Ethics of status runs

[johnbli]

Now that Qantas has launched their latest double points/double status runs, there's much excitement with lots of members designing and eagerly sharing complex status runs. Every time I see this happening, it provokes an uneasy feeling in me. I'm really interested to know how status runs (and chasing points and status in frequent flyer programs more generally) sits with everyone's ethics.

I think it's well understood by most by now that human-induced carbon emissions are locking in decades of climate warming, putting plant and animal life in danger and even threatening human civilisation. (I'm sure there are some who would still disagree with this despite all the evidence, but let's park that debate for now). We also know that as individuals, the single worst way we can contribute to carbon emission is by taking a flight (and the footprint gets even bigger the further up the cabin you are seated).

Sure, some of us say we "must" fly for whatever reason (or at least we like to convince ourselves that we must), and that any frequent flyer points/status we earn is purely incidental. But is going out of our way to take additional flights, just to earn more, ethical? Is our contribution to global warming justifiable, knowing what we know, just to get access to an airport lounge or a larger seat or a nicer glass of champagne?

Ok, I realise this might not be the most popular topic on a forum like this, and it’s not my intention to be a party pooper. There's no judgement here, I'm just genuinely interested to understand other members' thoughts.

 

[Vic]

An interesting question. Just yesterday someone at work raised the fact that I've routed via Sydney on the outbound for an upcoming trip via Perth to Paris so I can visit the first lounge.
Fair point, for a nice lunch is it worth the extra flight and the waste of my time? I could balance that against the non-stop flight Perth to Paris having lower emissions than an alternative with a stop over.
It's swings and round abouts real.

I'd suggest the bigger issue is that the majority of Australians are not focussed on the true end goal of reducing pollution (emissions or other). We have this nonsensical political debate that is trying to pick technology winners and losers. There is no interst in using the best available technology. There are these ludicrous arguments about cost when there should be no consideration of cost when it comes to reducing pollution.
On top of all that there is no consideration of environmental impact.

We can talk about status runs. It is a fair question. But it is a mute point when the main game is broken almost beyond repair. We are no closer to fixing the big problem, status runs are just background noise. IMO

Note this is just my opinion about the current approach to climate in Australia - not about the political sides - I will not engage in any discussion about the politics.

 

[Flyerwin]

Take one step back - what about the ethics of status in the first place?

 

[RooFlyer]

Ok, I realise this might not be the most popular topic on a forum like this, and it’s not my intention to be a party pooper. There's no judgement here, I'm just genuinely interested to understand other members' thoughts.

I have absolutely no qualms about flying or flying a lot. And I’m sorry I just cannot respect it being framed in terms of ‘ethics’.

Especially when I read about all the paragons of environmental virtue with their millions and billions and their private jets flying all around the place and multiple large air-conditioned homes. Cannon-Brookes is the latest one with a private jet, reported today. Quite a quite an amusing story about this hypocrisy in the AFR today.

When our moral lecturers fall into line, I’ll be more inclined to do so.

 

[p--and--t]

The number of people doing status runs would be miniscle compared to the general public.

No additional flights will be scheduled as a result of this contingent of flyers actions during a double points period.

Happy to be corrected but I suspect the amount of additional fuel being consumed as a result of someone doing a status run would be so small would be negated by a few cars sitting waiting for traffic lights to change or the fuel to get to the airport if not using public transport.

Might make you feel good not doing it, but in the overall scheme of things probably irrelevant.

 

[Mattg]

It is something that I think about and I do think the OP raises a valid point.

It's for this reason that I wonder if Qantas should consider just selling (small amounts of) status credits to negate the need to take unnecessary flights where the sole purpose is retaining a status level.

Should Qantas Sell Status Credits?

By selling status credits, Qantas could reduce unnecessary status runs and make extra revenue. But is it a good idea?

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[moa999]

The number of people doing status runs would be miniscle compared to the general public.

No additional flights will be scheduled as a result of this contingent of flyers actions during a double points period.

Tend to agree for a one week booking window with existing flights it's a marginal impact.

Maybe different in the UK where possibly some routes almost relied on TP runners for load factorsm

 

[Vic]

Take one step back - what about the ethics of status in the first place?

Although that would be business ethics about recognition of 'good' customers. Pretty sure most businesses do that. My local pub for example offers me a very good wicket - $1 off happy hour prices, happy hour prices at all times, and an honour system for payment where I count my beers and tell them how many at the end. Oh and 20% off food.

I have absolutely no qualms about flying or flying a lot. And I’m sorry I just cannot respect it being framed in terms of ‘ethics’.

Probably one difference is flying that is needed versus flying only to get status

The number of people doing status runs would be miniscle compared to the general public.

No additional flights will be scheduled as a result of this contingent of flyers actions during a double points period.

Happy to be corrected but I suspect the amount of additional fuel being consumed as a result of someone doing a status run would be so small would be negated by a few cars sitting waiting for traffic lights to change or the fuel to get to the airport if not using public transport.

Might make you feel good not doing it, but in the overall scheme of things probably irrelevant.

ISTR Qantas advertising claimed the 787 fuel efficiency per pax was the same as a small car - so like 7 to 10 litre per 100 km

 

[Human]

I wonder whether paying to offset the carbon emissions during said status run (and every other flight) makes a difference?

I know that's a whole other topic about whether paying the extra few dollars for carbon offsets actually does help the environment in any way. But let's assume that it does: that would presumably mean that offseting the emissions cancels out the negative environmental effect of the flight.

 

[p--and--t]

ISTR Qantas advertising claimed the 787 fuel efficiency per pax was the same as a small car - so like 7 to 10 litre per 100 km

Interesting. Thanks.

But is that to fly the seat (empty or sold) or the additional when the seat is occupied?

 

[Pushka]

Now that Qantas has launched their latest double points/double status runs, there's much excitement with lots of members designing and eagerly sharing complex status runs. Every time I see this happening, it provokes an uneasy feeling in me. I'm really interested to know how status runs (and chasing points and status in frequent flyer programs more generally) sits with everyone's ethics.

I think it's well understood by most by now that human-induced carbon emissions are locking in decades of climate warming, putting plant and animal life in danger and even threatening human civilisation. (I'm sure there are some who would still disagree with this despite all the evidence, but let's park that debate for now). We also know that as individuals, the single worst way we can contribute to carbon emission is by taking a flight (and the footprint gets even bigger the further up the cabin you are seated).

Sure, some of us say we "must" fly for whatever reason (or at least we like to convince ourselves that we must), and that any frequent flyer points/status we earn is purely incidental. But is going out of our way to take additional flights, just to earn more, ethical? Is our contribution to global warming justifiable, knowing what we know, just to get access to an airport lounge or a larger seat or a nicer glass of champagne?

Ok, I realise this might not be the most popular topic on a forum like this, and it’s not my intention to be a party pooper. There's no judgement here, I'm just genuinely interested to understand other members' thoughts.

I think such a point of view from a person concerned about the environment is significantly more valid, than those who lecture us about environmental impacts and then display behaviours for themselves that says exactly the opposite. As @RooFlyer has commented, when people stop lecturing me then the message will be heard.

So, I hear your concerns and message. Thankyou.

 

[drron]

Rather than status runs if you truly believe we can control the climate why do we have a tourism industry.

 

[Pushka]

Rather than status runs if you truly believe we can control the climate why do we have a tourism industry.

And conferences in 'remote' screaming hot places that address such concerns.

 

[aikman]

No different to the ethics of flying somewhere just to watch a football match.

People have hobbies. Some hobbies have high carbon footprints.

 

[GrahamBRI]

No different to the ethics of flying somewhere just to watch a football match.

People have hobbies. Some hobbies have high carbon footprints.

100% agree. For some of us, flying is a recreational activity - yes, we actually enjoy the activity of flying and sometimes more than the destination. Status runs allow you to participate in your recreational activity and make your next flights even more enjoyable (with the status it brings). So, for me, much the same as people who enjoy boating, driving...... and even just watching sports played at night under lights - they all consume energy and have a footprint. I think ethics, is more about how you balance this to offset what you can.

 

[JackMiles]

No additional flights will be scheduled as a result of this contingent of flyers actions during a double points period.

I've seen this general argument presented numerous times and I just don't get it. Seems obviously flawed to me but maybe I'm missing something. The flight schedules are based on previous/historic, and projected, demand, both of which include this contingent of flyers. And when this contingent of flyers take this raft of flights, it will factor into how many flights are scheduled for the next period.
You might argue that this contingent won't be large enough to create extra flights but that's a different, more complex argument (requiring some hard data) and is answered along the usual drop-in-the-bucket lines.

 

[Vic]

Interesting. Thanks.

But is that to fly the seat (empty or sold) or the additional when the seat is occupied?

I assume when the seat is full. But I don't know if that assumption is correct.
Perhaps the fuel use per km divided by number of pax? Likely a theoretical number if the plane was full?

 

[SYD]

I've seen this general argument presented numerous times and I just don't get it. Seems obviously flawed to me but maybe I'm missing something. The flight schedules are based on previous/historic, and projected, demand, both of which include this contingent of flyers. And when this contingent of flyers take this raft of flights, it will factor into how many flights are scheduled for the next period.
You might argue that this contingent won't be large enough to create extra flights but that's a different, more complex argument (requiring some hard data) and is answered along the usual drop-in-the-bucket lines.

Both QF and VA have staggered member anniversary dates. So, unlike US and Euro programs, you don’t have masses of people all trying to fly somewhere in Dec each year (for example).

Whilst there are several here doing pure status runs, I’m seeing a lot more comments from peeps happy that they can get DSC on trips they wanted or needed to do anyway.

 

[RooFlyer]

Probably one difference is flying that is needed versus flying only to get status

Virtually none of the flying I do is “necessary “.

Versus ‘flying for status’? While I think that’s a dumb thing to do, it’s all the same exhaust out the back.

The Cannon-Brookes story getting a bit of a run now. Joe Aston has written a column about it. Here is a bit of the AFR story - off my phone and app so there’s no link I’m sorry.

 

[Vic]

Rather than status runs if you truly believe we can control the climate why do we have a tourism industry.

Great example of my point. People mistakenly think this is about controlling the environment. While people are stuck in this false narriative the actual point will continue to be lost in the wilderness.
Until the thinking moves beyond the small scale, bespoke issues we will be doomed to repeating the same reductive arguments.

The real issue is acknowledging that all human activities impact the environment. The real target should be to minimise human impact holistically in the total environment. Rather than picking on the trivial like a single pollutant and then repeating the same talking points ad nauseam.

But, you know, whatever makes you happy.