should have given the hypothetical Grocery Points a fixed reward value -- 5000 cartons of eggs, say. That would more closely parallel an airline FF program, which promises a specific benefit productrather than a dollar value to be used against a list of awards. FF miles aren't like that because their value is defined only by the airline's redemption schedule. If, instead of miles, they gave you scrip in dollars usable against actual market-set ticket prices, that might be another story. As Watchful points out, any argument that airlines need to raise the cost of awards periodically due to inflation is specious: it's already accounted for because awards are earned for miles flown, not dollars spent.

Price increases are always occuring. If a product is in greater demand, as award seats are on many routes, then why should these not rise after several years too? We never hear complaints about all the bonus miles given out, or increased means of earning miles. Only when the award charts change upward. I think airlines and hotels have ruined their programs by permitting miles/points to be earned with credit cards and by other non-travel related means. This inflates the number of miles in circulation, and to maintain a relative value to awards, forces them up.

I think HiltonHonors has been the bigggest offender this past year, giving out its 50K/4 stays bonus as well as Gold status willy nilly. No wonder it is raising its prime VIP awards.

I suppose for those of us who lived through the period of high inflation in the 70s and early 80s, this means a lot less to those who have experienced little of this, even in the booming 90s.

Glad you responded because I had already thought that you would have had to use the 5,000 cartons of eggs to more accurately parallel the point you were trying to make. Actually your first example is more accurate. The airlines and others are offering to give you points for purchases and/or certain actions. one thing they are NOT doing is quarantying the purchasing power of those points. This would be much like your employeer giving you a paycheck for $100 and telling you that no matter how long you keep it he will make sure you can buy 100 dozen eggs with it. This situation is definitely a supply and demand situation. There are many more miles/points earning opportunites today than there were 5 or 10 years ago. Let me ask you another question. Have you ever used a code that was provided on this or any other internet site to get more benefits? For example did you call Hilton and ask to have your card changed to a Gold Card? The internet has created little communities like ours that share information and help each other get ever more points. Most of these codes are targeted that means for the origional recipient only. Yet frequently the offeror honors all comers. More (Supply), now all of us that have earned these points want to cash in. (Demand)If no allownace were made for the effects of inflation and such soon the offeror would go broke and we will have strangled the Goose hoping to get one more free flight or one more nights stay.... Sorry, you haven't convinced me that the airline is evil. If they are then logically so are we.
For myself I'll not spend any time complaining but instead invest that time in seeking other point earning opportunites so that I can continue to enjoy things like the 6 free nights and free round trip first class air to Kona that I will be enjoying in September.
Thank You, Hilton and Alaska Air!!!

------------------
"A day without Points is like a day without SUNSHINE"

[This message has been edited by Superd1 (edited 12-28-2002).]

Duh! You buy a gift certificate to a store, intending to purchase a product that costs $X. In between the time you buy the gift certificate and the time you purchase, the price goes up to $X + 10%. Has consumer fraud been committed? Of course not. Anytime you hold on to currency of any kind, what you can get for that currency can change. FF miles are currency. Prices change. Get over it.

All of the programs now include the "right to make changes at any time" language noted above. However, much to everyone's benefit, some years ago a task force of state attorneys general negotiated with the major airlines (after some consumers expressed dissatisfaction with changes many years ago) and got the majors to agree that they would give 6 months notice of future changes. That's what American has done here. I see nothing wrong with anything they have done.

Djlawman

I never said American was evil. I don't blame them. What they're doing is apparently legal. I just don't see why it should be.

Society deserves the results of its own legislation. We decide on public policy, then pass laws to further it. When two people make a contract, we burden each side with the responsibility of finding out what they're agreeing to ("due diligence"). We do that because it's good for the rest of us to have as few legal disputes as possible -- it saves us all money (court costs). I don't see how public policy is served by allowing companies to make up their own currencies, effectively sell those currencies for exclusive use only at their "store front", while retaining the right to devalue them at any time to any degree. Clearly, it will always be in their interest to deflate their value. And that's exactly what has always happened.

Business is neither evil nor good. It is just business. When we fail to do a good job setting the rules, we pay. That's why there are thousands who used to have a job and a pension at Enron and WorldCom.

I think we have failed here, and we should fix it.

I'm not sure what your proposed solution is. It appears that it should be that award levels can never, ever be changed once they are established. Do you think this is reasonable?

I think that providing 6 months' notice is reasonable, especially since you can book travel up to 11 months in advance. That gives you 6 months to plan, and 17 months to travel, before you're affected by the new redemption levels.

If this is not enough time, then I suppose that no amount of time would be enough. After all, if you earned 1000 miles a year, it could take you 25 years to get a standard domestic award. Presumably someone, somewhere could be unduly affected even if they were given 20 years' notice of a change.

Of course, this line of reasoning could be taken to extremes:

- I fly to Australia each year, and am saving up for a First Class award on Qantas. Before I'm able to redeem, Qantas drops out of oneworld, and is removed from AAdvantage. After I earn even 1 mile, is American responsible to provide continuing availability on Qantas?

- I fly to London often, and am saving up for a first class award. AA, because of changing market conditions, decides to reconfigure their international service to a two-cabin service, offering coach and enhanced business class. I will only fly first class, and was counting on being able to redeem for this award.

- I fly from San Diego to DFW each year for Thanksgiving. I plan to use an AAnytime award to book the 7pm departure on the day before Thanksgiving, so that I can make it to DFW in time for Thanksgiving. I have to leave that late because I can't get the day off of work. AA decides to eliminate the 7pm departure.

In each of the above hypothetical cases, a change in AAdvantage or AA service could throw off the plans of someone that's been saving miles for a few years in anticipation of a particular award.

So, I think we need to accept that there will be program changes from time to time, as long as there is reasonable advance notice.

And, under a system where no changes could ever be made, I think that the benefits they'd give out would be far less than they are now.

I think it is indeed naive to say AA cannot "devalue" their miles. AA and every airline have devalued (i.e. raised the mileage price for awards) in the past, and they all continue to do so. Some airlines have just raised their domestic award by eliminating an " off peak" 20k award, and by raising some internaitonal awards. If even the United States government cannot keep the dollar from losing its purchasing power over the years, how can we expect an airline to do so with its miles ? Is it realistic to expect an airline to maintain the same award structure for ever ? If it is, I will choose the 1980s when Northwest gave me a week's hotel and a week's car rental with my awards.

I think I could make the case for a class action against the government for inflation.

After that, I'll file a case against the entire practice of currency trading because the value of my dollar bills are being devalued by some currency trader somewhere.

While we're at it, shouldn't sales be illegal? If it's illegal to raise the cost, why isn't it illegal to lower costs. We should go the German route and prohibit stores from having sales which discount things below cost. That means all those web fares are illegal.