ratechaser wrote:As I've said before, I firmly believe that VS's TP system is not granular enough to work for a short haul network. Even before LR came on the scene though, the fact that you'd earn equivalent TPs for a (relative) hop to DXB, as you would to NRT was pretty questionable. But LR certainly takes it a step furter, in that you could - if the mood really took you - get AU with pretty minimal spend.
Of course, it can be good for yields on a new route, but you have to think that there's only so long that it will be allowed to continue like this. Not really a fan of revenue based status (although it wouldn't exactly hurt me...), but no reason why this couldn't indirectly be achieved through redenominating the TP system.
Yep, I think you right. Being based in San Francisco, if I really wanted too, I reckon you could get Au with VS for less than $3,000 by doing short hops on VX when they inititably drop their pants every month on pricing. Add LR to that equation and I think it's a bit broken, if you look at Ag's with UA, the only one's hurt by the new minimum spend are probably those who do mileage runs when the opportunity present...I'd imagine, it would be hard to fly 100,000 miles for 1K and not spend $10,000 - the only thing I think they've done, which is bad, is to not recognise revenue with JV partners flying transatlantic...i.e, if you fly AC or LH across the pond, you just as well be flying UA from a revenue point of view as they split it all. That said, if you're doing all your flying with AC or LH, then it would likely be prudent to join their own schemes.
UA's timing leaves a lot to be desired, but I get why they're doing it.
It is a sound business move, in my view, from the perspective of the airlines. It ensures that their top flyers that take the most out of the company also put into the airline in the first place. That being said it does put a fairly public price on loyalty.... 
