United CFO Rainey Implies Certain Elites were "Over Entitled".
May 24, 2012, 1:03 pm
#1111
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: UA 1K / 1MM; AA EXP; SPG Plat
Posts: 143
I wonder if marketing folks on this board have any thoughts about why the choice has been (by COdbaUA, but also the others) to go the route of watering down benefits rather than raising thresholds?
What I mean is that when these programs started 25K was though to be a lot of travel, and 50K a HUGE amount (hence, in *A, they don't even have a Plat etc level).
OK -- so over time, more and more people are flying, and these programs swell. OK ... so what do they do? They just add new higher levels (GS and Platinum) and water down the benefits for those who were once thought to be valuable in the Silver and Gold categories.
An alternative would be to preserve benefits, but raise the threshold ... instead of deflating benefits, why not inflate the thresholds
Silver - 30 or 25K
Gold - 60 or 70K
1K (renamed perhaps) at 125K ....
This would be nasty for those just barely hitting current numbers (and I'm one of them), but would mean if you do the time, you get to actually enjoy the promised land as promised?
In other words, don't change the entitlements, just make them a little more challenging to achieve?
What I mean is that when these programs started 25K was though to be a lot of travel, and 50K a HUGE amount (hence, in *A, they don't even have a Plat etc level).
OK -- so over time, more and more people are flying, and these programs swell. OK ... so what do they do? They just add new higher levels (GS and Platinum) and water down the benefits for those who were once thought to be valuable in the Silver and Gold categories.
An alternative would be to preserve benefits, but raise the threshold ... instead of deflating benefits, why not inflate the thresholds
Silver - 30 or 25K
Gold - 60 or 70K
1K (renamed perhaps) at 125K ....
This would be nasty for those just barely hitting current numbers (and I'm one of them), but would mean if you do the time, you get to actually enjoy the promised land as promised?
In other words, don't change the entitlements, just make them a little more challenging to achieve?
May 24, 2012, 1:44 pm
#1112
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AA LT Plat, UA 1k/1mm+, National EE, IC Plat, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 2,605
I wonder if marketing folks on this board have any thoughts about why the choice has been (by COdbaUA, but also the others) to go the route of watering down benefits rather than raising thresholds?
What I mean is that when these programs started 25K was though to be a lot of travel, and 50K a HUGE amount (hence, in *A, they don't even have a Plat etc level).
OK -- so over time, more and more people are flying, and these programs swell. OK ... so what do they do? They just add new higher levels (GS and Platinum) and water down the benefits for those who were once thought to be valuable in the Silver and Gold categories.
An alternative would be to preserve benefits, but raise the threshold ... instead of deflating benefits, why not inflate the thresholds
Silver - 30 or 25K
Gold - 60 or 70K
1K (renamed perhaps) at 125K ....
This would be nasty for those just barely hitting current numbers (and I'm one of them), but would mean if you do the time, you get to actually enjoy the promised land as promised?
In other words, don't change the entitlements, just make them a little more challenging to achieve?
What I mean is that when these programs started 25K was though to be a lot of travel, and 50K a HUGE amount (hence, in *A, they don't even have a Plat etc level).
OK -- so over time, more and more people are flying, and these programs swell. OK ... so what do they do? They just add new higher levels (GS and Platinum) and water down the benefits for those who were once thought to be valuable in the Silver and Gold categories.
An alternative would be to preserve benefits, but raise the threshold ... instead of deflating benefits, why not inflate the thresholds
Silver - 30 or 25K
Gold - 60 or 70K
1K (renamed perhaps) at 125K ....
This would be nasty for those just barely hitting current numbers (and I'm one of them), but would mean if you do the time, you get to actually enjoy the promised land as promised?
In other words, don't change the entitlements, just make them a little more challenging to achieve?
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
May 24, 2012, 1:53 pm
#1113
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,139
You're definitely right about the international business - who in their right minds would willingly choose UA over the competition for a TATL or TPAC these days? There's very little incentive to do so when the product is inferior and UA's not competitive on the pricing.
May 24, 2012, 2:14 pm
#1114
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
They have a segment of pax who are stuck flying US flag carriers internationally (e.g. government, government contractors), as well as those who want to use GPUs or miles + copay to upgrade (and who don't want to spend the $$ for a *A-upgrade eligible fare), and those who (hah, hah!) want to earn lifetime miles.
May 24, 2012, 2:15 pm
#1115
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 2,284
United has suckled at the teat of credit card revenues that come by way of handing over "elite" benefits to those who've done nothing other than opened an account. Don't have to fly, just spend! Just like TODs, that's not going to go away.
Want to use those credit card sign-up and bonus miles? Heck, just charge the copay on your handy-dandy Visa, and you're halfway to us clearing your upgrade ahead of the real elites, how's that Mr. Credit Card Holder?
"Enjoy your calzone."
May 24, 2012, 2:26 pm
#1116
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Programs: UA 1K 3 Million/ex-many year GS, AA PLT/2 Mil, AS MVPG, HH Dia, Starwood Life Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,401
It finally occurred to me why I find the entitled comment so offensive. It puts the onus of getting too generous benefit on the customer - even if it is aimed at mainly silver - as though it is the customer's fault that the benefits are too generous. Had the VP said "we have concluded that we are providing greater benefits than we can afford or than are proportionate to the profitibilty of some customer classes" that would make some sense. I.e., UA was at fault for an imbalance in rewards/profitibility. After all - UA created the program - implying that your customers are to blame if you structured it poorly is insulting.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
May 24, 2012, 2:29 pm
#1117
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,608
It finally occurred to me why I find the entitled comment so offensive. It puts the onus of getting too generous benefit on the customer - even if it is aimed at mainly silver - as though it is the customer's fault that the benefits are too generous. Had the VP said "we have concluded that we are providing greater benefits than we can afford or than are proportionate to the profitibilty of some customer classes" that would make some sense. I.e., UA was at fault for an imbalance in rewards/profitibility. After all - UA created the program - implying that your customers are to blame if you structured it poorly is insulting.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
May 24, 2012, 3:37 pm
#1118
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: TPE
Programs: UA Gold, HA Premier, Hertz #1 Gold PC, SBUX Gold
Posts: 603
They have a segment of pax who are stuck flying US flag carriers internationally (e.g. government, government contractors), as well as those who want to use GPUs or miles + copay to upgrade (and who don't want to spend the $$ for a *A-upgrade eligible fare), and those who (hah, hah!) want to earn lifetime miles.
May 24, 2012, 4:01 pm
#1119
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: None - previously UA
Posts: 4,867
... Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average). ...
May 24, 2012, 4:15 pm
#1120
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LAT/LONG
Programs: UA 1k; Hyatt Plat; SPG Gold; Avis PC Preferred; Priority Pass Select; AMEX Platinum
Posts: 442
As someone who flies 75% of their miles internationally, i really feel bad for the purely domestic flyer. I like my domestic upgrade as much as the next guy; however, the way things are now, i dont mind sitting in an E+ exit row (unless its a lie flat first seat). I would much rather see UA fix the broken boarding process, the egalitarian approach to all elites, and separate bank of customer service people for the 1ks.
All my international flying is done on LH in paid C with a lot of GPU use into F. For the most part my job allows me *some* flexibility in picking who i fly, but UA is hands down my last option if I am flying TATL or TPAC (if im flying to south america will fly UA).
Am i over-entitled? Lufthansa sure donest think so, and im not even part of their M&M! If United/FA treated me like i do on LH i would have no problem flying them, until then UA will see my spend on them dwindle.
All my international flying is done on LH in paid C with a lot of GPU use into F. For the most part my job allows me *some* flexibility in picking who i fly, but UA is hands down my last option if I am flying TATL or TPAC (if im flying to south america will fly UA).
Am i over-entitled? Lufthansa sure donest think so, and im not even part of their M&M! If United/FA treated me like i do on LH i would have no problem flying them, until then UA will see my spend on them dwindle.
May 24, 2012, 4:20 pm
#1121
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: 2012 Plat-2013 Plat-2014 Silver-2015 GM
Posts: 818
As a "marketing folk", here's what I think should be happening:
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
It finally occurred to me why I find the entitled comment so offensive. It puts the onus of getting too generous benefit on the customer - even if it is aimed at mainly silver - as though it is the customer's fault that the benefits are too generous. Had the VP said "we have concluded that we are providing greater benefits than we can afford or than are proportionate to the profitibilty of some customer classes" that would make some sense. I.e., UA was at fault for an imbalance in rewards/profitibility. After all - UA created the program - implying that your customers are to blame if you structured it poorly is insulting.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
I actually think that the airlines (specificially UA) ought to rethink their entire programs based on more of a quid pro quo view. As suggested above - include dollar value of customers more deeply in the status structure (more than just the all or nothing GS). Also, look at things like MM benefits with regard to whether they incentivize flying and loyalty or not (the current ones absolutely do not - in fact they discourage additional flying because they subsume the benefits of that flying completely in the MM status benefit). Also, look at your top flyers like GS (that's me at the moment) and ask what benefits would they find actually worth getting. E.g., if you are always buying international premium tickets and you are moving toward a 2 cabin service structure what is the value of GPUs? Even now - if you buy C on biz and Z for personal what is the value of GPUs? I really think that the collective brainpower on this board could design a total program that was much better than what MP is now - BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS and UNITED while being really fair in the sense of rewarding yield. That is to say - a program that would really encourage flying with UA even when others might be otherwise preferable and at the same time which would fit the financial profile that UA wants. It is too bad that there seems to be such arrogance in the UA executive suite that actually engaging in that dialog is unlikely.
Wacker Drive- Heads up and get in the Game. Ask this Board how the group can help you deliver numbers you want to achieve. The answer is out there.
May 24, 2012, 4:26 pm
#1122
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: Mosaic 2, Bonvoy Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Globalist, Premium Cabin free agent
Posts: 848
As a "marketing folk", here's what I think should be happening:
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
May 24, 2012, 4:36 pm
#1123
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
As a "marketing folk", here's what I think should be happening:
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
1) Increase and standardize thresholds: I think the most sensible way would be to realign tiers to something more aspirational (125k/90k/60k/30k) with a boosted maximizer for high fare buckets. Get rid of GS and just provide better EQM boosters for F and C fares like LH does so that heavy unit spenders can make top status much faster. Additionally, I would build in a revenue floor for the top level (say $10,000) so that the integrity of the new better tier is safeguarded. Want to mileage run on mistake fares? I suggest 90k level will be able to deliver benefits commensurate to the contribution of the airline's bottom line (at least on average).
2) Realign benefits: The idea that all elites have access to all elites is a wonderful one, but just like the old USSR and other such projects have proven, these systems never work and always end with everyone getting hosed. Therefore, I would realign benefits by introducing CPU only for the newly realigned 125k fliers, and by then allowing lower tiers to e-earn certs for upgrades based on PQM/PQP and have them be purchasable, too (like the old e500s). Similarly, highest tier should have better award availability, free or significantly discounted UC etc.
3) Reinstate some of the old benefits. 90k and 60k getting less than 100% RDM bonus? Not competitive with DL, US and AA. Likewise, other previous benefits should be reinstated.
4) Respect Status again: If you want status to mean something, status has to be difficult to attain and it has to deliver value. That's what will get lower level elites to aspire to higher status, and higher status elites happy with their benefits.
5) Breed culture of "customer comes first": Only if this happens can status mean anything again.
As a "consumer", here's what I think should be happening first and foremost:
1) Be honest with your customers.
May 24, 2012, 5:13 pm
#1124
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Pikes Peak COS
Programs: 3 Month Delta Plat, UA PP 2.4mm, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, HH Lifetime Diamond, National EE
Posts: 426
Gotta say thanks to you guys jumping to AA for freeing up space up front. I just applied 2 soon to expire GPU's to my latest itinerary and they cleared immediately. Monday-Friday trip too!
Seriously, if AA treats you great, I'm all ears. I hope it works well for you because it will give me a place to go if I need to.
Seriously, if AA treats you great, I'm all ears. I hope it works well for you because it will give me a place to go if I need to.
May 24, 2012, 5:25 pm
#1125
Join Date: Aug 2008
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 50
And there are more high level elites sitting in E+ right now because their upgrades aren't going through.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; May 24, 2012 at 7:23 pm Reason: improper quote