Here's an article written by Christopher Elliot, which I'm sure many are familiar with, about FF programs and how they are rigged against the passenger. A congressman even went so far as to have the DOT audit the programs, which is currently ongoing.

http://seattletimes.com/html/travel/...lliottxml.html

Complete waste of government time. If you don't like frequent flyer programs, don't participate. That simple!

Regulating frequent flyer programs will just in turn make it worse for consumers.

Participation in a frequent flyer program is completely optional. I agree that especially with all the devaluations lately that it is a bad proposition for a lot of people. I am getting out of the miles game by opening the barclay card arrival and cancelling my Citi AA card when the annual fee is due. Even though I fly AA I feel it is a foregone conclusion they will match United and Delta when the new program is announced. At that point I get a better rate of return going with a straight cashback style credit card rewards. I will still collect miles, but ONLY BIS miles. No longer will I go out of my way to collect miles though partners.

Even southwest has devalued to a point where I am better off with straight cashback. The only airline out there with a decent program is Alaska and unfortunately they don't serve my home airport.

Don't like frequent flyer programs? Think they are predatory? Then don't join one! A real busybody this senator in the article.

+1

Actually, in the U.S. it generally isn't: you're forced to buy your miles along with your revenue ticket whether you want them or not, with very few exceptions.

That said, I do not believe it would benefit Flyertalkers at all for the government to audit or regulate FFP's. Nor would it benefit us if the FFP's became optional - in fact, that would be disastrous to people like us.

Your conclusion assumes certain outcomes about regulation and the consequences of regulation which are anything but certain unless you know the exact nature of the regulation that gets implemented.

Expanded disclosure requirements are a form of regulation that may be a very useful thing for consumers. That is unless you believe that a better informed consumer is bad for capitalism.

A better informed consumer would be bad for travel hackers. That's all I'm sayin'...

I fully concede that transparency and disclosure would be better for the average consumer. I'm just greedy about the small bit of information arbitrage that we still have in "power user" groups like this. That's all...

We rely on those billions of miles paid for but never accrued because the person didn't bother to sign up for the FFP. We rely on those billions of miles that expire. We rely on those people who redeem for a 50,000-mile Y award to Orlando. We rely on people who redeem out of those merchandise catalogs. Without all of this, our favorite long-haul F/J awards either don't exist, are impossible to get, or cost 5-10 times as much.

I game this game pretty well and better than most; and yet I don't fear that every kind of disclosure would equally undermine (if undermine at all) my ability to game this game as every other kind of disclosure requirement may.

Not all regulation is created equal. Just saying.

You do not provide a number, you do not get miles. What's the problem?
If they want to enroll you every time to give you miles, just forget for the the number and you are all set.

Noone is forced to get or use miles - you can simply fly and not care about the FFPs...

I think he is saying there are unpublished fares that are cheaper that do not provide FF benefits. If they offered these fares to the public, Kettle Jim and Jane might buy them as might businesses start to require you buy them. Thus the FF+ fares become more expensive because the once a year flyers aren't helping support it. Which is why, I think more businesses don't offer sans-benefit pricing... It hurts their programs..

Great. After all the government definitely doesn't have more pressing problems that they should be addressing.

"What difference does it make??"

What difference does what make? I was merely making a lighthearted quip.

But for what it's worth I don't see a need for government regulation or involvement in FFPs.

So was I. That's why it was in quotes. It's a fairly well known phrase in the US right now.

Government allows consolidation of US airline industry and is subsequently surprised that airlines now provide less to their customers - shocking.

Right now? Also, in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

If there is "shock", it seems to be of the movie Casablanca variety whereby the inspector claims to be "shocked" about gambling.