Gold yanked - thoughts?

[juddles]

Forgive me for taking a stance that is against popular feelings of outrage, But help me here... Qantas is inconsistent. In service delivery, etc. Their website and IT sucks, but no more that other airlines. What is being argued in this thread is not that Qantas failed to deliver a merited service, but rather that they did not give something their IT system promised, but which was undeserved. So on the one hand "we" bag QF's IT faults, but on the other hand, we express outrage that the false positives these glitches provide are not honoured?????

The criteria for status is as clear as can be. If you do not earn it, don't expect it.

 

[Ewing]

Well in this case I'll take their consistent inconsistency. Thanks Qantas!

 

[Kangol]

Well in this case I'll take their consistent inconsistency. Thanks Qantas!

View attachment 143554

What was your 3 year average?

 

[Ewing]

What was your 3 year average?

Probably about 1500/yr. Yearly spend between 15-20k.

I usually go to the USA every few months in paid J but haven't been this year.

I have been comped before but it was around 2011. I've been Platinum for most of the past 10 years.

 

[RooFlyer]

Their website and IT sucks, but no more that other airlines. What is being argued in this thread is not that Qantas failed to deliver a merited service, but rather that they did not give something their IT system promised, but which was undeserved. So on the one hand "we" bag QF's IT faults, but on the other hand, we express outrage that the false positives these glitches provide are not honoured?????

As an active user of about 20 airlines web sites ( from Qantas to Air Astana to Qatar to S7 ....) I reckon Qantas' sucks A LOT more than any of the others - from being 'down' very regularly, to having broken features after an 'enhancement', to seat selection being broken off and on for weeks etc. You simply don't find that with other airlines.

I haven't seen any 'outrage' in this thread. Some bemusement, some annoyance and a fair bit of eye rolling.

Never mind the inconsistency - why should this sort of stuff happen at all in a large corporation whose on line presence is critical for their business. Lack of care? Ignorance? Lack of skill? Lack of oversight?

 

[juddles]

.......
I haven't seen any 'outrage' in this thread. Some bemusement, some annoyance and a fair bit of eye rolling.

Never mind the inconsistency - why should this sort of stuff happen at all in a large corporation whose on line presence is critical for their business. Lack of care? Ignorance? Lack of skill? Lack of oversight?

The "outrage" is in a more general sense - over many threads.

I totally agree that a big company like an airline should have an immaculate website. My biggest gripe with Qantas is that they seem to have far more budget for fools with ideas to come up with pretty changes to the website, than to pay for the techs for a good implementation....

 

[Scarlett]

Well in this case I'll take their consistent inconsistency. Thanks Qantas!

View attachment 143554

Any chance you got the old 3 year average WP retain Ewing? Maybe it has randomly popped back for a final hurrah!
<should have read on through the thread: same question already asked...and answered...>

I think if it had happened to me I might have kept very quiet about it, but good luck to you, seems like a situation where a comp is deserved based on ongoing commitment to the QF product.
I can also see the other side of the coin from QFs viewpoint that maybe doing it for one, sets expectations from others. Personally I have no problem with it: a company should be able to make its own commercial decisions and can comp where it wants and not comp in other situations and no one should have the right to complain if the published rules are being followed.

 

[Pushka]

Any chance you got the old 3 year average WP retain Ewing? Maybe it has randomly popped back for a final hurrah!
<should have read on through the thread: same question already asked...and answered...>

I think if it had happened to me I might have kept very quiet about it, but good luck to you, seems like a situation where a comp is deserved based on ongoing commitment to the QF product.
I can also see the other side of the coin from QFs viewpoint that maybe doing it for one, sets expectations from others. Personally I have no problem with it: a company should be able to make its own commercial decisions and can comp where it wants and not comp in other situations and no one should have the right to complain if the published rules are being followed.

Wot? You mean an unintended enhancement?

 

[Scarlett]

Wot? You mean an unintended enhancement?

Dare to dream...

Or more likely: high quality IT results in ‘bank error in your favour’.