There once was a topic (can't find it) regarding the varying levels required to reach Silver and Gold status.

I stated that I felt all *A members should set the same level.

Someone replied (in a well thought out response) that airlines like Air New Zealand should maintain their lower level due to the shorter distances flown on the majority of their flights compared to other *A members.

I have thought about this and now completely disagree with this assessment.

My main reason is that an Air New Zealand FF member would need only 1 long-haul with class of service bonus to make Silver *A (or atleast not much more) which could be done on any *A carrier. Other *A members would need closer to 3 or 4 similar flights.

My feeling is that all programs should be harmonized. Some FF will make Silver or Gold via miles, other via # of legs.

The whole key is you can fly these miles and segments on any *A carrier and book them back as status miles to YOUR FF account.

Therefore, it is WAY too easy to make Silver and Gold on the *A members with lower thresholds.

Dorian

I see a majority of disadvantages for us (the well informed ff) if they harmonize/equalize more and more.

as it stands now, we can decide, switch, arbitrate, make gift awards to others.

Harmonizing the programs, I am afraid, would probably on many issues just mean, equalizing the programs on the lowest levels.

Egoistically, I profit from the differences of LH's miles&more and UA's Mileage Plus.

I use LH's ff-program when flying any StarAlliance-carrier on paid business (I never pay first) profiting from the 100% class-bonus (LH counts this as status, UA not), when flying TG in eco (LH 'pays' 100%, UA 50%), when flying LH in eco on nontransatlantic routes (LH 'pays' 100%, UA 50%) , when flying short UA Shuttles (LH 'pays' 500 minimum which count also for status, UA only effectif miles), and when flying first on UA N-America-2-class (LH'pays' 200% counting as status too, UA just 50% and not as status). Or for upgrades on transatlantic flights from business to first I use UA miles (20'0000 selected fares, LH 25'000 all fares), but for flights from Asia to Europe I use LH-miles (30'000 all fares, UA 35'000 selected fares).

I use UA ff-program when flying paid eco (but always upgraded to business) in N-America (and try to always reach 10'000 base miles per quarter on UA to get the quarterly one-way-confirmable upgrades for inner-US-flights).

And to top it: sometimes I can achieve extraordinary bonus promotions with both programs with the same rtw-ticket, at the same time (example: in 97 both programs ran the StarAlliance fly all get 100'000 bonus miles at the same time and with 1 paid eco, but upgrading all long-haul-segments with the StarAlliance-upgrade-vouchers valid for the same period, rtw-ticket, flying two segments with each StarAlliance-partner 'paid' me 200'000 bonus miles, worth more than the overall ticket-costs).

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 09-19-1999).]

While it might appear there are disparities between programs, remember that not all FFs fly international routes as often as most of you on this Chat Site. I quite agree with Air New Zealand's lower levels because, as was pointed out, most flights in that country are very, very short. It would be impossible for someone who only does inter-island and maybe the odd flight to Australia to hit 100K, yet they are as loyal and frequent a flyer as those who are constantly crossing the Pacific or Atlantic.

Most of my flying is domestic, so to hit 100K would require me to fly full-fare between Edmonton and Toronto every week, and then two flights to Europe or one to Asia or Australia would still be required. If I flew discount fares on the domestic flights, my mileage is cut in half (unless I have an unlimited supply of upgrades, and incredible luck to be upgraded more than 75% of the time on the domestic flights). That's why segments have to be counted.

As well, a small carrier like TE wants to ensure that most of its countrymen/women fly it rather than another STAR partner, and so making their own program more attractive ensures UA or ANSETT don't syphon the more lucrative long-range international travel.

Yes, in a perfect world everything would be equal. But this is not a perfect world, and thank goodness for that.

(Do I sense a bit of Darwinism or Ayn Rand sneaking into the site?)

You comment, however, does give me leave to think I should switch to Air New Zealand's program as my primary STAR account, and have all my AC flights credited to it. Then I'd reach Gold/Elite with about the same mileage as it would take form me to reach Prestige here in Canada. Heck, I might even make TE's equivilent of Super Elite/1K.

By the way, it's always bothered me why UA call's their Premier Executive's 1K, when the symbol "k" stands for "thousand", and 1K is just "1,000"? Don't you have to fly 100,000 miles or 100 segments to qualify. 100,000 miles would be 100K, no?

The 1K 100K topic has been talked about before (on the UA thread I believe).

Don't throw your eggs in the NZ basket if you fly mostly in Canada though. You won't get those precious upgrades (of course, who knows what AC will give us next year anyway?). Without the upgrades, there could be a shift to other programs.

As the person who brought up the NZ question (under UA I think?), I think there are a couple of issues being missed when we talk about fairness.

1. The maths example is skewed. For a intl leg to LHR from AKL in discount economy (who pays full Y?) you get 25,000 points return, that is still 10,000 short, you would need 3 return trips to SYD or 17 flights around the country to get to silver. Same goes for the gold example.

2. It is not like people in Europe or USA could opt for NZ's programme, you need to be a resident of Australia, NZ and a couple of other areas that are not serviced by another star alliance partner (that is clearly stated). So NZ's rules limit someone rocketing to gold whereas with their miles on UA they would not reach premier or premex for instance.

3. The point is not miles, it is the % of FF members who have reached elite status. Why should people in NZ be penalised because people fly more on UA?

Then above all, as was pointed out you may reach gold, but as an NZ gold elite you get no priority seating on UA/AC, no upgrades, nothing apart from priority checkin, luggage, lounge access etc.

Personally to reach gold or GE I had to fly 50% of my trips in intl and that was flying in full Y (corporate a/c) or J.

If you look at segments you need to reach star gold 100 domestic OR 14 intl paid J/P class. That is fairly equivalent to other programmes.

Mark

[This message has been edited by Koru Flyer (edited 09-20-1999).]

even in the same (StarAlliance) ff-program there are geografic differences ('discriminations'):

Examples: [*]german-residents need 150'000 status miles - non-germans only 100'000 status miles to qualify for Senator; [*]european 1K's get a free RCC membership-card with UA; etc. etc.)[*]Non-Australian based ff can't become member of Ansett's ff-program; [*]etc. etc. etc.

Rudi is right. It is obviously very difficult to set rules for just one airlines FFP. How could this be for soon-to-be 8-10 carriers ?

There are no rules fitting any individuals needs / wishes. If you try setting rules, which satisfy one group of your FF's you will harm others. It is up to us, playing with those rules to the very most advantage.

That's why I like the comparison charts (Star and Oneworld)--you can determine which program(s) will benefit you the most for your flying patterns.

That's why we ALL like your comparison charts

Ahem -- OUR comparison charts -- I only was the technician for the Star Alliance chart. Tedhl did it for Oneworld (by the way, where is tedhl?).

As was the case in 1999, we will need good intelligence from our elite flyers early in 2000 to update those charts as quickly as possible.

Thanks to BB & Co. Perhaps next year the "Alliance with no name" will have one and be included- or it will have again changed and/or disbanded! Time will tell!