What do you consider to be a 'reasonable' amount of advance notice for a FFP to announce changes to its program and allow for a transition to such changes.

In the last couple of months, we have seen SQ abruptly terminate its relationship for transferring points to SPG, and as noted below, LH was equally as arbitrary in restricting BD Cash/Miles award access to LH F product.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=847190

Choice Hotels just raised their conversion rate for WN RR credits from 5000 to 6000 overnight with no advance warning.

Amtrak Guest Rewards is notorious for unannounced changes to both partners and to material features of the program. The "enhancements" are followed with terrible communication about the changes and general confusion.

Most recently, around May, they suddenly forbid redemption of non-Amtrak rewards to Select members and AGR credit card holders. Then, again without any notice, members could no longer simply HAVE the credit card to redeem non-Amtrak rewards, but also must spend $200 per year on Amtrak travel.

While I agree that changes without notice are sometimes bad, most FFPs rules do allow changes at any time without notice.

As for the BD cash+miles loss of ability to redeem on LH F, there is still the option of regular LH F award and I wouldn't be so quick to blame LH on the say-so of a few call centre agents. Airlines don't restrict award availability based on how many miles it costs to redeem from a partner FFP. The most plausible explanation (to me) is that like UA with it's filtering of *A awards, BD has realised it is paying considerable sums to LH on this type of redemptions.

Not the US-based ones. Most I've seen have 30-90 day notification requirements. It is always better for the customer to provide more notice and more time to finish out the old policy, as most changes these days involve the removal of benefits. I'd say that 30 days is sufficient for anyone that was about to make a move. Otherwise they'll just have to live with the new rules. It still won't always be good, but it will be enough time to make something happen if appropriate.

Thanks for the question beaubo.

This probably will be answered in three parts and I never mind a question from you because I think you're one of many on FlyerTalk who actually appreciates other points-of-view, and finds value in seeing those.

To answer first and most obvious, were either SQ and LH guilty of breaking their rules with these changes? The answer is clear, they were not. SQ's "TOS" states: "1. Singapore Airlines may change the programme rules or programme benefits without prior notice, even though such changes may affect the value of miles, PPS Value or awards already accumulated. Singapore Airlines reserves the right at any time, to initiate changes without limitation to the following:
a. KrisFlyer programme partners or participating organisations."
As for LH, their TOS states: "Miles & More, acting in good faith, reserves the right to alter or amend the membership terms and conditions, the awards, award scales or any other Miles & More procedures described in the programme documents at any time, wherever such changes are considered necessary."

The second part is what I personally think reasonable. Well, I do abide by appreciating that those that have the gold, make the rules. I may not like it and will likely complain and feel abused depending on the situation, but at the end of the day, I return to the point of understanding, they did no wrong if it is clear that I accepted their rules in the first place. However, as a very active member of these programs for a very long time, I do not think it unreasonable for the entire industry to agree to a standard three-month period of notice for any change effecting: program partners (either formal partners of the program or those that use that program's currency for marketing and promotional purposes), the rules for earning or redeeming miles, the award structure and availability of awards, the rules for use of awards and the cities served, the features of special offers and promotions.

And for the final part, much of any dispute on these and similar issues comes at a price. It would be the lingering debate of what is the role of any governmental agency in overseeing or at least providing the basic protection for any consumer in these issues. First of all we can't be so ignorant to think that we only want government involvement in these issues? Most that I know don't like government participation at this level, instead preferring to let the free market work its way - and in this case, if you don't like the rules, then move your business. But as we know, most if not all of us don't want to move our business. We want each and every program we participate in to be what we want and with some of these programs approaching 70 million members, that is highly unlikely. I am quickly becoming a fan of various governments involvement for certain consumer rights, such as the EU and the government of Australia. But having said that, I as well find issue with other things that those same governments are involved with or have issued rulings on. Yes, there never is a perfect world. For many of these decisions, it's business, business that is at times not controlled by them. For instance in the parter side, sometimes when the contract is up for renewal, the partner decides to end the relationship and doesn't inform the program until that renewal date. In other situations, it appears that something was overlooked and the promotion/offer was simply bad business for the program and there is a financial need to abort the offer. In these situations I am usually torn both ways: first that tough, you made the offer and in this modern day of marketing and analysis, if you make the mistake, you live with it - that or fire someone and get a better promo person in there that won't make those mistakes. The rise and fall of expectations of the members of any program live on these issues so spend the time getting it right. OK, that's the tough guy side of my brain. Now, on the business side, hey, if it truly was a mistake of judgment on the impact of the offer, then it seems reasonable to be able to modify it. Heck, I was in that situation myself when InsideFlyer did a promo for bonus points with Starwood for subscription incentive. It was fine at first but then someone discovered a distant wrinkle and before I knew it, I was draining cash fast. Rather than end it suddenly, I bore it out until the last notice and I think as you know, it cost me six figures. An expensive mistake on my behalf but that's life. And of course, to this day, my gut tells me that my misjudgment which was extremely beneficial to those who were able to participate in the promo has been long forgotten and appreciated by loyalty by most who gained. Which might be an interesting way to close this out. When you've really gained an advantage in a situation that benefited you enormously, did that really cement a long-term relationship with you as a consumer or did you move on at some point later. You see, just as programs can change the rules, so it seems we as consumers can as well.

Anyway, sorry for the long answer but as I think you've come to expect, I always try to firmly balance an answer with facts and reality. But I'm in on the three-month notice!

Thanks for taking the time to answer.


.....and I'm still sitting on 464K of QF miles from the SPG promo, DEFINITELY haven't forgot your initiative with that promo!!!