10-K methodology is seemingly straightforward enough- % of award miles vs. total revenue miles flown. With that metric, all the FFPs ranged from 3% (JetBlue) to 8.8% (American). A more transparent and detailed approach would resolve some key statistical issues for me: 1. Airlines that charge higher award levels (ie- standard/double miles like UA or top tier/>triple/quadruple like DL) could be overstating the number of actual awards redeemed. So in effect, airlines that offer more lowest level awards could be inadvertently perceived as stingy. 2. Some airlines (AA, CO, US) only reported awards redeemed on their own metal. So, where is the accounting for partner award redemption, an important metric for those with international travel needs. 3. A breakdown of award redemptions by COS and redemption level (both own metal and partners) would be most enlightening, to better analyze the distribution between: * domestic Coach Saver * domestic Coach Standard (or beyond) * domestic First/Business Saver * domestic First/Business Standard * intl. Coach Saver * intl Coach Standard (or beyond) * intl. First/Business Saver * intl. First/Business Standard For intl. awards, a breakdown by Europe, Asia, Africa, S. America, Oceania would certainly be instructive. While the preemptive reason behind not disclosing above is likely 'competitive/proprietary', such a lack of transparency makes it challenging to make an educated decision about which program might most merit your business. 4. Seasonal, even monthly distribution of award disclosure would be helpful to help customers plan when the optimal times might be to seek lowest level redemptions. While I am pretty sure that the FFPs aren't exclusively redeeming wide-open Cleveland-Milwaukee Coach awards in the dead of winter to juice up their numbers, the 10-Ks don't do anything to disabuse the notion that a solid majority of desireable awards at desireable award levels are the exception not the rule.