smh.com.au
Devaluation of Airline Rewards Points in Australia
Starting December 15, 2025, American Express will devalue its airline points transfer rate for several partners, while Australian banks are devaluing reward schemes due to proposed changes in interchange fees by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).
- What is the immediate impact of American Express's devaluation of airline points on Australian frequent flyers?
- Effective December 15, 2025, Australian Amex users will need three Membership Reward points to obtain one airline point with British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Etihad, Malaysia Airlines, Qatar Airways, and Virgin Atlantic (previously 2:1). Thai Airways will no longer be a transfer partner. The change affects points transfer, requiring more Amex points to equal one airline point.
- How are Australian banks responding to the RBA's proposed changes to interchange fees, and what are the broader implications?
- Australian banks are devaluing their airline reward schemes or canceling partnerships in response to the RBA's proposed ban on card payment surcharges and reduction of interchange fees, scheduled for July 1, 2026. This is because interchange fees partially fund airline reward points, and reduced fees lead to decreased reward value or program eliminations.
- What strategies can frequent flyers employ to mitigate the impact of these changes, and what are the long-term implications for the airline rewards landscape?
- Frequent flyers can transfer points from Amex to airline accounts before December 14, 2025. Using co-branded airline credit cards, which directly earn airline points rather than transferable reward points, is another strategy. The long-term implication is a potential shift towards co-branded cards and a possible reduction in the overall value of generic rewards programs.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of the changes in airline reward programs, acknowledging both the negative impacts on frequent flyers (devaluation of points) and the positive impacts (reduction in airline surcharges). The introductory paragraph clearly lays out the central issue, and the article subsequently explores various perspectives and solutions. However, the focus on co-branded cards towards the end could be perceived as subtly promoting them as a solution, potentially downplaying other strategies for managing the changes.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and objective. While terms like "devalue" and "hit" carry a slightly negative connotation, they accurately reflect the situation. The article avoids overly emotional or sensational language. The use of phrases like "handsome Qantas points earner" is descriptive but might be considered slightly promotional.
Bias by Omission
The article primarily focuses on Australian banks and airlines. The analysis could be broadened to include global trends in airline reward programs and the impact of similar regulatory changes in other countries. While acknowledging space constraints is valid, including a brief mention of broader trends would enhance the article's comprehensiveness.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses changes in airline reward programs due to the Reserve Bank of Australia's proposal to ban card payment surcharges and reduce interchange fees. This proposal aims to reduce costs for consumers, thereby potentially promoting financial inclusion and reducing inequality in access to affordable air travel. While not directly addressing inequality, the indirect impact of lower surcharges benefits consumers and could contribute to greater equity in access to air travel.