Email received from VA - Share your thoughts, and lunch with our Velocity CEO

[Vic]

Sounds interesting (checks inbox). I think they left a 0 out of the Visa gift card if they truly intended to “cover” your travel expenses. Nice gesture nonetheless.

Hmm, it does say 'local' travel expenses, which is code for a taxi. or a BCC bus.

 

[Gold Member]

Hmm, it does say 'local' travel expenses, which is code for a taxi. or a BCC bus.

True. When I first read the announcement I assumed it was an Australia wide invitation, not isolated to just those living in Brisbane.

 

[Vic]

I'm hesitant to bring up the complimentary upgrades. As mentioned they have very little practical value. But I'd hate to give them a reason to remove the benefit.
Actually, providing things like priority boarding is a massive benefit for me.
I get there are issues with the special entry in Sydney, last time I was there only open in the mornings. But can they organise priority security at Sydney T2 - I get this is a cost thing same as the special lounge entry.

Otherwise, the benefits, while limited, are mostly better than the competition, if only for the fact the benefits are actually delivered (97% of the time)

The single use hotel and car memberships are a bit counter- initiative. If VA can afford the cost the first time someone gets platinum, why not for re-qualification? Should those benefits be moved to a higher earning level (to justify the cost) and provided annually (more than just once) - A model is the companion gold and platinum memberships.

To hurt myself, I find family pooling good as it helps me maintain platinum with VA and QF. I've also used it to get 1x plat, 1x gold, 2x silver across the family members in my house.

International partner benefits are a bit of a dog's breakfast, and would be improved by aligning to like for like benefits with the other airlines status members. of course, the impediment is cost...
I like the current international partner model and, unlike others, I'm not hung up on joining an alliance.

Can they improve the business rewards. Having two logins is annoying. I like the discounts with international partners - and that encourages spend on VA codeshares. More transparency about things like seat selection for economy fare levels on QR, for example?

Haven't received anything.

Not sure I should raise this because it's not so much about "tier benefits" but about the value of Velocity in general. But here goes:

My number one issue with Velocity (and what I consider to be by far it's greatest weakness) concerns New Zealand. NZ is by far the most popular overseas destination for Australians, and as things stand we can only use Velocity points to redeem flights to Queenstown (and availability is not exactly fantastic).

Yes, I know that we can transfer 20,925 Velocity points to 13,500 KrisFlyer points and redeem an Air NZ economy flight, but that's not good value compared with Qantas' 18,000 points (from the east coast).

So I'd ask him about that: what can Velocity do to facilitate redemptions to Australia's number #1 tourist destination?

I agree this seems like bad value. I would suggest there are some balancing factors. The difference is 2925 VA points more in the cost. As a platinum I find VA points are pretty easy to earn on flights. Qantas earning is like 800 or 1200 per flight (on average, golden triangle.) Only earning 800 points on VA means an $80 VA airfare, a good airfare is around $150 to $300, earning 1500 to 3000 points. In Business the earning is getting around 5000 to 7000 points.
I think the additional expense is offset by the greater ability to earn, on flights.
Qantas does have better non-flying earning from my point of view.

Post automatically merged: May 25, 2023

True. When I first read the announcement I assumed it was an Australia wide invitation, not isolated to just those living in Brisbane.

Yes, I didn't get the Brisbane only thing until you mention it now. So agree, on that basis, that only paying for local expenses would be pretty poor.

 

[Digicola]

I like the current international partner model and, unlike others, I'm not hung up on joining an alliance.

I don’t think people here think alliance membership is mandatory. It would just tremendously simplify benefits by making them consistant. You’d know exactly what you get everytime. Right now you have HA where you get nothing, AC where you only get lounge access, QR gives you partial benefits, and then EY and SQ give you pretty much everything consistently.

And the bigger problem is having to arm wrestle check-in agents/lounge staff all over the world for these benefits because they can’t bother looking at their handbook and would rather go on a powertrip because you dared to say you should have benefits. It would also solve the intl lounge access issue.

People see it as a « next best thing » panacea. I too like the current model, but ultimately they’re all codeshare partners and most are from the same alliance.

 

[Vic]

I don’t think people here think alliance membership is mandatory. It would just tremendously simplify benefits by making them consistant. You’d know exactly what you get everytime. Right now you have HA where you get nothing, AC where you only get lounge access, QR gives you partial benefits, and then EY and SQ give you pretty much everything consistently.

And the bigger problem is having to arm wrestle check-in agents/lounge staff all over the world for these benefits because they can’t bother looking at their handbook and would rather go on a powertrip because you dared to say you should have benefits. It would also solve the intl lounge access issue.

People see it as a « next best thing » panacea. I too like the current model, but ultimately they’re all codeshare partners and most are from the same alliance.

I did not use the word mandatory.
I certainly agree with the benefits of an alliance that you've articulated. Although, I suggest your points were covered in my post by the preceding paragraph that you didn't quote:

International partner benefits are a bit of a dog's breakfast, and would be improved by aligning to like for like benefits with the other airlines status members. of course, the impediment is cost...
I like the current international partner model and, unlike others, I'm not hung up on joining an alliance.

 

[jakeseven7]

I don’t think people here think alliance membership is mandatory. It would just tremendously simplify benefits by making them consistant

Agreed.

The patchwork quilt alliance approach is annoying and sometimes embarrassing for the customer travelling as we’ve seen on here many times people have battled other airlines for their rightful entitlements (I have personally had to fight Etihad for lounge access as have many others, for example).

VA1 was small, now VA2 being even smaller post the collapse means you get the blank face reaction from other airlines when things don’t work as intended…

 

[HS-TQE]

Not to mention Bain likely bulking at the Alliance application/joining fees and ongoing expenses. Meaning they're leaving it to whichever parties(s) get a stake post IPO.

Now if Qatar turns up on the register post IPO, it's probably safe to say *A will be off for the foreseeable future (although not 'forever')

 

[QF WP]

Well I got a lovely email late this afternoon (I had actually just boarded a VA flight BNE/HBA and doing final check before door closing):


There are only two Focus Groups in the booking calendar - BNE and SYD





So keep the questions about Status benefits coming. I will be collating and researching them then presenting to the meeting. Nick is going to find that he really has had a focus group with another 20+ FF’s involved. I will be making sure that he is aware of AFF if he isn’t already. Time to build the relationship

 

[Airbumps]

1. Can you join *A and VA Plat get *A G benefits ?
2. Can you introduce lifetime Status ?
3. What can you do that would differentiate you from the Australian competition? I know you do family pooling but for the truly frequent flyer that’s a detractor not something that would draw them in.

^^^^ Exactly what she said! ^^^^

Agreements between international partners are ad-hoc and inconsistent. This needs to be fixed.

 

[Human]

Agreements between international partners are ad-hoc and inconsistent. This needs to be fixed.

Does it, though?

I can think of any number of top-tier international airlines with ad-hoc and/or inconsistent agreements with their partner airlines. Emirates, Etihad, Alaska, Virgin Atlantic and Air Canada come to mind.

The problem with making agreements "consistent" is that they'll tend to congregate to the lowest common denominator. If Partner Airline "A" agreed to provide a fantastic benefit that Partner Airline "B" refused to provide, would you really suggest that VA refuse the fantastic benefit from Partner Airline "A" for the sake of consistency?

 

[Airbumps]

Does it, though?

I can think of any number of top-tier international airlines with ad-hoc and/or inconsistent agreements with their partner airlines. Emirates, Etihad, Alaska, Virgin Atlantic and Air Canada come to mind.

The problem with making agreements "consistent" is that they'll tend to congregate to the lowest common denominator. If Partner Airline "A" agreed to provide a fantastic benefit that Partner Airline "B" refused to provide, would you really suggest that VA refuse the fantastic benefit from Partner Airline "A" for the sake of consistency?

Do you feel that Virgin's current arrangements with their international partners are good as a whole? Different rules for different airlines. Different rules for different destinations. Different rules for different airlines to the same destinations depending on status.

Its confusing and not conducive to a positive traveller expirence imho

 

[HS-TQE]

Do you feel that Virgin's current arrangements with their international partners are good as a whole? Different rules for different airlines. Different rules for different destinations. Different rules for different airlines to the same destinations depending on status.

Its confusing and not conducive to a positive traveller expirence imho

Allegedly the flexibility of not allowing partnerships outside of *A is one of the reasons why VA didn't bother during the Borghetti/Hogan/SQ era.

Considering most Alliances allow partnerships out of their own now, it's likely the cost of applying and the subsequent CapEx costs (on a post approval application) is what stopped Bain from bothering to spend CapEx on applying.

 

[liamsal]

Looks like I need to put more effort into my survey answers!

Lifetime status is my only suggestion! Oh and status credits earned retrospectively

 

[Human]

Do you feel that Virgin's current arrangements with their international partners are good as a whole? Different rules for different airlines. Different rules for different destinations. Different rules for different airlines to the same destinations depending on status.

Its confusing and not conducive to a positive traveller expirence imho

I don't think Virgin is alone with having different rules for different airlines/destinations/status. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emirates?

I do see your point, though. My point is that even if Virgin's current arrangements are not "good", making them "consistent" isn't necessarily the way to make them better!

 

[pauly7]

Personally I’d like the to actually make Platinum tier more worthwhile. I understand it works for some but isn’t that appetising for many as well.

- I hear the VIP lounges are basically empty from my CEO, why not allow Plats in x times a year?

- Fix the watered down Upgrade benefit for Plats which has been devalued to point of not caring about

- I know Priority Boarding was raised before but I think they need to revisit this new policy that has thrown a spanner in the works of something that worked ok previously

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Do you feel that Virgin's current arrangements with their international partners are good as a whole? Different rules for different airlines. Different rules for different destinations. Different rules for different airlines to the same destinations depending on status.

Its confusing and not conducive to a positive traveller expirence imho

I think human has a point here.

‘consistency’ is not always good. Take interlining of checked baggage on separate tickets … once one of the oneworld members decided not to do it others decided to follow suit ‘for consistency’. And to make it ‘easier’ for passengers to understand. They could do it because they were part of an alliance, and had the strength of the alliance.

Different rules should be confusing, perhaps airlines could better communicate!

Post automatically merged: May 27, 2023

Personally I’d like the to actually make Platinum tier more worthwhile. I understand it works for some but isn’t that appetising for many as well.

- I hear the VIP lounges are basically empty from my CEO, why not allow Plats in x times a year?

- Fix the watered down Upgrade benefit for Plats which has been devalued to point of not caring about

- I know Priority Boarding was raised before but I think they need to revisit this new policy that has thrown a spanner in the works of something that worked ok previously

I was thinking the same thing about the Beyond Lounges the other day… the VA CEO has stated they’re not just for politicians, CEOs and celebrities. So why not put their words into action? A couple of Beyond passes for every 1000 status credits over and above re qualification wouldn’t be a bad incentive!

 

[Harrison_133]

- I hear the VIP lounges are basically empty from my CEO, why not allow Plats in x times a year?

I recall one of the recent surveys suggested passes (2 per year) to the Beyond lounge as an idea.

- I know Priority Boarding was raised before but I think they need to revisit this new policy that has thrown a spanner in the works of something that worked ok previously

+1 for priority boarding to be raised please!

 

[Airbumps]

I don't think Virgin is alone with having different rules for different airlines/destinations/status. Couldn't you say the same thing about Emirates?

I do see your point, though. My point is that even if Virgin's current arrangements are not "good", making them "consistent" isn't necessarily the way to make them better!

Yeah fair enough.....consistent can also be consistently bad! If we ask for consistent it might be a low bar across the board.

Another reason I'd love to see them join an alliance - at least you know what you're getting in terms of benefits with status.

 

[HS-TQE]

Yeah fair enough.....consistent and also be consistently bad! If we ask for consistent it might be a low bar across the board.

Another reason I'd love to see them join an alliance - at least you know what you're getting in terms of benefits with status.

Be careful what you wish for. They may even swing further towards the 'budget' zone and towards Value Alliance territory.

 

[antycbr]

I just had the EOI email arrive this afternoon for Sydney on Friday 9 June. Registered, hopefully get the opportunity!