My take on this:
I can see that QF has made an effort to address the rather large imbalance they created with the last extension lasting til June and then nothing. I think what they have done here goes some way to try to even it up a little, but imo it's just added to the lack of fairness for many members.
(to be upfront here - I've requalified P1 with 3900 SC's on the board with an Aug anniversary, so this extension does nothing for me personally and I'm writing considering the overall situation).
I feel both the lack of including Oct-Dec anniversaries at all AND the huge snub to Silver/Gold members is not a great look for those affected groups. Certainly if I was mid tier member I'd feel very unvalued by QF.
I understand a line has to be made somewhere, and before today it seemed June 30 was that line. Now the message to punters is that we care about the higher yield folks but the rest of you... meh.
If they were going to do it this way, I think there are many more fair ways to do it. eg: do the same for Oct-Dec too, or stagger the requirement levels for all tiers (as they did with status support right through - as in P1 got an advantasge with status rollovers over the other tiers). eg QF could have declared say a 10% discount for Silvers, 15% for Golds, 20% for WP/P1. It still would not be fair, but at least give the impression the other levels matter while giving QF some level of control over the clearly inflated body of Golds(specially) and Silvers that it seems this is saying - there's too many so no favours for you (and we all know about the lounge crowding at times that is probably a factor here).
Finally (and this would affect me personally), that there's nothing for those WP/P1 that qualified already (given how late they've announced this) isn't great. IMO they could have applied the same 20% discount into a status rollover into 2024/25 membership year - that would have given recognition to those that had already qualified and not left them feeling that those who had gotten within that 20% value now had an unfair advantage. Is it a big deal? probably not, but they had done this thing already before so would have been more consistent.. but as we know Consistently Inconsistent(tm) (and I'm fully aware that this whole notion would be self serving to my personal situation so I do have a bias there).
Overall though I think QF could have done this better for the majority of punters in the July-Dec membership anniversary positions. I understand from their point of view not wanting to extend more the majority of status holders in the mid tier (e Gold) for the oft discussed issues of huge numbers in this pool, but it still leaves a bit of a poor taste for those folks the message this move sends to them, and nothing at all for Oct-December folks - well it doesn't change the situation at all as it stood before today.
Seems clear to me that QF has clearly identified that the top tiers are the focus - and why not - a large yield comes from the WP and P1's and throwing a bone to at least attempt to keep some onside vs jumping ship is fair enough from that point of view. I still feel they could have done this better though.
Again, whatever QF did they would create unhappiness and feelings of inequality - as has happened right through this pandemic/status support period - the curse of having rolling status anniversaries - you'll never please everyone. Ideally, just giving the same for Jul-Dec that was given to Jan-Jun would appear the most "fair" in many respects, but I definitely see what has been attempted with this "tapered" approach that's been taken.
