Frequent Flyer Programs Are Not Insidious

I must take complete exception to the conclusions drawn by P. Klemperer and I. P. L. Png in their June 8 Viewpoint column (“Frequent Flyer Plans: Marketing Device With Insidious Effects”).

They assume that all frequent travelers are out to abuse their employers, rip off the IRS, and that such plans directly inhibit price competition.

I really do not believe that they have checked their facts. A much earlier article in the Times Travel Section bemoaned the demise of true first class travel due to the frequent flyer programs.

Most recipients of awards, according to that article, were using them for upgrading to first class--and thus saving their companies money. Both articles cannot be true.

The Png article also assumes that without a frequent flyer program, I, as a frequent traveler, would pick my air transportation solely by price--without any consideration for brand loyalty or service.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Do we expect the same reaction in other facets of the economy? Why have advertising or marketing at all if everything is price and generic?

The article also did not properly research the fares through Denver. A changeover in Denver is cheaper than a non-stop route. This is an influence of Continental on United rather than a frequent flyer program, since they both have a program. The same is true in many other hubs.

I am a frequent traveler, averaging at least 75,000 miles a year.

I choose my airline as I always have, by schedule first, price second and service third. However, service frequently becomes the governing choice.

I have boycotted one major airline for 14 years and refuse to fly many of the new “low-cost” airlines for their lack of service.

A frequent flyer program or lack of same will not influence my decision. However, if one is offered, I would be a fool not to participate.

As a consequence, I belong to at least eight programs. Where schedule, price and service are equal, I will then choose my airline by the frequent flyer program--but only then.

Most of my benefits are used for first class upgrades, so that I may arrive fresher than “cattle-car” coach without costing my company any money.

By the way, I question how the IRS can fairly and equitably place a value on the upgrade.

I submit that the real abusers of the frequent flyer programs are the infrequent flyers and those academically investigating the frequent flyer programs. Let one of them travel in a true frequent flyer’s footsteps and then write such an article.

LEE S. JONES

Villa Park