Hillary?

Also in the 1960s and before. But a FFP before the 1970s? Don't recall that, even as frequent buyer/customer programs have been around long before that -- along with concerns about frequent buyer/customer programs opersting like Ponzi-schemes or otherwise having sustainability concerns.

I know we're well into a hypothetical realm here, so I'll just speculate: I suspect that if the government scrutinized FFP's closely, they'd want a lot more transparency and metrics about all of the programs. A quasi-balance-sheet, in mileage terms, from major programs. There would be a natural tendency to examine accounting and reporting practices, and there might even be a push to define fliers' rights (legally) with regards to their miles. That leads us to a place where miles are treated more like property, like a currency.

Even if we stop short of taxation of miles (which is where this discussion often leads), I think it could lead to "flatter" programs where 1 mile translates to a fixed discount against future travel. (In other words, the Southwest program.)

All done with good intentions on the part of those seeking change, but change that doesn't necessarily benefit those who already know and play today's programs very well.

Fully recognize that this isn't the only possible outcome...it's just one outcome that gives me pause whenever we have a thread about expanding oversight, often done with the thought that fliers should legally "own" their miles.

But you're forced to buy them. Every time you fly. Very, very limited exceptions on U.S. carriers.

Indeed...I was mainly thinking of "suboptimal users" opting out of the programs, thus halting their subsidization of my long-haul F award, eventually leading to the cost of that F award to me going up in one or more ways. But give our clients/employers the option to *not* pay for our miles, and yes, you can see where that's going rather quickly...

Green Stamps!

I think this article makes a valid point. From the perspective of the majority of the public, frequent flier programs do more harm than good. Essentially, most people pay a little more so that a few people can get extra benefits. Of course, most of us are in the latter group

Norway banned frequent flier programs several years ago, and by some accounts fares have gone down.

It would be interesting to see what comes of this. I don't see any bans or major regulations in free-market-crazy America, but perhaps there will be disclosure requirements similar to a Schumer Box.

Norway never banned frequent flyer programs. Norway banned the earning of frequent flyer miles on some flights; but it did not ban earning of FF miles for all flights. Nor did it ban companies from having a frequent flyer program offering in Norway or from marketing FF programs to Norwegians. What Norway did to increase the opportunity for competitors to rise up against the legacy carrier was to restrict the earning of FFP miles/points on a defined type of route. Sweden did something like Norway did too, but Sweden's method was more targeted and city pair specific than Norway's. This of course is largely just a history lesson at this point. That said, the restrictions did level the playing field a bit for de novo players/competitors and had probably increased the affordability of travel over what it would otherwise be. Whether such approach would hold true for the US is more in doubt.