Moderator....helllooooooooooooooooooooooo!!??

I want people to read this thread, because I think it will resonate with many.

I don't mind if Cigar vs NJDavid want to duke it out, but would you kindly consider moving it to someone else's venue.

Thanks.

NJDavid and Cigarman- When you are not posting to one another, you provide good insights. Would you care to share your thoughts on 'Early Disclosure' issue. We need help here!

And round & round & round we go, again and again... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I did. It is a critically important discussion.

My sincerest apologies to the community for cluttering up the thread to defend myself.

A conclusion would be that every year an airline would have to maintain the same amount of reward ticket percentages in each category.

If for example, AA gave 8% of reward seats in 2001, then in 2002 the reward seats percentage should be the same. Extrapolate from 2002 to 2003, and so on.

I agree that's not reasonable, but that's not what I think is being asked for.

If an airline publishes it's FF program details in January 2002 to take effect January 2003, then everyone earning miles for the year 2002 knows exactly what they will get in 2003. Whan January 2003 rolls around, the airline can announce the changes for January 2004. They can still reduce or change benefits every year, but they do it fairly - when everyone is set at -0-. There are no two ways around the fact that collecting money for a product that they have specified but reserve the right to change or reduce would not pass muster in the US courts. Not for a store, a service provider or an airline. Have you ever noticed the end of a product warranty that states the exclusions may not be legal - that's why.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 09-10-2001).]

Last year United made some changes to its elite qualification late in the year. They did it considering the problems that their customers had. I don't think that they should be disallowed from doing so. This year NW is having a promotion which allows members to get status miles with non-flight partners. The rationale stated is that business flying is taking a downturn, and they want to help their customers maintain their status. If you disallow any changes, then the airlines will not be able to fine tune their programs.

The flip side to the x+2 argument is that it legitimizes any changes to FFPs. I am not ready for increases in the award tables in 2003. Ultimately I think that it is consumer reaction, rather than govt regulations, which will force the airlines to act a certain way.

If an airline wants to change a program for the BETTER late in the year, AFTER they have committed to program changes (good or bad!) for the following year, obviously no one is going to mind.

The protection of early disclosure is against changing a program for the WORSE late in the year.

The goal is NOT to hamstring the airlines, just to give us the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision about which program best meets our needs and gives us the lead time to pursue that program's elite program.

I hope UA doesn't change a thing for better or worse!!

Actually, last year when United liberalized the MP program by temporarily lowering the qualifications for the elite levels, some FT'ers did complain, bitterly in a few cases.

In my own case, after being a 1P-lite for 2001 (although not by any means 1P for the first time), I'll qualify easily for 1P again for 2002, so it seems to have been good marketing on United's part. Other than that, the point made by beaubo is well taken. There's a big difference between giving people something extra and taking something away.

The only concern I would have with this is who defines what is "better". While I really like the theory of pre-defining benefits and rules a year in advance, but allowing "beneficial" changes during the year, I wonder from a practical perspective how this would work. The airline could easily claim that, for example, tighter restrictions on upgrades makes the program better for the most premium members (even if it essentially screws the rest of the people). That would be better for some, lousy for others.

I don't know... it seems like there ought to be some way, but from a practical perspective it seems like it'd be a nightmare. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just trust the airlines to do the right thing in the first place? Okay, okay, stop laughing. I said, stop laughing! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

dmfriedman-

Since the programs are pretty mature at this point, there really shouldn't be the need to make any major changes, good or bad.

Most LATE in the year changes/perks offered are not so much inducements as they are apologies. So, assuming that UA has an uneventful year, wse shouldn't be getting any LATE surprises anyway.

If the trade off is the CERTAINTY of knowing the program structure x number of months in advance each year, versus the RISK of UA not spiffing us with yearend surpises, I'll happily take the former.

As mentioned before, what one considers "good" could be considered "bad" by others. So if United gives SWUs it could be considered good by those who get the SWUs and considered bad by those who do not get them. And vice versa.

Also the term "major change" is subjective. I thought that when CO changed to auto upgrades it is a minor (and good) change. But some think otherwise.

I don't think that anyone likes last minute surprises. On the other hand if we disallow changes for a year before the changes go into effect, it would disallow a large number of changes - one of which could have been the granting of the SWUs to 1K members by United (was this in 1999?). If they had to wait a year then before giving the SWUs would they even have given the SWUs to begin with?

The NW promotion this year is not an apology but an inducement. This is the kind of change that would be disallowed since it does not fall under a one year disclosure. But I am glad that it is being offered.

PG-

You actually reinforce my point, however inadvertently!

It is precisely the SUBJECTIVITY of program changes that makes early disclosure so compelling.

Your example is proof that two people can perceive the same change as being helpful or hurtful to them. So, more the reason that these two people should have sufficient time not only to EVALUATE the program changes, but also have time to REACT to those changes (namely the guy who feels hurt can have time to join another program and shoot for status). Early disclosure works for both PERCEIVED good and bad changes in program./

So how many people have left CO for another airline after the auto upgrade changes? I have not seen much REACTION to the PERCEIVED change - my impression is that NJDavid still flies CO - correct me if I am wrong.

As I have posted many times, because of past instances affecting other Flyertalkers, my specific choices for airlines and routes and the reasons for them are private.

However, I will say that CO has lost substantial revenue from my firm (%50) because of this change.

But this has little to do with the subgect at hand. We are not discussing a CO policy, but a policy of all US airlines. Bait and switch and whether or not it's truly fair or leagal, or should be challenged.

"Bait and switch" is a pretty inappropriate term. I've yet to be baited by UA about their 1K upgrades - the UAL web site does not even mention either the N.A. confirmed one way upgrades or the systemwide upgrades.

http://www.ual.com/site/primary/0,10017,1170,00.html

Similarly I fail to see how bait and switch could be used for CO going to auto upgrades. After all, the passengers that CO upgraded automatically could very well have phoned in for their upgrades. Simply by automating some process does not make it a bait and switch tactic by the airline.