BA /CX award change rumors

Let's get this clear. BA has, thus far, made NO changes to ex-US partner redemption rates. People like you engage in wild speculation on the Internet about that there will be further changes. You whip yourself and others up into a frenzy about the feared changes. And you seem to think that this self-generated belief should then compel BA to make a formal announcement and if they don't they are culpable. Remarkable.

So you would be prepared to accept the hospitality of a company that you have publicly branded evil and dishonest. That tells us either of the worthlessness of these adjectives in your lexicon, or it gives a revealing insight into your own personal integrity.

Do you believe it is reasonable that BA announced two months ago changes going into effect for their award chart mid-November, but has not revealed its full award chart yet?

BA has said there will be no difference between BA, one partner only, and BA+1 partner awards. That would absolutely be a change to current ex-North America pricing, in one way or another.

And BA social media has invited questions and clarifications, they haven't offered clarification on whether or what additional changes are going into effect, but we've been told that there are changes that we do not yet know about which are coming mid-November.

That is what I find unreasonable. You may think it's cool. Then we fundamentally disagree. I am not impugning anyone's motives here personally, just BA's. My own motives are that I have always believed that the single most important thing for a loyalty program is to build and maintain trust by clearly articulating its value proposition and sticking to that proposition, or if and when the proposition changes it be done transparently and with significant notice so that members can adjust behavior accordingly. And I'm very concerned that this is not happening here.

I don't think BA has built up any additional loyalty amongst its customers with the way they have handled the changes. I am perplexed why this is such a controversial point that it has sparked a battle royale here. If there is a devaluation, and they don't announce the details beforehand, that's pretty poor form in my book. Yes, if there is no devaluation I am prepared to eat my words. And certainly, it's within their legal right to do it. But, it's within my right to spit on the ground and not show up for my meetings and commitments, but I avoid doing those things because it's poor form.

Can we go back to the rumors on the ba cx award changes, which many were hoping to see when we (including me) clicked on the thread title?

I am happy with what you are saying gleff. I am also happy to not have moderation of this thread as I think might take place at FT. I tend to notice those who typically would make sure to get the last word not getting it here and not too happy about it. I hope we speculators are wrong and baec does not screw those in NA.

I completely agree with gleff's thoughts. I'm sure there's one thing we can agree on though - it'd be wise to use your BA miles by 11/16 if you are planning a one-partner award anytime in the next 12 months!

It could have done with a bit of moderation, then perhaps certain defamatory allegations against third parties might have been removed. And as to the last word, I don't need the last word to be right.

there was something defamatory in this thread? under UK or US law? lot more first amendment rights in the US when it comes to stuff like this.

i disagree with what would have been "moderated". this is not one of those deliberate attempt to kick a child threads on FT seem to go unmoderated...

i only wish i had enough time off to book more.

So, no displeasure from not having been put into a similarly privileged position so that you could - as soon as you were permitted to - display your expert knowledge in your blog (which I imagine you don't put all that time into for mere love)?

No displeasure from not being able to devise in advance strategies for your award booking business' customers (a business which I imagine you don't do for mere love)?

Indeed why have you failed to mention both of these in batting away a perfectly straightforward question, but instead glibly denied any personal interest? Just how disingenuous was that brief answer? Or, for that matter this?

One might perhaps be forgiven for speculating whether these obvious direct personal and financial interests in knowing that which BA has not yet disclosed has provoked a degree of angst and jealousy which you have displayed through your rather unwise comments earlier in this thread.

Surely, you're not suggesting that gleff would ever in a million years even dream of doing that which he insinuated that the FT mods might do?!

Perhaps, like so much else in life, it takes one to know one.

Of course not! We all know gleff is an honourable man.

I was going to ignore the last insult, but now that it's been repeated let me be clear. As anyone who reads my blog knows I share a good deal of information, regular readers can probably figure out which program but a couple of weeks ago the head of one major loyalty program called me "his Wikileak" as a result of my penchant for publishing their internal moves before they announce them (not just a recent memo about program changes, but announcing details of their award chart devaluation in the past which caused them to move up the timing of their own member communication). And while my criticism is directed at BA rather than those with whom they've shared information, to be clear and since there seems to be insinuations about this, I have never signed a non-disclosure agreement with a loyalty program or travel provider.

Remarkably, you appear to think that your "penchant" for breaching confidences is a good thing. In fact it is deplorable.

First I was criticized because -- based on nothing, no information or knowledge whatsoever -- I must be learning secret things about programs keeping them in confidence away from members.

And now -- based on nothing, no information or knowledge whatsoever -- I am criticized for "breaching confidences." Which is, of course, not what I described doing above. The program changes that I have shared with members were not shared with me in confidence.

It's amazing in a rush to defend BA's upcoming program changes that some members would prefer to distract by smearing me. And please do not respond that I've somehow smeared others, I have only been critical of BA's communications strategy. Twisting my words, or deliberately ignoring clarifications posted above, does not change that.

I believe members are best served straightforwardly, honestly, transparently. That is my consistent position, and it's what I fervently believe after a decade of thinking deeply about loyalty programs.

You seem to labo(u)r under the belief that, unless restrained by a NDA, you are free to disclose material that is not public knowledge. You aren't. An obligation of confidence can be express (NDA) or implied by the circumstances. As the post of yours I quoted shows, you were positively boasting that you had revealed this secret information leading to your being compared to "Wikileaks" (which you clearly think is a favourable comparison). You were well aware that the information was confidential.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have any information on which to base your information. You can feel free to criticize me, likely largely because you don't like my criticisms of BA. But the situations you're referring to, information I shared was shared with me without any express preference or request on the part of those sharing it with me that it not be shared. It may even have been shared with me with the hope that I do share it, even if that hope wouldn't have been felt by the program itself.

But yes, I believe in transparency for members as the very core of a loyalty program. And I will criticize programs that treat members in a way that I believe is disrespectful -- implementing significant changes without substantial notice.

Again, go on attacking me but it doesn't really serve to distract from the key issues of this thread which is: given that BA has announced changes to be implemented to their award chart coming up this month, and also that there wouldn't be a difference in their charts between BA/BA+partner/1 partner only awards... and that we do not know yet what that means at all for awards which do not originate or terminate in Europe... how bad will the pending changes be for members? Me, I think it is very very bad that BA has not shared this information yet. Regardless of the outcome.

I'm judging you, obviously, on what you post.

Let's look at the evidence shall we. You said that your revelation of some information from a programme caused the head of that programme to compare you to "Wikileaks". You retort that I don't know whether he wanted you to disclose the information. True, I don't. But you also told us that the revelation of the informaiton, "caused them to move up the timing of their own member communication". The clear inference to be drawn therefore (and the clear message you understood) was that the release of the information by you had not been anticipated by the programme in question. You posted this to demonstrate how much inside knowledge and influence you claim to have.

I'm not going to deal with the rest of your post. Your repetition of (1) your history of heroism and (2) your continued speculation about changes you don't know anything about does not advance matters.

I'm far from perfect, and sometimes - maybe even more often than sometimes - I fall short. But I do try to read the opinions and posts of people that I disagree with in the most generous light possible. Not everyone who disagrees with me is evil or stupid. And the best way to get at a shared understanding isn't to misrepresent or misconstrue what someone is saying, but to take a formulation of their claims that is the strongest possible, not a strawman to try to knock down for show.

At least that's how I prefer to engage in dialogue, when I fall short of that I'm willing to be called out on it, because it's no better if it's coming from me than from anyone else.

From that perspective, I hope it's understandable why I'm disappointed to read the reply above.

Except that what I tried to offer an explanation of above is thta there seem to be conclusions getting jumped to, where folks are filling in blanks on facts for themselves that aren't included in my posts at all -- for some reason I'm accused above of taking information and keeping it secret, not sharing it, so how dare I criticize others for doing the same? When what I tried to explain was that I am not criticizing folks that have received information, I am criticizing the program that offered that information but that has so far failed to provide complete information to members just weeks before changes are supposedly going into effect.

No, we're conflating things here.

1. The head of a program joked to me that I was his Wikileak.

2. That was not the same person who had shared information with me in that case.

I think there's some confusion on this point. It wasn't that a person shared something with me, I posted it, and then that same person compared me to Wikileaks. Again, assuming facts not in evidence and in this case incorrect.

Correct. The head of the program would no doubt have preferred that the information in question not have been posted. But I only spoke with the head of the program after it had been posted. That person was ribbing me, in a friendly way, like "How'd you get that?" Because he wasn't the source.

Not at all. I don't claim to have tons of inside knowledge, more than some less than others.

I posted it as a story to rebut the attack made on me above that information gets shared with me and that I keep it a secret. See, there are lots of (contradictory) personal attacks being made on me in this thread. So consider not ascribing motives to me.

I'll let that stand on its own.

Again, no such thing, I don't see myself as especially heroic, I am just offering counterexamples to claims made earlier meant to impugne me. Because it would appear as though personal attacks on me, for some, take the place of reasoned argument over tactics that a loyalty program takes.

I don't think I'm especially speculating here.

I know that BA has said program changes go into effect in a couple of weeks. I know that BA has said that when those changes go into effect there will be no differences in the BA-only, 1-partner only, and BA+1 partner award charts. Which implies a change to awards which neither originate nor terminate in Europe. But we haven't seen those charts yet. Either BA's statements about upcoming changes to the program are incorrect, or there are changes being implemented with very little notice. That's all I'm saying, and I don't think anyone has disagreed with that formulation in this thread?

And then I get to the values component, that to me either case is a very big deal and undermines trust in the program.

Clearly some on-thread here (including some in this thread that have had details of changes shared with them in advance) do not believe that is a very big deal.

And that's for members in general to decide for themselves, and i guess I return here so that the stark distinction between two positions can be in evidence for folks to consider.

For my part, I would appreciate it if folks would like to engage in the discussion of what is acceptable notice for a frequent flyer program to make significant changes to its award charts (and other key elements of its offerings). I would really appreciate it if we could move past the personal attacks (in this case on me, but still...). Those do not substitute for argument.

everyone will have their own opinion about different topics and that's life. if we were all built like robots, the world would be a boring place. is there a point to arguing all of this? not really! so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Thank you for the confession.

No, I didn't know that about you before, but one learns something new every day. Thank you for sharing that about yourself.

Thank you also for your further posts in which your protestations clearly demonstrate that not only have you done wrong, you don't even realise that you've done wrong. Some people would regard that as a very dangerous character trait.

It was clearly inside information. You never asked the airline concerned. You were never told that it was OK to publish the information; indeed, you suspected that the airline would prefer you not to publish it.

How can you possibly justify publishing it?

Have you no shame?

Good times. Glad folks want to keep this personal despite best attempts to make this a discussion of a loyalty program's actions/pending changes.

As far as what I reference above, letting folks know about pending changes to a loyalty program while not breaching a confidence, I stand by those actions. And I remain on quite good terms with the program folks in question.

Sad thing? Looks like my bmi miles may become Avios points, and there's some reasonable likelihood my bmi Gold becomes BA Gold.

You just don't get it, do you?

It's confidential even if you didn't get the information from the airline. By publishing it, you breach that confidentiality.

The example at hand is not even about an airline, it's interesting how some folks fill in details to tell a story that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but rather a preference to attack me personally (and earlier upthread the attack on me was that I had confidential information that I didn't disclose -- gotta love it!) rather than discuss the issue of the thread which is pending changes to the British Airways Executive Club program.

Which is where I'd much prefer to return.

Thanks so much, and hope you're having a great day!

Is that your best point?

I'm just trying to steer the conversation to the matter at hand, which is about pending changes to a loyalty program. Would you mind indulging me and other members in that? I'll even offer that it would be magnanimous of you and others to do so. Thanks in advance.