CSP vs Arrival

[lexrjSD]

---

@CreditScholar wrote:

---

@lexrjSD wrote:

I think they should do whatever makes them happy, I just completely disagree with the strategy. I'd rather travel more and fly coach than travel a lot less and fly 1st.

That's the only strategy worth for the CSP unless you're a huge spender, except that huge spenders could care less about saving points for travelling, they just book whatever they want.

---

This might be ok if you're assuming that the only limitation that keeps people from travelling more is money. However for some of us, the major limiting factor is time.

It's not simply a matter of I have $X to spend, so I'd rather spread it across 5 flights in Y instead of one in F. Instead it could be I only have X weeks off per year, money isn't really a factor, so I want those weeks to be as good as they possibly can. For some, "as good as they possibly can" might mean J or F tickets.

The other issue with your logic is that "huge spenders couldn't care less about saving points for travelling, they just book when they want".

My question is if you don't have to pay for something and can use points instead, why not? Sure one could shell out 10k for an international business class seat, but if you can use points that you've already earned through normal everyday spending, why not put that same 10k to use somewhere else? I refuse to believe that there isn't somewhere else you can use the money. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean you should always pay the asking price. If there's a way to get it for less, what's wrong with saving money?

---

I think you misundertood me, I'm all up for saving money and using miles, points or whatever you can, but that was not my point. My point was about the strategy on how to save and how to use them. I think you missed my previous posts from this thread cus I forgot to quote the reply.

[CreditScholar]

---

@blondy250 wrote:
I'm convinced by some of the posts I've read the primary reason many people get a CSP is because it's a metallic card. Actually a brilliant piece of marketing by Chase, you get a large group of holders who pay an annual fee , but never get any of the intended benefit out of the card.

---

+1. This is one major reason why they've loosened up the criteria for the CSP so much since the initial launch.

Originally it was designed for incomes above 125k. However Chase realized that they could get the AF from people who really don't benefit much from the rewards. Thus the lowering of approval criteria began.

[red259]

---

@blondy250 wrote:
I'm convinced by some of the posts I've read the primary reason many people get a CSP is because it's a metallic card. Actually a brilliant piece of marketing by Chase, you get a large group of holders who pay an annual fee , but never get any of the intended benefit out of the card.

---

I think some people get the card for that reason, although I'm not sure it's many. I do think a lot of people get the card because they hear about how great it is, but they do not know why or if it fits their needs. I feel some people want Amex as well but don't really know why.  It is smart marketing by Chase. I love my metal card, but I'm not going to keep it past the first year once I pick up an ink card. Honestly getting a card just because it's metal is not a very good reason to apply. I got the card due to my travel goals etc. had it not fit my needs there is no way I would have applied.

[Open123]

This is a case where I'm going to plagiarize Takeshi74, "it really is subjective and depends on how one is going to use and redeem."  Even when it shifts from program (MR, SPG, UR, and TY), it's still highly dependent on the needs and preferences of the individual user.

The only thing I will observe is that if FTFs weren't an issue, there is little reason to choose any other 2% statement like credit over the FidAmex, unless for those Merchants who refuse to take Amex.  Even then, at least where I am, there are so few instances where Amex isn't accepted, in those cases, if pure cashback is my preference, I think the Quicksilver at 1.5% is better, if only for no fee and without a redemption threshold.

Of course, the exception would be the Arrival where if one were to have extremely high spending, then the 10% would start make this better than the aforementioned FidAmex and Quicksilver.

[ac921ol]

Im 30, just got married, live in Norther VA, and we head out to bars/restaurants often to meet friends, watch games, and just grab a nice dinner. CSP works for me and Chase is a much better company for me(YMMV) I have the Chase IHG, Chase Freedom, CSP, Chase Ink Plus, I have about 200k UR points half of them are from the sign up bonus from CSP and the INK, so that could be a reason I really like them. The arrival doesnt appeal to me, and Im not a fan at all of the CSR at Barclays they are just awful every time I call for my wifes rewards card or my sallie mae they just suck. 

I since we drive to meet people up and sometimes park in garages, the 2 points at garage and tolls works wonders for me as well.

[Cdnewmanpac]

A few thoughts:

1. These comparisons always ignore the marginal value of reward points. They assume that the 1st point earned has the same value as the 20000th point earned. But that isn't how mileage/hotel rewards work. They are threshold rewards. So 44,999 mileage plus points are really only worth whatever roundrip domestic saver ticket you can get (likely 25000 for a $300-400 ticket). But if you earn 1 more point, you can get a saver fare RT to Hawaii, which (depending on your home city and time of year) can increase the value of the redemption significantly. So if you fly a ton and always on the same airline, probably not a big deal. But if you fly or stay at hotels often, but not a ton, or you stay at a variety of hotels and use a variety of airlines, you may find yourself with points in a variety of programs that are all short of the optimal redemption point. For that person, a flexible, highly transferable reward system like chase UR or amex MR has value well beyond that of the individual point. For example, I was able to add 2000 UR points to my hyatt account that bumped me up enough to get a weekend at the hyatt beaver creek during ski season. I used 10k UR points to get my united account up enough to get an RT to Hawaii (at a time when the flight cost $930 denver to honolulu) and sent 340 points to southwest that got my son his own seat on a flight to portland. Using the CSP allowed me to consolidate my spending onto one card (thus maximizing the pool) while giving me lots of options for transfer (thus maximizing the marginal value of those points). The arrival offers no equivalent and will never be more than 2.2cpp.

2. I wouldn't equate the people who post on this forum with the majority of users of the CSP. This is a highly specific population, primarily made up of people rebuilding their credit (therefore people who jacked up their credit at some point in the past) or people who are very focused on credit cards. My guess is that the majority of CSP users are still >100k/year income business travelers. Are there people who have the CSP who lose economically by having the card? Sure. But there are lots of people (especially those with a significant reimbursed travel expense/year) of modest incomes who benefit more from the CSP then they would from the arrival. Salary or gross spend aren't really sufficient metrics for making that determination.