I've been reading inside the threads of different posts and different groups more often that people approach a scenario where (for example), they make Plat on Marriott at mid-year, so they go then to Hilton to make their DDiamond level and they'll have two "highest levels" for the next year.

Or same with airlines.

I'm seeing this more and more from some random posts or chatter with colleagues at work.

My question is htat i don't understand it? If i can control "who i buy from" ... why would i ever not want to consolidate all my miles/points into a single loyalty program?

Now when i say single - i mean that i use 1 Air Carrier and 1 Hotel program ... but i do everything i can to dump into those programs, and i don't spread across the hotels, regardless of how many different tiers i could reach.

Anywone want to help me undrestand the real benefits of getting two top tiers. (take marriott for example, they're are everywhere across the US > so it probably isn't becuase they only cover 1/2 the US and hilton does the other half) ... i'm at odds with myself if i'm doing it wrong.

thanks.

I understand your confusion, and I also do think that some folks seem awfully eager to post that they are moving on to collect additional status levels with additional companies rather than enjoy their earned status levels at the first company of each type (airline, hotel, car rental) where they've worked on earning status.

I think the rational line of reasoning goes something like this: if you travel sufficiently that you can consistently earn highest level (or very good level) status with multiple programs, then choosing to concentrate all your travel with Company A means that you are restricted to Company A's pricing. Whereas if you go ahead and diversify your elite status to Company B, then you can pick and choose between Company A's prices and Company B's prices on your travel thereafter. As long as you maintain a little bit of attention to keeping your status in both companies' programs (that might mean occasionally picking Company B for a few trips a year even when Company A is offering slightly better value than Company B for that trip), you're then in a very good position that you can maintain as long as your level of travel is sustained.

This strategy is still consistent with seeking out the best value available, it's not going to the extreme of always picking the lowest published price for any given trip between Companies A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc., and possibly not earning status with anybody. And except for the initial period when you might not have any status with Company B, once you've earned status with both A and B, your further travel with either is with the appropriate perks.

I'll bite.

By shifting my 200K or so of travel between CO and AA, I get a higher possibility of upgrades on my principal route (the return of which is my Flyertalk login name.) if I fly AA. AA has a far higher upgrade level for an EXP to/from MIA than CO does for a Plat. I get VIPOW's from AA for travel to South America, these do not exist on CO. I also find that AA seems to release inventory for these upgrades VIPOW/mileage routes sooner than CO does for the routes for which you have to use miles and cannot obtain EUA's (business first routes). AA has far better service to the Caribbean. If you need to go to SDQ, as I do at times, last I checked, CO's service was from EWR, which is WAY out of the way for me and means two days of transit time.

OTOH, with CO I get better availability of flights and upgrades to Mexico and Central America from my home airport, SAT. All Y fares on CO are YUP's, at times AA seems to refuse quote YUP or KUP fares and only quotes Y26's. CO grants you double segment credit for H, K, Y and all first and business first fares. It is far easier to make top level on CO (90 segments) than on AA (100), at least if you live in Texas, because of the fact that WN forces its competitors to keep fare down, but you still get double segment qualification for the upper level fares on CO. On AA a segment is a segment and you need 100 of them for EXP qualification.

On the routes in which CO has to compete with WN, I can very frequently guarantee a seat in F through a YUP fare for a very reasonable price. For some reason, AA does not want to compete on price with WN on these destinations, at least for KUP and higher fares. The fares which get you into first automatically on the WN competitive routes seem to be much more expensive on AA than on CO. Until recently, like June of this year, AA had a lifetime elite program and CO basically had nothing to offer once you requalified for Plat. CO now has lifetime elite status and when I retire I hope to be both lifetime Plat on AA and lifetime Gold on CO. (I would have to live on an airplane the next 15 years in order to reach the 4 million BIS miles for lifetime plat on CO.)

During irregular ops, AA is better than CO, and Admirals Club agents seem to have more power to help elites than do President Club reps.

Obviously this issue is truly a YMMV issue. Would it make sense to do this if I did not fly so much in a year, of course not. It is better to have top level on one airline than middle level on two. However, on routes in which my experience tells me that I am likely to obtain an upgrade on either carrier, I can even price compare, because the fares are not always equal. For my circumstances, with lots of flying and an aversion to riding in steerage, having top status on two carriers works well.

I'll bite as well.

In addition to the reasoning given above, one has to consider that some of us travel to many distinct areas and travel enough in a year to make top tier on as many airlines as we wish (within reason), therefore there is the idea "not to put all ones eggs in one basket", which in my personal case has been a very valuable tool. I like enjoying my status on practically all the airlines I regularly travel on and their alliance partners. In some ways it is a great leveller, I can effectively shop for the best deals AND get the best service, its a win win and ultimately the exact opposite of what the carriers want.

Regarding hotels, your geographic example was extremely limited. I have been Hhonors Diamond for years, but there are some countries where Hilton has terrible penetration (China for example) but Starwood (for example) has always had more and better properties. There are also examples of cities where one chains properties are much better than the others, hence why it is handy to be top in more than one programme.

For me, once you've requalified for top-tier I move on to othe programs that are acceptable to me to gain miles/points in those programs. You never know when they might be valuable for you or somebody else. I don't collect in two programs in the same alliance. My motto is: Don't put your eggs all in one basket.


Halothane

I should have added that in my personal travels ... i'm entirely and 100% domestic.

So i wasn't privy that the reaches of Hilton or Marriott weren't as consistent once we moved past the US.

and i got my 1K on united as i was close to chicago ... but now that i'm in TX, i seem to be 'forcing myself on UAL flights' which is much harder. SO i'm slowly trying to get more AA stuff.

i always felt like i was short-changing myself, but now maybe i'll start to enjoy the double status and use it where i can.

Great feedback! thanks very much.

Used to have status on 4-5 airlines / hotel groups back in the day. Now I focus on AA and DL with *wood and Hilton since I now only work part time. Usually make at least the bottom tier on all 4 every year but mostly DL since I have LT Gold on AA.

Cheers

IF one flies enough to make top tier on more than one airline, I would say that generally you would be foolish to not choose more than one airline.

Many reasons have been well explained above. I want to add the international upgrade perspective. The most generous programs for international upgrades are clearly AA and UA. Choosing both keeps you upfront; sticking to one program puts you in back part of the time.

Say I am Chicago based, where both AA and UA can get me most places conveniently. Say I fly 100K domestic and 100K international miles/year.

Both airlines offer international systemwide upgrade instruments to top tiers, AA 8/year and UA 6/year. Only AA offers unlimitted free domestic upgrades to top tiers; Only UA offers a limitted number of advance confirmable domestic upgrades. AA domestic upgrades have a much higher clearance rate domestically versus UA because AA has a greater First Class/Economy Cabin ratio.

100K of international mileage - lets say that is 8 rountrips, averaging 6250miles each way.
As an AA and UA Elite - you would have 14 systemwide upgrades to use, so you can try to upgrade all of them, and assuming 2 don't clear, you end up getting upgrades on 7 out of 8 roundtrips for free.
As an AA elite, you would run out systemwides.
As a UA elite, you would run out of systemwides.

In order to maximize free domestic upgrades, trade some of your AA systemwides for UA systemwides, and focus the majority of your international on UA. Keep the most important transcon domestic trips on UA, to use CR1 upgrades (domestic advance confirmed; 1K's get up to 8/year). Do most of the rest of your domestic travel on AA, where you will never run out of free upgrades like you would on UA and upgrade clearance is generally higher (certain routes are notable exceptions).

So by splitting your travel between AA and UA with top tier on both, one can ride upfront as often as your upgrades will clear without having to use a single mile towards upgrades or paying cash copays, both domestic and international. Choosing either program alone will leave you in coach part of the time unless you want to use up your miles upgrading.

Great examples and logic above. I enjoyed reading the strategy of using UA+AA combo. I am actually planning to combine UA+AS next year since it is easier to hit MVP on AS, as I don't fly enough to hit 100K on both UA and AA.

My needs are very "immediate" and I am just hedging bets and spreading risk in terms of award availability and route options. This is particularly true with Hotels and you almost need another program with SPG that has "only" 900 hotels and many of them are in great locations across the world, but none in Monterrey, CA or White Mountains, New England. MR and HH are fairly similar in terms of footprint, but still there is a lot of difference in terms of availability.

Am I the only UK person who is totally confused?

This seems to be entirely US based,,,,i don't think we in the UK have the same system

Please tell me if i am incorrect.

hfly has hinted at it, but let's make it simpler:
Imagine having a lot of trips to, from, and between various places in Russia (where only Skyteam have good coverage) as well as South America (where Skyteam only have a few outstations when oneworld offer a gazillion flights). Which "single" loyalty programme would you choose to consolidate your miles into?

Individual airlines have different terminology; yes it can get confusing!

AustinFlyer76 asked why someone wouldn't just stick with one airline/hotel once you have earned status there. Why earn status multiple places?

As a UK based frequent flyer, say you fly BA and BA's partners (OneWorld) a lot and earn enough tier points to qualify as a BA Gold (the top published BA level). Should you now just fly British Airways or should you choose to fly BMI (British Midland, BD) enough to also earn status on BD?

BA and BD benefits are very different from the AA and UA international upgrade generosity I was describing in my above post. I would however argue that IF you fly enough to earn both BA gold and BD gold, you should.

Why?

- You can price shop BA (and Oneworld partner) and BD (and Star partner) flights now while still receiving status benefits no matter who you end up on
- You can schedule shop BA and BD and partners while still receiving status benefits
- When you want to redeem miles, some routes that BA is very hard to redeem on are easy with BD and vice versa
- When things go wrong, it is great to have another airline to go to, with priority at the other airline (to be accommodated)
- You can focus your flying on BA when they have their bonus miles promotion and switch your focus to BD when they have theirs, meaning you will end up with more miles earned than if you were only loyal to one program

If choosing between BA and BD based on frequent flyer program, BD will generally give you a much greater return on your investment in terms of free flights. However, BA serves far more routes far better. Choosing both programs will allow you enjoy the quicker earned rewards provided by the generous BD frequent flyer program while having the option to fly BA with benefits when BD (and Star partners) don't get you where you need to go conveniently.

Not really. They only go to London.

Well, where else would you ever want to fly from?
Even if you live in Manchester, BD may or may not serve you better. BA is simply a much larger airline that can fly you more places than BD. Now, if you are willing to connect in FRA/another Star hub, the world opens up for the BD flyer.

Even though their premium products aren't quite as exciting as those offered by BA, AF or LH, KLM are without doubt the most convenient airline for UK flyers, especially those of us who fly a lot of shorthaul. They go to about 15 British airports (including LCY for London traffic) multiple times a day, and AMS connections are much easier as well as more reliable than LHR ones.