Article: Should Qantas Sell Status Credits?

[concerned citizen]

Should Qantas Sell Status Credits? is an article written by the AFF editorial team:

https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/should-qantas-sell-status-credits/

You can leave a comment or discuss this topic below.

Status credits were designed to get around the bar on public servants earning FF points. I am not sure of the vvalue of status points. If you fly business class you get access to the lounges and extra allowances. If you a qantas club member you get access to the lounge i. As a taxpayer and a shareholder it concerns me there are folk taking status runs at my expense

 

[SYD]

Status credits were designed to get around the bar on public servants earning FF points.

Ah, no. In fact CoA contracts would still award SCs but zip FF points.

I am not sure of the vvalue of status points. If you fly business class you get access to the lounges and extra allowances.

To some extent. But not everyone flies business class all the time. So status makes a huge difference.

If you a qantas club member you get access to the lounge

No. As mentioned earlier, only for QF Club and limited partner lounge access.

i. As a taxpayer and a shareholder it concerns me there are folk taking status runs at my expense

How is it at your expense? Peeps doing status runs are paying, so QF is making money.

But welcome to AFF!

 

[justinbrett]

I think a logical thing they could do is a one time SC rollover, similar to Hilton.

So any extra SCs earnt in a year can be used the following year, but only rollover SCs once the full amount has been earnt (ie you can’t use previous years and then also rollover into next - it’s one or the other).

 

[exceladdict]

I think a logical thing they could do is a one time SC rollover, similar to Hilton.

So any extra SCs earnt in a year can be used the following year, but only rollover SCs once the full amount has been earnt (ie you can’t use previous years and then also rollover into next - it’s one or the other).

This might discourage people for shooting for a higher status though. Eg if you're happy with sg or WP you would intentionally not hit the next level so that the excess SC come to your next year straight away.

 

[sudoer]

This might discourage people for shooting for a higher status though. Eg if you're happy with sg or WP you would intentionally not hit the next level so that the excess SC come to your next year straight away.

Especially if you're close to P1. Hold off crossing the 3600 mark and take three years of WP instead...

Edit: actually if the rollover cancels after one year this could work. Someone who reaches P1 would soft land to WP anyway, so the incentive to get to P1 wouldn't change.

 

[QantasGonza]

Should Qantas Sell Status Credits? is an article written by the AFF editorial team:

https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/should-qantas-sell-status-credits/

You can leave a comment or discuss this topic below.

If there's any opportunity for Qantas to gorge frequent flyers they will take it. Devalue? They've been doing that for years!

 

[justinbrett]

This might discourage people for shooting for a higher status though. Eg if you're happy with sg or WP you would intentionally not hit the next level so that the excess SC come to your next year straight away.

But with a soft landing that is pretty much negated. Hit the higher tier now and do nothing next year.

 

[exceladdict]

Especially if you're close to P1. Hold off crossing the 3600 mark and take three years of WP instead...

Edit: actually if the rollover cancels after one year this could work. Someone who reaches P1 would soft land to WP anyway, so the incentive to get to P1 wouldn't change.

But with a soft landing that is pretty much negated. Hit the higher tier now and do nothing next year.

is soft landing a published benefit?

 

[Bayside Flyer]

How does NOT flying to earn status on an aircraft which is flying anyway saving the planet?

 

[levelnine]

How does NOT flying to earn status on an aircraft which is flying anyway saving the planet?

Less weight on the aircraft. You might be the one person that flips a particular flight to being unprofitable for the airline, leading it to consolidate flights (think golden triangle).

I think the green angle is actually what might flip Qantas to allowing the purchase of SCs. You only need one media exposé on the wastefulness of status runs for Qantas to do something about them (ie replace them with a paid alternative).

 

[ChrisMars]

Less weight on the aircraft. You might be the one person that flips a particular flight to being unprofitable for the airline, leading it to consolidate flights (think golden triangle).

I think the green angle is actually what might flip Qantas to allowing the purchase of SCs. You only need one media exposé on the wastefulness of status runs for Qantas to do something about them (ie replace them with a paid alternative).

Adding to that, is a common fallacy of "the plan was going to fly anyway, it wasnt full, so my CO2 contribution is small".

The reality is that the more passengers on a route, the more the airline will be enclined to increase frequency. In other word, as an individual, the CO2 footprint appears to be only the one from the added weight. But collectively, this send a market signal to increase frequency, with larger CO2 impact. At the end of the day, it only take "one extra" passenger on a given route to cross a threshold, and justify for the airline to flick the switch and increase frequency.

It s a bit like voting. While noone's indivual vote will make a difference, collectively, the impact determine the future of a population.

 

[RichardMEL]

Adding to that, is a common fallacy of "the plan was going to fly anyway, it wasnt full, so my CO2 contribution is small".

The reality is that the more passengers on a route, the more the airline will be enclined to increase frequency. In other word, as an individual, the CO2 footprint appears to be only the one from the added weight. But collectively, this send a market signal to increase frequency, with larger CO2 impact. At the end of the day, it only take "one extra" passenger on a given route to cross a threshold, and justify for the airline to flick the switch and increase frequency.

It s a bit like voting. While noone's indivual vote will make a difference, collectively, the impact determine the future of a population.

It's a fair point to be sure, and I aluded to it elsewhere myself.

The thing is what are the numbers involved here?

Airlines typically look at demand as avg pax/day over a certain period - perhaps monthly or seasonaly.

One extra may change say a 130avg ton 131 as example, but it still wont massively change the demand profile.

You'd need significant uplift of "unnecessary demand" (for want if a better term) to push the demand profile to warrant looking at either an upguage in capacity or extra services.

And, that may mostly inly be vaid for domestuc more than most international ops where other factors come into play such as slots, aircraft availability, bilateral agreements of capacity caps etc.

Even on domestuc, fleet constrants, airport capacity, gates, fees, etc all come into play.

Further, folks booking flights just to run are still restricted by inventory and yield management on routes. I doubt many runners buy full flex fares, so the effect may be on reducing existing inventory for others (and potentially higher prices in some instances).

If one assumes runners tend to discounted fares (even in premium cabins) that paints a different picture I reckon and lower yield traffic demand may not result in additional capacity, but probably tighter yield controls to try to increase revenue.

Tbh I don't think pure mileage runners are more than a minor blip of total trips and probably do not influence demand profiles much.

 

[kgreenuq]

Oh good God, no! It's difficult enough buying premium seats using points without having to compete with an additional cohort of platinums.

 

[matthewronke]

Received an email from QFF last week saying they estimate I won't make gold this year so I can call them and purchase gold status with qantas points. I had some missing flights that I claimed which hit the gold again so didn't need to call.

, Your flight activity for the past 12-months shows you will not meet the requirements to retain Gold status. However, as a valued member of the Qantas Frequent Flyer program, we would like to extend an exclusive offer to retain your status using Qantas Points. For more information, please call our dedicated team on (02) 9198 4333 between 7am - 7pm, Monday to Saturday on or before 28 June 2024.​

 

[exceladdict]

Received an email from QFF last week saying they estimate I won't make gold this year so I can call them and purchase gold status with qantas points. I had some missing flights that I claimed which hit the gold again so didn't need to call.

​

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ , Your flight activity for the past 12-months shows you will not meet the requirements to retain Gold status. However, as a valued member of the Qantas Frequent Flyer program, we would like to extend an exclusive offer to retain your status using Qantas Points. For more information, please call our dedicated team on (02) 9198 4333 between 7am - 7pm, Monday to Saturday on or before 28 June 2024.​

​

​ ​ ​ ​ ​

How far off were you and how far in advance of end membership year was this?

 

[Lynda2475]

No, if you do not actually fly no SCs for you!

1 or 2 people doing a status run wont materially impact the plane load or lead to need to increase route frequency. When passenger loads are very light Qantas can take on more freight to still make a route profitable.

 

[RichardMEL]

Oh good God, no! It's difficult enough buying premium seats using points without having to compete with an additional cohort of platinums.

Perhaps the Montreal Convention covers this?

 

[RooFlyer]

Welcome to AFF @matthewronke

 

[JonesBoys]

No.

That you can earn SCs by having enough points (via Points club classic reward redemptions) devalues the concept of SCs enough already.

SCs should only be earned from flying for it to truly be a frequent flyer program, rather than some generic consumer loyalty program.

Couldn't agree more. If you don't have your backside in a seat-no SCs earnt. Sadly the term "Status" has become an oxymoron-I'm looking at you Virgin. No family pooling, no triple SC simply by flying in a particular month-great way to devalue the brand and the value to those who do fly a lot. The levels should be harder to achieve. As for Status runs, it beggars belief that anyone would spend, I assume, hard earned money money to achieve what has become a very questionable "benefit." Also interesting how some posts are trying to justify there position thru carbon offset. give me a break!!

 

[33kft]

As for Status runs, it beggars belief that anyone would spend, I assume, hard earned money money to achieve what has become a very questionable "benefit."

I'd start by saying that the assumption is not that sound, it certainly isn't in the case that I've done runs before, and I'd end by saying that it's clearly a different value judgement to yours. I won't even go into the environmental justification stuff - an incredibly small proportion of the customer base taking a few occasional additional flights is a non-event. Plenty of business travelers travel for the sole purpose of "the vibe" of being in the same room and not on the other end of a Teams call. I'm much more guilty of traveling just to be in proximity to customers or colleagues than for status runs, which I'd only do if I was close enough to a goal that I found valuable enough to do a run for.