What difference does it make? You can earn points on non-QF activities, whether those be partner airlines or non-airline partners, so if we only look at a narrow range of redemptions should you then consider that against a narrow range of earnings? If points are fungible in earning they are fungible in spending!
In terms of what flights or rewards people are redeeming on one need to consider the opportunity cost. Some other posters argue that they're redeeming on parter airlines. A big difference between an airline offering a reward on their own metal is that they control the opportunity cost whereas they don't on a partner. People also forget that they don't control partner inventory but also that they must compensate partners when customers redeem on partners (and vice versa).
I'm not sharing that data to refute your point but simply argue that a redemptions have skyrocketed because earnings have skyrocketed because membership has skyrocketed! While we might not be getting what we were, a large number of people are being attracted to the program thereby concentrating it. Without more flights there can't be more rewards offered, hence the price increasing. The point that I'm arguing is that the inherent success via growth of QFF is outstripping supply. That's not sustainable, so prices will increase. That's the headline: too many points chasing too few goods!
