Heads up about program changes

[yohy?!]

Nice multi-post drive-by/trolling by flashback there!

 

[Awesom Andy]

It is bad enough that people can visit the First Lounge on the $9 price matches to Tiger but they should get the SCs and QFF points for that airfare as well?

I wonder if it would be possible to limit lounge access to only those who have purchased a bundle despite their status. JQ is a LCC, and is available for a lower fare for those who aren't paying for the bells and whistles. Lounge access should be included in that list. If a pax wants to have the additional on board services, and be able to choose a seat just like he/she is flying on a legacy airline, it can be paid for with the bundle. Perhaps the ability to access lounges should be linked to this as well. This will also lock out those pax $9 price matches.

 

[ketsuzei]

QF could (and should) have easily just limited access to the F lounges to international travel, everything else is an overcomplication.

 

[Awesom Andy]

QF could (and should) have easily just limited access to the F lounges to international travel, everything else is an overcomplication.

Or they could just remove the dom legs of those flights from sale unless they really need the capacity (which I think would be rarely).

 

[Princess Fiona]

I've been thinking about this a little more. It appears to me that the changes are not only designed to drive business to QF and away from competitors (which BTW I can understand) but they are also by default designed to alienate those customers whose business (and loyalty) was at least in part dependent on the strength of QF's extensive network via OW.
The logical presumption being that the bean counters cannot see a value to QF of full and active participation in OW.
If this is true then I ask of QF that they be open and honest with their customers now and not hide behind a charade of simpler and fairer bull dust.

 

[ketsuzei]

I've been thinking about this a little more. It appears to me that the changes are not only designed to drive business to QF and away from competitors (which BTW I can understand) but they are also by default designed to alienate those customers whose business (and loyalty) was at least in part dependent on the strength of QF's extensive network via OW.
The logical presumption being that the bean counters cannot see a value to QF of full and active participation in OW.
If this is true then I ask of QF that they be open and honest with their customers now and not hide behind a charade of simpler and fairer bull dust.

I agree. It's extremely difficult to reconcile the latest changes with an intention to remain in Oneworld.

So if you don't want to fly to the places QF flies their own metal, or don't like the metal used on some routes... but now I'm just preaching to the converted.

 

[Awesom Andy]

I agree. It's extremely difficult to reconcile the latest changes with an intention to remain in Oneworld.

I wonder if it really makes sense for them to stay in OW anyway. Say, if QF leaves, they have EK as a partner for Europe and northern Africa, and they have a good relationship with AA so they will probably stay as partners for North America. In some ways, they would choose to rely (rightly or wrongly) on 3K for south east Asia, and for north east Asia, they would then be free from the ties of CX to have a Chinese partner (MU probably the most likely?). They're already codesharing with Jet for the Indian subcontinent, so they just need to find someone in South America to sign up and most of major bases are covered.

I don't think any of the current FF members would be happy with such a change, but it does kind of works in a strange way.

 

[ketsuzei]

"free from the ties of CX" (or JL) isn't exactly something I'd consider to be a positive for my trips to Japan (or many other parts of Asia). And once QF becomes irrelevant to me internationally, they become irrelevant to me domestically.

Anyway, less "simpler and fairer" nonsense and a clearer roadmap would be appreciated.

 

[Robbi]

I wonder if it really makes sense for them to stay in OW anyway. Say, if QF leaves, they have EK as a partner for Europe and northern Africa, and they have a good relationship with AA so they will probably stay as partners for North America. In some ways, they would choose to rely (rightly or wrongly) on 3K for south east Asia, and for north east Asia, they would then be free from the ties of CX to have a Chinese partner (MU probably the most likely?). They're already codesharing with Jet for the Indian subcontinent, so they just need to find someone in South America to sign up and most of major bases are covered.

I don't think any of the current FF members would be happy with such a change, but it does kind of works in a strange way.

You don't think EK would join in QF's place?

 

[Flashback]

"free from the ties of CX" (or JL) isn't exactly something I'd consider to be a positive for my trips to Japan (or many other parts of Asia). And once QF becomes irrelevant to me internationally, they become irrelevant to me domestically.

Anyway, less "simpler and fairer" nonsense and a clearer roadmap would be appreciated.

I thought the roadmap was pretty clear - nickel and dime all members and drive into the ground ?

 

[JohnK]

I am a Platinum and have been since it started and a lifetime Gold. Living in Adelaide there aren't and haven't been for quite some time international QF flights. Am booked business on Malaysian to go KL/Paris on the 26th June returning 21st July. So split SC's ? and what do I lose on the return leg ?....can anyone tell me ?

Existing bookings are unaffected.

 

[medhead]

I've been thinking about this a little more. It appears to me that the changes are not only designed to drive business to QF and away from competitors (which BTW I can understand) but they are also by default designed to alienate those customers whose business (and loyalty) was at least in part dependent on the strength of QF's extensive network via OW.
The logical presumption being that the bean counters cannot see a value to QF of full and active participation in OW.
If this is true then I ask of QF that they be open and honest with their customers now and not hide behind a charade of simpler and fairer bull dust.

That matches some of the changes. Driving people towards QF doesn't match with the increased mileage brackets for QF domestic, however. Reducing earn of those who are flying with Qantas doesn't appear to be much of an incentive.

 

[Robbi]

In premium cabins. In economy, the mileage based status earning programs seem to be easier than QF,particularly for longer haul travellers.

That'd be me WhY'ing it to EU....

 

[JohnK]

For some reason though, sitting in the J Lounge at Tulla with noice F&B while I wait for my $90 Red-e deal flight to Syd for the footy, doesn't seem to have the same feeling as the McDonalds I sat in when I was a QFF newbie all those years ago.

If your Red e-deals are anything like my red e-deals then you need to be careful you are not booked in 'E' class with your AA number in booking.

 

[Flashback]

If your Red e-deals are anything like my red e-deals then you need to be careful you are not booked in 'E' class with your AA number in booking.

.. or the N fare bucket.

N = No, O = OK

 

[Awesom Andy]

.. or the N fare bucket.

N = No, O = OK

Am I missing something?

American Airlines oneworld Partner
"Effective for flights flown on/after August 1, 2013" N, G, S are at 50%, and O, Q are at 25%?

 

[Flashback]

Am I missing something?

American Airlines oneworld Partner
"Effective for flights flown on/after August 1, 2013" N, G, S are at 50%, and O, Q are at 25%?

Interesting, looks like it's changed since my last reviews (many years ago). E is still missing though...

 

[Alanslegal]

I think the problem with partners was the overuse (abuse?) to get cheap status. When you spend ~USD1,000 and earn ~1,000 SCs it makes earning status a joke.

You can't have it both ways by blaming those who utilise YUPP fares to get status, whilst you do something very similar flying around Asia with CX on their runs ex-MNL/TPE/BKK etc.

 

[Awesom Andy]

You can't have it both ways by blaming those who utilise YUPP fares to get status, whilst you do something very similar flying around Asia with CX on their runs ex-MNL/TPE/BKK etc.

Note that MNL-HKG, being about 710 miles, has also been "simplified".

 

[JohnK]

And how about those of us who do a lot of flying on routes that Qantas does not service? I'm vastly worse off under the new system, and I don't consider what I was doing gaming the system. I fly QF (or very occasionally JQ) pretty much every time I'm flying on a route they service. If they don't fly the route, I choose a one world carrier. I've been loyal to Qantas, not gaming the system, and I'm a hell of a lot worse off.

And you have every right to be upset.

I think Qantas has stuffed this one up in their haste to get these changes across. Perhaps there will be a re-think.