I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough. There's nothing painful about the Freddies, it has been a joy and there's not much that needs to be improved, it seems to have met the needs of many over the years. All I'm saying is that I personally want my employees time to be focused on some projects internally that will help them better prepare for the day when I will likely want to start spending a lot more time at my ranch than I do now. While not retiring tomorrow, it seems reasonable to me to look after the best interests of my employees. So, while i appreciate your constructive criticism, this really is not about the Freddies per se. And really, the Freddies is not all the pomp and splendour. In fact, you probably do not know that hosting the Freddies with an event is only half the story. For the first ten years there was no ceremony, just the voting and the awards which I then fly around handing out in private ceremonies. So really, I do know how all this works and have been there and did measure that in my decision.

I have been here a long time. And I rarely speak up. I really appreciate the amount of public reflection which you have offered to us, over the years, about some of your key decisions. Like others, I certainly don't always agree, but I always feel gifted with your willingness to share.

As a small aside I'm surprised at the muted reaction to the cancellation of the Freddie awards as I would've expected a much stronger response to the end of an era. Does that mean the word hasn't filtered out to the wider FT audience? Or that the readership on ORP is relatively small? Or something else?

I suspect it's something else.

Personally, I will not be sad to see these awards go away. While I have a great deal of appreciation and respect for Randy Peterson and Inside Flyer, I have always disagreed with what the these awards actually meant.

These awards were more of a popularity contest and measure of the programs PR success than a rational comparison of benefits or performance of the programs in relation to each other. Only those who have flown similar amounts on a vast number of airlines can have an accurate idea to how those airlines compare. Only those who have held similar status on several elite programs can truly understand how those status benefits compare.

With the Freddie awards, those who flew "their airline" mostly and occasionally flew someone else, the majority group of frequent flyers, were asked to vote for who had the better program. Either the voter would be happy with "their airline" and vote for it or they would vote for an alternative program they had little (but very positive) experience with. Who knows if those few experiences were normal or not? Who knows if those voting for their primary program realize what status benefits exist on other airlines or how their treatment on the airline they voted for was better only because of their status, what they are missing out on that they would highly value and what they have that they would really miss if loyal to a different carrier?

IMO - the Freddies did a good job of determining who was most popular and who had best succeeded in the PR department in the minds of the common frequent traveler. The Freddies were not a reasoned voice to who actually had the best programs/performance - only voters with similar amounts of experience across many programs could begin to speak to that. IMO - the awards would have been far more meaningful if people gave value scores to all entities being compared in several different areas and the opinions only counted when there was comparable experience accross the entities being compared. The fact that a Hilton Diamond thinks Hilton has the best program means very little if he is not aware of what Marriott status is, let alone the differences in benefits.

Appreciate the view. You might have missed it but the Freddies were never about being popular, in fact you'll often see where both small and large programs did well across the board. We never counted the aggregate vote of who gets the most votes wins. Each voter had to weight their vote for how that program delivered to them. I'm not sure that there could ever be an award that could measure all you are asking. The idea that the Lexus lover doesn't count because he/she never drove a Lincoln Continental doesn't compute. The Freddies were never meant to be a competition among each program and all programs would tell you that my advice to them was this was only about how well they were doing with their own members so focus on what you are doing and do it well. The facts are that these are "loyalty" programs and if they truly did work, any member would have a very limited experience with another program. But I think you'd find from any number of members and voters that there actually has existed experience with other programs. But the norm for any "best" is in the eye of the beholder. And regardless of any comparison, it's really pretty difficult for any program keep all their individual members loyal and pleased with the benefits and rewards they receive -- those that do the best job of managing and acknowledging and rewarding an average of their members have been justly rewarded. But it's just my view.

Thank You for your response! ^


Yes, exactly. So perhaps we agree the Freddies were about who had the happiest members rather than who had the most rewarding programs?

For a loyalty program to succeed, all they need is happy members. They need not offer the benefits a flyer would most enjoy from an objective benefit standpoint. However, the FF Inside Flyer reader who is trying to select the best program might be best served knowing who actually has the best benefits?

Unfortunate "end".

As a newbie, I'm truly sad to hear this. I was praying that I would finally be attending my 1st Freddie this year/ whenever it would have taken place. The best of luck to u RP no matter what u do!

I remember talking to the AA Executive in PHX 1.5 years ago and when I wished her luck for the ceremony she just said "Oh, we never win!".

That made me thinking because I held status in most of the North American FFPs for at least some time each and compared that AA offered the best awards, the lowest taxes, the higest upgrade success and the best customer service (compared). I couldnt explain myself how some very "exotic" programms can win over that.

Anyhow, that one event has been a great gathering ! Alot of workforce is needed to drive that ceremony to it's success and lets not forget it's a pretty hefty investment in hours for any company not even talking about the expense itself.

Thanks for taking it so far ! ^

Whatever one thinks of the Freddies, one had simply to look at how proud the various carriers were, if they did well. In addition to trumpeting those successes in ads, etc. they also very actively encouraged voter participation on their own proprietary websites. That�s credibility. In a perverse sort of way, dropping them may be the sincerest form of tribute to their namesake. Always a straight shooter, who tried to build an airline that did what it said it would, Laker stands in stark contrast to today's carriers, who, in recent years have gone out of their way to back track on many of the basic tenets which underpinned what had become euphemistically known as loyalty programs. Well done, Freddie. As it turned out, this new bunch was never in your league.

End of an era.

Respect the decision, though. ^

Agree.

Cheers.

As I emailed Randy at the time -- a wise decision IMHO.

Life moves on .......................... @:-)

Glen

I thought about this up in PDX when I saw a freddies award plaque at the hotel lobby.

Have to agree with kokonutz on all statements.