AA has already extended FF status through 2003. How do you folks (beaubo, NJDavid) view this change which violates the "set in stone" principle?

PremEx mentions "Actually, I am hoping United doesn't go this route, but it's not totally unfair given the extreme circumstances, and I would support it if United follows suit." Which is what I also feel.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005317.html

I wonder if NJDavid would call this change "fraudulent" or "bait and switch".


[This message has been edited by PG (edited 09-27-2001).]

PG-
I hope I've not come off as dogmatic here. Obviously in light of Sept 11, all bets were likely going to be off for this year anyway. Remember, this thread well pre-dated the airline industry problems.
That being said, I referenced your link. And sure enough, AA's 'early' decision to annouce 2003 extension is consistent with my theory that the FFPs that announce EARLY could have a competitive advantage attracting new members (and reassuring existing ones) and/OR motivating other FFPs to consider equally 'early' and close-to-matching decisionmaking.

I agree that AA could have waited until Dec to encourage more flying by its now complacent Exec Plat and Plat, BUT iit sure showed some serious RESPECT for their membership...irrespective of whether people agree or disagree with their offer.

We have been working on a story about all this for the next issue of InsideFlyer titled: Frequent Flyer Programs in Crisis. We've chatted with all program to cover the changes that aren't so evident. quite an interesting topic as you have all identified.

As I posteds in the referenced thread:

These are extraordinary times that might call for extraordinary responses, but all things considered, I still feel strongly that programs should be fixed in stone a year in advance to avoid situations that some perceive as a benefit and others do not. This particular change is not so much bait and switch, as it is meant to be a gesture of good faith, but as others have commented, it screws those who do manage to make the threshold. No last minute change is good.

Randy-
I'm pleased that this topic has merited both the attention of IF and your attention to post here.

Here's hoping the airlines have the nimbleness, expertise and creativity to rebound without gutting their FFPs (or overpromising their FFPs for that matter!).

Since I'm asking for disclosure from the FFPs, I suppose I need to come clean as well, so that my comments are not construed as having a hidden agenda.

I'm a Million Miler with UA, so its lifetime PremEx status, no more mileage treadmill. And after being 1K for 5 years straight, I find that PremEx status works just fine. When I need 1K stuff like SWUs, they're 'available'!

So, UA's offer of double mileage and withholding of rollover elite status for '02 don't effect me at all.

That having been said.....

I find UA's decision (at least so far!) not to rollover elite status for '02 BOLD.

I gave AA early credit for showing RESPECT to their members by disclosing early their '02 elite status rollover. But respect and INTEGRITY are two different things. UA is demonstrating that status is truly worth something.

Its tough looking long run right now, but I believe that AA will win gthe battle (get alot of disgruntled UA elites) but UA wlll win the war (because it will be able to deliver on its benefit promises in '02 because of an undiluted elite status pool whereas AA is going to be overinundated and will end up with a very disgruntled membership). So, for '03, many AA 'converts' will migrate back to UA, knowing that UA has a high but attainable elite status standard.

Beaubo,

Great comments!!! I totally agree. While I am not a 1K (would love to have those SWU's!), I hope United never does again what they did last year when they reduced threshold levels for elite status. I worked hard for PremEx and believe that status means something. If I was 1K, I would have been very disappointed when the 84K rule was put in.

I hope United "sticks to its guns" on this one... and does not dilute the value of 1K even though I would benefit at a lower level.

William

Spoke with Supervisors at both MP and Customer Service and they both said that callls into their offices had been SURPRISINGLY in the majority for NOT extending status or lowering the bar, etc. Both Sups sounded like UA was willing to grin and bear it in order not to dilute their elite program.

Maybe once, UA wiill resist that ridiculous airline credo of always playing ME-TOO.

I don't want to be looking over my shoulder constantly about my FFP rule/benefit changes. They are supposed to engender loyalty, not paranoia. I hope they will return to that mission.

With all the supposed generosity of the ailines with extra points, extended status, etc., we still don't KNOW what we are actually striving for for '02.

IT'S amazing that the airlines have been able to convince us to earn status/mileage without having a clue how those status/mileage programs will work in '02.

I want to trust the airlines and fly on the come, but I am perplexed by their CONTINUED collective silence about what to expect in '02. My hope is that at worst, they won't change anything for the worse, or even for the better since times are tough for the airlines. but their NO COMMENT this late must be cause for concern.

One thing is certain - the airline industry is changing a lot. Some airlines have folded. Others are racking up huge losses and in danger of folding. It is not unconceivable that United may go belly up.

American has extended elite status for a year. Others are offering ways to get additional status miles - these airlines would like FFs to continue flying, though they may further sweeten the pot at the end of the year.

I don't know what the question is with respect to what to expect in 02, my take on it is to expect more of the same.

One can't easily tell you what they themselves do not know!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/008730.html

well, the folks at Aeroplan must have torn a page out of this thread, because;

* they waited until the VERY last minute to announce sweeping (and uniformly negative) changes to their progam

I am sympatheic to the airlines collective plight and begrudgingly accept that some retrenchment might be necessary.

But, why couldn't AC have ANNOUNCED their plans now, but delayed IMPLEMENTATION until mid-year....to give everyone some breathing room to adjust to the changes and to allow some type of advance planning for AP members to decide on a rational exit strategy (liquidate miles).

If AP gets away this sudden bombshell without a whimper from its membership or from the FFP vanguard (that's you Randy!), then I'm fearful that AC's precedent will be brazenly repeated by the US majors.

To reiterate, my consistent issue is NOT hamstringing the airlines in their ability to make changes, but rather to make those changes effective after a reasonable (6 mo.) grace period after the announcement of changes.

What announcement are you referring to? All that we've been told has come from idividual agents and NOT Air Canada or Aeroplan. I think when airlines say things like this in advertising they imply something in such a statement:

"And remember that the more you fly, the closer you�ll be to Aeroplan Prestige�, Aeroplan Elite� or Aeroplan Super Elite� status�along with the exclusive benefits that go with each."

I think that its implicit that EARNED benefits will be the same or very similar to those currently in place. Surely AC could not simply decide that Prestige 2003 benefits were unlimited pretzels, Elite was pretzels and one bathroom pass and Super Elite was the foregoing but unlimited bathroom passes. This is NOT what AC thinks its customers are expecting - they know this very well.

Its just crazy the way airlines think they can just pull the rug out from under those who have spent the cash and flown the miles without any consequences.

The absolute worst thing is the utter and complete lack on communication from the company regarding these issues - heck they've yet to announce qualifying levels for 2002. I will refuse to spend a dime before they tell us what the terms are, preferably for 2002 and 2003.