This trip involved two business-class bookings on the same routing, booked separately, funded differently, and decided under different information sets. The result was strong. The execution was not perfect. Both deserve to be shown.

The setup

Two business-class seats were needed between London and Nairobi, routing via Cairo, on fixed late-summer dates.

  • Outbound: London → Nairobi, 27 August 2025

  • Return: Nairobi → London, 3 September 2025

Cash prices for the exact flights were high:

  • Outbound: $3,872 for two

  • Return: ~$4,566 for two

Award availability existed via LifeMiles at:

  • 110,000 miles + $776.16 outbound

  • 110,000 miles + $165.96 return

The starting LifeMiles balance was effectively zero. All miles used were generated specifically for these bookings.

Step one: the return leg (clean, simple, and executed first)

The return flight was the most expensive for cash, and award inventory was limited. The outbound had slightly more flexibility. That created real pressure to lock the return first.

At that moment, the decision framework was straightforward: Capital One points versus the cash price of the ticket.

A 15% Capital One → LifeMiles transfer bonus was live in early August 2025. That allowed:

  • 95,660 Capital One points → ~110,000 LifeMiles

  • Cash paid: $165.96

  • Equivalent cash fare: ~$4,566

On that basis alone, the redemption cleared comfortably above 4.5¢ per point. That felt decisive. And it was reasonable.

So the return was booked immediately, funded entirely via Capital One points.

Judged in isolation, this is an excellent redemption.

Step two: the outbound leg (where the framework evolved)

The outbound was more involved.

Award pricing was attractive, but starting from zero meant the full 110,000 LifeMiles had to be sourced. There was no live transfer bonus from Amex or Citi, and most of the Capital One balance had already been used. Attention turned to buying miles.

A LifeMiles buy-miles promotion was running from 25 July to 14 August 2025, offering up to a 160% bonus.

Two purchase paths existed:

  • Buy exactly what was needed at a lower bonus tier, or

  • Step up to the 51,000 base-mile tier, unlock the 160% bonus, and accept a residual balance

The decision was framed marginally, not emotionally: how much additional cash was required to step up, and what quantity of incremental miles that step created.

Stepping up produced:

  • 51,000 base miles

  • 160% bonus

  • 132,600 LifeMiles total

  • Cash cost: $1,683

  • Amex MR earned: 8,415 (LifeMiles purchases code as airfare)

Using a conservative floor and treating Amex Membership Rewards as worth at least a 1:1 conversion into LifeMiles (a legitimate framing, even though I would not actually make that transfer), the transaction created a minimum of:

  • 132,600 LifeMiles

  • + 8,415 Membership Rewards

  • = 141,015 mile-equivalents

That caps the effective acquisition price at ~1.19¢ per mile.

Once that anchor was established, the rest of the outbound decision became straightforward.

Why Amex and Citi transfers were ruled out

With LifeMiles available at ~1.19¢, any 1:1 transfer from Amex or Citi stopped being a redemption decision and became a sale decision.

The real question was:

Am I willing to sell Amex Membership Rewards or Citi ThankYou points for 1.19¢ each?

I’m not.

There are ways to cash out transferable currencies around 1¢ per point, or marginally higher in specific cases. I’ve never been tempted by those options. I value transferable currencies higher than that, both intrinsically and for the optional upside they retain.

In reality, I would be more likely to be a buyer than a seller of Amex or Citi points at 1.19¢.

So locking them into LifeMiles at that price would not have made sense, regardless of how attractive the flight redemption looked. Amex and Citi transfers were ruled out entirely.

Booking the outbound

With the purchase framework in place:

  • 110,000 LifeMiles were used for the outbound

  • $776.16 in surcharges were paid

Using the 1.19¢ acquisition price established above, the mileage component effectively cost:

  • 110,000 × 1.19¢ ≈ $1,309

Add the surcharges, and the implied all-in cost of the outbound business-class flight was approximately $2,085, versus a $3,872 cash fare.

A clear win.

The mistake (and why it stays in)

Here’s the part that doesn’t get cleaned up.

The Capital One transfer happened before the LifeMiles purchase opportunity was identified and fully anchored.

At the time of the transfer, Capital One points were being compared directly to the cash ticket price. With a 4.5¢+ redemption value, that felt unquestionably correct. The assumption was fair, but the analysis was incomplete.

Once LifeMiles were shown to be available at ~1.19¢, the correct pricing anchor for any LifeMiles-funded decision changed. A 1.15× Capital One → LifeMiles transfer is economically equivalent to valuing Capital One miles at:

1.19 × 1.15 ≈ 1.37¢ per point

That reframes the earlier decision.

The real question becomes:

Am I willing to sell Capital One miles for ~1.37¢ each?

I’m not.

That isn’t a catastrophic outcome, but it’s not something I would have done with full information. That’s where the regret comes from.

The alternative that sequencing obscured

Had the LifeMiles purchase framework been fully internalised before the Capital One transfer, a cleaner alternative existed for the return leg:

Buy another ~110,000 LifeMiles outright at ~1.19¢ (roughly $1,300), add $165.96 in surcharges, and fly home for about $1,466 all-in instead of a ~$4,566 cash fare — while preserving the entire Capital One balance.

That option existed. It just wasn’t visible yet.

Final view

This wasn’t a “look how perfect this is” episode. It was a good outcome with a visible flaw.

What still worked:

  • Fixed-date business-class travel secured

  • Cash outlay materially reduced

  • Flexible currencies largely preserved

  • No individual decision that fails on its own merits

What didn’t:

  • The system wasn’t optimised end-to-end from the start

  • One decision was made before the best pricing anchor was fully identified

That’s worth leaving in.

Because this is what real points usage looks like in practice: strong decisions made under incomplete frameworks, followed by better frameworks discovered later.

The result was excellent, but the process was imperfect.

Takeaway

Strong redemptions can still hide sequencing flaws.

Frameworks evolve mid-execution, not just in advance.

That’s the part people usually edit out

The outcome was excellent. But the process was human.

Recommended for you