You are attempting to compare apples and oranges, which is tough to do...

There has to be a reference point in making a value judgment, which the notion of "fairness" happens to be one. "Fair" relative to what? For the situation at hand, the reference point has to be the rules that have governed the FF program up to now. Under these rules [the reference point], the requirements in EQS and EQM for all elite levels up to 1K were already established, and those signing up were fully aware of them when they joined. To now increase the EQS requirement for 1K without doing the same for the EQM requirement goes against any standard of fairness simply because it is not conceivable that the EQS would suddenly lose its value against the EQM without anything happening to cause this imbalance...

This, in fact, makes a strong case for the T & C of the merged FF program to first be fully developed and disclosed and then for the MP and OneP members to be given the opportunity to evaluate the new rules and decide whether they wish to remain with the new program or jump ship...

It all begins by finding your reference point. One cannot speak of "fairness" without stating the reference point... For a loyalty program, the standard of fairness has to be the T & C that members agreed to.

True, relative to an established reference point that is not based on an equitable progression, a change that only impacts 1 of 3 may not seem fair. Based on an absolute point and ratio, this fixes an established inequality. A harsh/extreme comparison, but prior to the 1960's, the established "fairness" didn't give everyone the same rights. Giving equal rights to people of color may not have seemed fair to the whites as their water fountains/restaurants/schools/bus seats were now being used by others, a loss to them. In absolute terms, it fixed an inequality.

One can always debate relative fairness vs absolute fairness. Those that lose out in a correction may feel impugned upon, but stepping back with no frame of previously established reference, one would set a system up using an absolute stating point.

This is simpler than the civil rights acts of the '60s, if only because there is an element of free will involved (each of us chose to join without being coerced). This is about a "loyalty program", with established terms and conditions that one willingly agrees to in order to join. For such a program to be "fair" (in fact, ethical) the T & C that members agree to must be applied and enforced uniformly. Any [arbitrary] deviation that applies only to a select subset of the membership would be considered "unfair" if it either benefits or disenfranchises some members...

I am not even sure if the concept of absolute fairness makes sense, in view of the multitude of bases for value judgment (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Taoist, jurisprudential, etc...). One's reference point would probably be a primary determinant of what is considered "fair", meaning that it is all relative to that reference point. For a "loyalty program" fairness is measured by how uniformly the T & C are applied and adhered to...

Only on FT could we get into a tizz about this and somehow make a connection with an FF program and civil rights.

And I have said it before and I shall say it again, the writing is on the wall when they come up with a new name for "1K" - if that happens then I can see the EQM limits going up without a doubt.

Are you serious??? One half hour per flight for segment qualifiers? Yeah, sure. Dream on. Oh, by the way, you forgot to add in all my connection waits I've enjoyed in order to fly my annual 100 segments. After all, they are all part of the total "1K experience", aren't they?

Let's see... this year I had 104 segments with an average flight distance of about 1000 miles. That's rougly 2 1/2 hours per flight for a total of 260 inflight hours - not counting time between connections, delays, etc.

Yet, under the new rules, I no longer qualify for 1K. How is that fair?

You seem to think 100 segments is easy... you've obviously never done it yourself.

I am not too happy with the devaluation...need to read more before I make the final decision.

If you had 104 segments averaging 1000 miles, doesn't that equal 104K EQM's and qualification for 1K on miles?

I don't think anybody thinks 120 or 100 segments is easy. If that is what I needed to achieve, then I would not be a 1K. No way.

No...his/her point is that he is happy with this changes so there are fewer 1Ks
can compete with him for upgrade.

----

This is only my guess....

Since CO didn't have CR1 for its Platinum and only M up, I guess they will change to you must buy
M fare to be qualified to use CR1.
It's only my guess but we will see...

I did make 1K on miles as well but that included a SFO-SYD trip which was unusual. Without that I would still be 15K EQMs short. It does skew my averages somewhat but the point is still valid - I spent more than 200 hours in the air and not 50.

I doubt most international fliers compete much with segment fliers for upgrades to begin with.

The other thing is that some people just don't have sympathy.

Obviously. And some folks are also just not "team players".

Which of course includes a clause that the program terms can be changed at anytime for any or no reason.

In think it really depends on the person.... for me the long flights and a big time change are killers. I actually find a short flight of a couple of hours pretty relaxing even in E.

100,000 miles at ~500 miles per hour = 200 hours, not 50 hours. And that is just air-time.

That doesn't mean that I don't feel the pain of segment flyers...

Short flights can be relaxing and even fun sometimes but when you have to do it 2-3 times a week for 40+ weeks in a row even enjoyable things become a grind. I think that's what makes the segment flyers especially upset about this change because it's singling out those who put the word "frequent" into frequent flyer programs. For some reason UACO has decided to disrepect us by making it even harder to obtain 1K than it already is compared to someone who only does 5-7 transpacs.

Don't get me wrong - longhaul flights can be brutal too but for all but the most diehard road warrior it's usually limited to a small number of times per year - 5 to 10 total maybe. If you're doing ORD-HKG every week then you truly deserve the 'iron butt' award.