Talk:Frequent-flyer program/Archives/2012

History

Stated in history, "As of January 2005, a total of 14 trillion frequent-flyer miles had been accumulated by people worldwide, which corresponds to a total value of 700 billion US dollars." This is almost certainly incorrect. A brief survey of news articles as to the value of a "mile" lists a value of between .5 to 1.4 cents per frequent-flyer mile. Even at the highest point of this range, i.e. 1.4 cents per mile this yields a value of only one hundred ninety-six billion dollars which is less than a third of the stated 700 billion US dollars that is stated in the article. Example article on value http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-advice/what-are-frequent-flyer-miles-worth.html I'll check back in a few weeks to see what action if any to make on this problem. --Lando2 (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a memory, from the early days of these programs, of companies trying to claim the miles accrued by employees on company-paid travel, but those attempts failed. I think the airlines said the miles belonged to the flyer. After that the programs became a business perk as stated in the article. Does anyone else have any memory of or citation for that? Would it be worth adding to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.20.14 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The citation within the article that the first frequent flyer program was the 1979 program run by Texas Airlines is incorrect. United Airlines had the first frequent flyer program running 7 years earlier, in 1972, with their "Executive Air Travel Program". The program didn't track miles, but rewarded executives who travelled frequently with plaques and color-coded strips with the names of cities on the strips to indicate how many times an executive had flown to that particular city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.16.25 (talk)

That can be changed, but you need to come up with a refernce that supports what you have said as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mile donations

This article needs information on the donating of miles to charities. It should probably go in around the part where it's mentioned that most miles go unused. Both need some citations. --Tysto 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Chart of airlines program

Can somebody add a chart of airlines programs rules like: 1. Miles to get a free flight? 2. Miles expiration policy? American Airlines 25,000 3 years last activity Air Canada  ?  ? Luthunsa  ? 3 years, no extention

This is a crazy idea. There are hundreds of airlines, and each have different rules, and different miles for every destination to every other destination, and for each travel class. Lufthansa for example has different milage requirements if you live in say Germany as opposed to Austria; different rules for expiry depending on various factors (my Lufthansa points never expire for example).

Basically, there is no way to create a useful comparison table.

--kjd 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kjd. The information is readily available from the airline websites and is not terribly encyclopedic. Dbinder (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the dissenting views above and have deleted the section in question. Jpatokal 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, I find your attitude is destroying any value Wikipedia has. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you know Luthansa has different policy than others, add it as a footnote or add another row to the chart like "Lufthansa (if you live in German)". The main problem is that airline miles constantly change the expiration rules on miles. Wikipedia is a great place to store this helpful information. Maybe the chart is too broad in scope and it should start just with just expiration miles only so vandals like you won't delete the only thing in this article which is useful. By the way, vandal, don't delete it again until a full vote is taken.--Anonymous (contribs)

I'll ignore the personal attacks, and simply say that for such a comparison to be encyclopaedic, it would need to be very comprehensive and need constant maintenance. WP is not a database, and listing miles requirements is not like for like comparison (you earn them at different rates depending on airline/airline class/fare tariff/etc., you spend them at different rates, many airlines don't have miles and use things like points). I don't see what it aims to achieve, especially as it is guaranteed to be inaccurate at any given time. Finally, I don't recall when you need to call for a vote before making edits to an article. Now, if only I had the power to destroy Wikipedia... --kjd 01:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, there is nothing of value in the rest of this article. Maybe we should mark the article as an article for deletion since it has no useful information (fif the comparison chart is removed). As far as attacks go, I've spent far more time typing in stuff just to see you delete it without any justification. Remember, add stuff to wiki, don't delete it.

That's your opinion, not Wikipedia policy (or reality). By the way, WP:SIG --kjd 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We have created a calculation and comparison tool for award flights (www.milez.biz) [1]. A chart cannot be posted here due to the millions of possibilities that are inherent in such a tool. But basically, a user can enter any 2 destinations and then calculate and cross-compare the award rates. We currently have almost 60 FFPs in the system. We try to do our best to be as encyclopedic as possible, is this something that we could post on the main "frequent flyer page"? 69.158.16.31 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Philipp Gysling, info@milez.biz

I had a look at your link and I think it would make WP:EL for inclusion as an external link, so I'll add it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of valid links to other pages

Vicky Ng has twice deleted a "see also" link I have provided to another WikiPedia page. It is a valid link to content that directly relates to this page. I am placing the link for a third time. Coastwise (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted yet again. What does this link have to do with Frequent-flyer program??? If you don't bother justifying your edit, do not expect it to last. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you bother to read the page this links to, you will see. Frequent flyer programs are discussed in the context of the relationship of aviation to the environment. If you are going to edit something, please complete your research first. I have restored the link. Coastwise (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The article in question correctly references frequent-flyer program in context (inline). A link from this article to Aviation and the Environment in the "See also" section is not justified. In "Aviation and the Environment", frequent flyer programs are brought up as an example of a financial incentive to fly, which is a sub-sub-subsection of said article. There are hundreds of articles with links to Frequent-flyer program, and in many cases there is a more direct connection, yet you do not see links to those articles listed under "See also" (and for a good reason).

Further edit warring may lead to sanctions. If you can't justify your position in TALK, do not edit the article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate if Vicky Ng or Coastwise dont edit the article again with three reverts on one side and two on the other you are both close to some sort of sanction for edit warring if you carry on. The addition of the link has been challenged by Vicky Ng so really needs to gain a consensus on this page before it is added again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Government employees

In the past, U.S. government employees were not allowed to use frequent flyer mileage for personal travel (see, for example, http://www.doi.gov/ethics/docs/pg001116.pdf). This policy was cancelled in 2002. See: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/ole/travel_info/0203.pdf. Psalm 119:105 (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Pan Am Worldpass card.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pan Am Worldpass card.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

USAtoday: Mileage site Milepoint rolls out welcome for newbies

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/story/2011-12-05/Mileage-site-Milepoint-rolls-out-welcome-for-newbies/51651930/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Recommending the section "Airline programs and expiration policies" for deletion or relocation

To me, this section detracts from the article and largely duplicates information available through the WP article List_of_frequent_flyer_programs, to which there is a "See Also" in this article. I don't believe the limited kind of information provided justifies the space required here. This article should be about frequent flyer program (i.e. singular) as a concept or topic, as its title suggests; whereas List_of_frequent_flyer_programs is about the the many individual programs that exist. I also note that in the above talk section "Chart of airlines program[s]" that in June an external link was added to this article to an on-line FFP comparison tool. For these reasons I recommend the section for deletion from this article, and that the information about and links to the particular FFP programs be placed in List_of_frequent_flyer_programs instead. Coastwise (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is plain duplication with List of frequent flyer programs and should be axed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay with no objections over the past week I think we have a consensus to remove this section. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)