Big development! Qantas seat selection!

[JohnK]

It does not matter who pays for your airfares ...

Just like it is irrelevant how much one pays for the airfares.

OT: I tried to give you advice on how you could ensure such travel would be quite legally tax deductible as well as applicable for input tax credits - your choice.

I don't remember you giving me advice. It is not going to be easy claiming when I am a full time employee as opposed to being a contractor.

Currently for international flights, the first ~10% of sets at the front of the WHY cabin is "Q-Blocked" (reserved) for QP/PS/SG/WP/CL and oneworld equivalents (elites). Any Q-Blocked seat can be pre-allocated by said elites .

But the automated system does not appear to be allocating lower status frequent flyers as close to the front as Platinums and Golds. Sure the lower status can call QF and get better seat allocation but that does not happen very often.

So, effectively, the current system is one "... where someone is rewarded for booking early over status ..." and so, in your opinion, is "totally wrong".

I have booked very late on a number of occasions and I have been able to secure a very forward aisle and then changed to an exit row aisle which has always been available. Now they want to give people the option of allocating their own seats at booking time which means most of the forward seats will be gone early which is not the case under the current system.

Anyway I got a call from QF the other day and I was assured that nothing will be done without a formal email/letter going out to everyone.

 

[serfty]

...

Still, no matter how you look at it, the earlier booker of an international flight generally gets access to a greater choice of seating under the current arrangment.

 

[Commuter]

As a SG would I be wanting the 3rd row of economy which is clearly full, knowing Row 1/2 is full of WPs, or would I choose for Row 66 or 67 which the seat maps reveal is absolutely empty?

Speaking as a WP, I'd rather sit 'quiet down the back' than the 'full front' for sure. I don't really value the 'front' part that much, although 'quiet front' would be my preference of course - and I don't like bulkhead seat that much, so the only thing I really value is the exit row aisle.

 

[v8Statesman]

You mean their employer paying for K and Y class airfares.

John, Are you seriously saying that Qantas should value E class purchased by a private citizen during a sale that in all likelyhood was a loss leader fare higher than Y,B,H,K purchased by a company?

At least I pay for my own airfares,

Are you having a dig at someone here about who pays? If so that is a little unfair given this is a forum for frequent flyers reglardless of who pays. If not then I fail to see how it has any relevance to Qantas or seat selection.

Why would I want a Silver, Gold who's employer does not know any better and pays for flexible airfares get better seats than me?

I guess in a perfect world we all would like to be flying in a 388F seat on every flight even BNE-SYD for $50. But that is not going to happen. I Gold memeber who is flying on a flexible ticket is rather valuable to Qantas. They should be looked after and be in good seats. Regardless of who paid.

 

[simongr]

Just out of interest do we actually know/have real evidence of what seats people are achieving?

I would be more than happy to post here (in a separate thread) my seating allocations here so we can get a general impression of what the actual result is. Something like:

Status
Fare basis
Date of booking
Date of travel
Available seats
A/C type

At the moment all I see is complaints about what seats might be allocated rather than what seats have been allocated.

Personally I like this new system. As a WP I will be able to choose from the first 3-4 rows (I assume blocked for SG does not mean blocked from WP/CL).

 

[JohnK]

John, Are you seriously saying that Qantas should value E class purchased by a private citizen during a sale that in all likelyhood was a loss leader fare higher than Y,B,H,K purchased by a company?

But if that private citizen purchases ~80 O class airfares a year (~$94/airfare) and is Platinum and you are comparing that with someone with NIL status (maybe not even a QFF member) and flies ~4 times a year (~$300/airfare) then I would say the former wins hands down in every category.

Are you having a dig at someone here about who pays? If so that is a little unfair given this is a forum for frequent flyers reglardless of who pays. If not then I fail to see how it has any relevance to Qantas or seat selection.

Not having a shot at anyone but I feel I am being treated a little unfairly in this argument. Remember I am the one being insulted here by being referred to as a "bottom feeder" or "no value to Qantas" because I pay for my own airfares as opposed to a company purchasing flexible airfares for someone.

And I like the system the way it is right now. Is that a crime? Or should I just bow down to everything that happens and not have an opinion on the matter?

 

[JohnK]

At the moment all I see is complaints about what seats might be allocated rather than what seats have been allocated.

Personally I like this new system. As a WP I will be able to choose from the first 3-4 rows (I assume blocked for SG does not mean blocked from WP/CL).

I have noticed that in your last few bookings these have been during the last couple of weeks of travel. If you continue to book airfares late then as a Platinum there is a great chance that the best seat available at the time of the booking will be row 22 as the first 3-4 rows have already been allocated to Platinums, the next 7-8 rows have been allocated to Golds and the remainder have been allocated to Silvers.

There is a serious design flaw in the new system as no one can predict how many of each status will be on each and every flight. I really do not understand why people would prefer a system where you allocate your own seat at time of booking to a system where everyone is put into a pool at T-25 hours and allocated a seat based on their status/value/fare class.

The only people I can see benefitting from the new system are Silver members and I can see Platinums/Golds sitting down the back, or in middle seats, more often and being upset. Am I seeing something that is not there? Personally I think my analysis of the new system is spot on....

 

[futaris]

But if that private citizen purchases ~80 O class airfares a year (~$94/airfare) and is Platinum and you are comparing that with someone with NIL status (maybe not even a QFF member) and flies ~4 times a year (~$300/airfare) then I would say the former wins hands down in every category.

Just because you spend more doesn't mean that you generate more revenue. Say it costs QANTAS $90 to transport you and your luggage, supply you food & alcohol at the QANTAS Club, etc.

(750km @ $0.086/km + $25 for luggage loading/unloading, QANTAS club stuff, FF points, etc)

So, they make $4 profit off you each flight. Which means $320 profit.

Compare this against the person who flies 4 times at $300/fare. $210 profit, times 4 = $840 profit. This is assuming that they weigh the same as you, carry the same amount of luggage, eat the same amount of food, etc.

 

[JohnK]

So, they make $4 profit off you each flight. Which means $320 profit.

If I wasn't sitting in that seat then QF would have $94 less revenue? What about all the other passengers on E,O,N,Q class airfares? In fact why bother selling E,O,N,Q class? Why not simply have 40 less people on each flight and make a good size profit out of the remaining passengers. Doesn't quite work that way does it?

Compare this against the person who flies 4 times at $300/fare. $210 profit, times 4 = $840 profit. This is assuming that they weigh the same as you, carry the same amount of luggage, eat the same amount of food, etc.

Why does QF bother with a status based system? Instead move to a spend system where spend for each flight counts more than total spend for the year....

 

[futaris]

If I wasn't sitting in that seat then QF would have $94 less revenue? What about all the other passengers on E,O,N,Q class airfares? In fact why bother selling E,O,N,Q class? Why not simply have 40 less people on each flight and make a good size profit out of the remaining passengers. Doesn't quite work that way does it?

It's called Revenue Management or Yield Management. Wikipedia can explain it better than I can.

There are three essential conditions for revenue management to be applicable:

• That there is a fixed amount of resources available for sale.
• That the resources sold are perishable. This means that there is a time limit to selling the resources, after which they cease to be of value.
• That different customers are willing to pay a different price for using the same amount of resources.

If all customers would pay the same price for using the same amount of resources, the challenge would perhaps be limited to selling as quickly as possible, e.g. if there are costs for holding inventory.

Individually a person/fare may not be as profitable as another person on the plane. If everyone was paying the same fare, then the above wouldn't apply.



NB, I don't think that Oneworld allows status based upon revenue.


AFAIK, The only frequent flyer program that is in an alliance that gives status solely based upon revenue (actually $$$ spent), is SQ PPS.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

You mean their employer paying for K and Y class airfares. At least I pay for my own airfares, not tax deductible, and I am Platinum and I get to sit in 4C with 4AB vacant. Why would I want a Silver, Gold who's employer does not know any better and pays for flexible airfares get better seats than me?

QANTAS is a business, not a charity. They are in the business of maximising profits - and that means looking after the people who make the company profits. Who pays the fares is irrelevant.

Likewise, I assume you are not a charity - you're not donating money to QANTAS. If QANTAS isn't delivering what you want, then maybe it's time to consider alternatives.

It is my opinion and I will continue to post it. Please stop insulting me and stay away from my posts. This is the last time I reply to anything you post....

I'm not insulting you. I'm just advising that there appears to be a course of action that is a win for every party concerned.

 

[Cyclogenesis]

Posting as some one on the other end of the spectrum (NB QP who is just short of silver) this additional feature makes the transition from NB to PS more attractive, so while it devalues WP it increases the value of PS. With my planned travel in June I will be 15SC short of silver (needed by end of June) so I will be taking a SC run or another "not as important" trip to make silver (I was already planning this before reading all this, I want OW ruby for my next trip for business class check in with AA in the US, but this additional value pretty much locked it in..)

In the a company makes decisions to benefit the shareholders, rest assured if analysis of spending patterns following the implementation shows a disadvantage for QF then the system will be scrapped/amended.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

If I wasn't sitting in that seat then QF would have $94 less revenue? What about all the other passengers on E,O,N,Q class airfares? In fact why bother selling E,O,N,Q class? Why not simply have 40 less people on each flight and make a good size profit out of the remaining passengers. Doesn't quite work that way does it?

It is better to sell the seat for $94 than not sell the seat at all.

But once the seat is sold to you, then some of the cost of flying the plane is allocated against your seat. And once that cost is apportioned the actual profit the $94 ticket makes is probably very low.

Cost of flight: $200
One $600 ticket sold
Profit = $400 for that one ticket
Total Profit: $400

Cost of flight: $200
1 x $600 ticket sold, 1 x $100 ticket sold
Profit: $500 on the $600 ticket, $0 on the $100 ticket
Total Profit: $500

(I didn't include any variable costs). You get the picture though - even though the $100 ticket isn't profitable, it's better than nothing. However the $600 ticket is far more profitable. And people who fly on expensive fares are probably entitled to ask why they aren't being looked after.

Why does QF bother with a status based system? Instead move to a spend system where spend for each flight counts more than total spend for the year....

I assume there are alliance rules on this.

Additionally, status is supposed to reflect spend/profit with QANTAS. You'd have to fly 140 cheap SYD-BNE (or vv) flights to get to WP, which I doubt many people do at all. However 4 SYD-LAX flights in J would get you WP, and make QF a lot of money.

 

[docjames]

I've resisted posting here again as i dont want to be seen to take anyone's side.

As a PS i do agree with cyclogenesis, it makes PS more attractive if the theoretical better seats are opened up, however as PS I was getting those seats on checkin anyway. With the brief "trial" we had last week, mty seats got worse (nothing forward of 19 on 738 vs usually rows 6-15 with OLCI).

I must say there is a point JohnK has that makes sense - that QF dont know on any given flight, how many WPs/CL/Gold/Silver there will be until very close to the flight. The current system works well in that most of the time, the higher status passenger gets the better seat, as 24hrs out from the flight they know (barring last minute bookings, and I think most reasonable people, if you book one hour before a flight, it's subject to seat availability and they do their best at the airport to seat you.) They do have historical data, which is a guide, but there'll be lots of situations where that will be plain wrong and they will have unhappy FFers (of all levels). FFers make a large part of QF's business so it is risky to upset your best passengers.

I will be really disappointed with QF if I happen to book later than someone else (eg. 3 months out vs 11 months out), but get a worse seat if they have less status than me. Same goes for WPs I would think - why should a PS get a front row seat just because they booked one hour earlier?

I think fare paid is irrelevant, QF would not sell the seat in any price bucket if it was not of value to them to do so. Status is a reward for flying, if QF wanted to stop WP qualification on red-edeals, it would be restricted in the same way many other airlines give less earn or no earn on ceratin fare buckets. How one earns their status is irrelevant, QF offer it, they are a business, and if it wasnt in the business interest to do so, they would cut it.

This new system does not appear in my opinion to work in QF's best interests as it will at some stage upset some of their valuable customers, and they stand to lose more custom than offering seat seleciton brings them.

 

[Cyclogenesis]

Just out of interest does anyone know if the class of fare is taken into account in the current and future system of allocation? Does a SG on a E class fare have access to seats that a NB/No status on a K/Y fare would not?

Fertile and interesting ground for economic cost/benefit modeling... FF /loyalty schemes are there to modify the spending behavior of consumers. The cost of such a scheme to Qantas are the benefits provided plus some second order costs (for example the inability to sell premium seats at a premium... until now with the exit isle cost)
the benefit is that the "Trapped" consumer preferentially directs business to QF..

But the playing field is skewed somewhat with the absence of a domestic competitor with an internationally recognized FF scheme.

I bet all these factors and more are taken into consideration when structuring benefits for FF and for pay-for-privilege (ie exit row alloc)

(here endeth the waffle)

 

[wandering_fred]

One side effect seems to be that other OW elites (well at least me) seem to have lost a bit with the new program. Previously I would expect to be in rows 26-30 on the 330 to/from SIN and now I am getting sets in the 30-36 range, with the requests being about two months out......

YMMV

Fred

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I think fare paid is irrelevant, QF would not sell the seat in any price bucket if it was not of value to them to do so.

Some seats are worth more than others.

Status is a reward for flying, if QF wanted to stop WP qualification on red-edeals, it would be restricted in the same way many other airlines give less earn or no earn on ceratin fare buckets.

Oh, could you just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the threatening of a new mass exodus, if QF suggested this?

This new system does not appear in my opinion to work in QF's best interests as it will at some stage upset some of their valuable customers, and they stand to lose more custom than offering seat seleciton brings them.

?? I assume lots and lots of people have been asking for this, otherwise why waste the amount of time/money to implement it?

 

[JohnK]

I am sorry if I do not agree but every person on a flight is just as important as the next regardless of the class of airfare. Every customer is important but customers with higher status are more important. Customers with high QF status who fly predominantly on QF are more important than customers with high QF status who fly on other Oneworld airlines and the same goes for customers with high QF status as opposed to customers with high Oneworld status on another airline.

Anyone who thinks that a person on one DONE4 per year with one QF sector is more important or profitable than a person who does 140 QF domestic sectors on cheap airfares is kidding themselves.

The costs do not vary significantly between a fully loaded flight and a lightly loaded flight. May as well fill every seat possible at whatever cost people are prepared to pay for the seats. I was on a QF 737-800 SYD-BNE flight last night with 110 passengers on board out of a seating capacity of 180!. The cheapest airfare a few days earlier was $156. Wouldn't QF have loved another 70 passengers on the flight at $94 a seat + $7.70 credit card surcharge? Full compliment of cabin crew already on duty, fuel costs roughly the same, provide a snack and a soft drink worth about $5 probably less when purchasing in bulk. I figure QF could have gotten $5,000+ extra profit on that flight. A lot better than what they got on the flight last night.

And yes I understand yield and inventory management without looking it up in wikipedia. It is actually quite simple. Sell as many tickets as possible at whatever price you can get for them, assuming you have achieved break even point, and increase revenue which will ultimately increase profit. Don't sell seats as cheaply as possible and you lose a customer to the opposition and you fly a lot of empty aircraft.

Where is Ansett when you need them?

 

[anat0l]

This thread is turning into a debate about the current allocation system again (and that perhaps this new feature will be a further... ahem...."enhancement"....of this system....). But I'll add my two cents (again) into this...

Personally when I fly domestic, I fly only Red e-Deals, so far (bar a few flights of which could be counted on my fingers). Most of these are the sales, cheapest bucket fares (i.e. O fares).

Since becoming a WP, I regularly am able to select front row Y seats (i.e. row 23 on 767 aircrafts, row 4 on 738s and the most forward row on 734s). My preference is aisle, so e.g. on 738s I regularly am able to select (indeed, am preallocated) 4C. Because of my preference, the system tries to give me an aisle no matter what, so sometimes I get preallocated 5C, 6C etc. But I still have access to move to 4A etc.

I've had a gaggle of discount Y fare flying in the last week (all O) and in all cases (except for Dash 8 flights) I have been able to get seats in the first row of Y - and in about 95%+ cases, preallocated. This includes the insidious flights to and from CBR, where surely a good proportion of the plane must be pollies or related to their jobs - WPs and/or CLs abound. (In these cases, DH4 flights are a lost cause for getting rows further forward than 5, but for any jet flights I've had I have been able to secure front row Y). Plus, 4 op-ups. AFAICT not many, if any, of my flights are "rush hour" flights (certainly not in "the triangle", although ADL/MEL can get surprisingly busy at times), but there's still something to be said there.

I don't have points of comparison really because not many people I know (let alone on this forum) who are WPs that fly better than Red e-Deals. (Even our institute director flies Red e-Deals.)

I don't think QF use fare class prominently to split people except when really splitting hairs. If so, then there should be a case as to how I could possibly be sitting in front row Y so regularly. Not to mention that I don't often OLCI dead on T-24 hours.

 

[serfty]

Just out of interest does anyone know if the class of fare is taken into account in the current and future system of allocation? Does a SG on a E class fare have access to seats that a NB/No status on a K/Y fare would not? ...

I believe the Altea system introduced last year is prividing a weighted value per PAX for each flight, referred to as a PCV. See post #63 of this very thread:

What IS the current system and how does it differ to what's explained above?

see here:
Another interesting Post on the Related FT thread on this article. The author lists their occupation as an "Analyst for Airline Industry":

Alright before this speculation gets out of hand (and believe me, this article is way off base with its story!!!), let me explain this concept.

With Qantas' switch of reservation system, there are alot of behind the scenes changes that have taken place. One of these new concepts is called 'Theoretical Seats,' and believe me when I say that it is an excellent idea in theory, but it will take some time to iron out the issues Qantas is currently going through. Basically, Qantas has setup a list order (call it a value) of each pax for each and every flight (as well as values for individual seats on an aircraft). The ranking order takes into account FF status, PNR associations, SSRs, booking class, etc.

So, behind the scene before a pax even shows up to check-in, the system has allocated 'theoretical seats' for EVERY pax on that flight, depending the ranking order. What this means is that a pax with a high ranking order will have access to almost every seat available on the flight. A pax with a low ranking order will ONLY SEE SEATS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BLOCKED BY THE 'THEORETICAL SEATS' FOR HIGHER RANKING PAX. Generally, if a flight is booked full (oversold), a low-ranking pax will see maybe 1 or 2 seats, or none at all available to them.

What this concept tries to do, is give pax with FF status, higher fare tickets, etc. better seats on an aircraft when pre-assignment is out of the question (QF doesn't pre-assign domestic seats, same for intra-Europe flights and Eurpoean carriers). Now, the issues that QF has had with this function relate to the way in which it had set up the ranking of pax. Families were checking in for flights and being spread out throughout an aircraft, and FF bookings (for status pax) were showing up at the bottom of the ranking order. QF has since fixed a lot of these issues internally, and regarding the article in question, THIS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BUMPING PAX. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. I'm not sure where that idea came from.

Now, the most difficult as you can imagine, is a check-in agent trying to explain this to pax as they are checking in bright and early for a flight, and not being allowed to access an open seat. It's a very complex situation, and not an easy one to explain.

So, hopefully that sheds some light onto the issue, but I would definitely take the article with a grain of salt, because there is very little valuable substance to it.

I do not believe this system is going to change that much; I would expect this change to be an extension or enhancement of this "Theoretical Seats" based component of Altea.

Note this PCV can also be used to assist with deciding on op-ups.