I wonder had JASA's continued ...

[amaroo]

There's the rub. If taking away a MASA means people go somewhere else, to me means they were never loyal to Qantas. Addicted maybe. It amuses me to see people on this board act like petulant children that have had an ice cream taken off them. Maybe it is withdrawal symptons. Bottom line - MASA ended up making no sense to Qantas, and the clearly make no sense to other airlines. The horse has bolted, all the arguments about how Qantas don't know what they are doing isn't going to bring them back....

I reckon there are two types when it comes to QF loyalty:

a) The bottom feeders - predictable and probably not missed by any business.

b) The planners - spend with a view of reaching a desired outcome, most businesses work hard to retain. For QF this type becomes at risk when they attain LTG ... there is simply nothing left to keep them focused/motivated.

 

[TonyHancock]

Did it though??

Yes!



My first year as a P1 was on revenue fares. My second, third and fourth - not so much. I discovered the mASA and saved a fortune. Of course there is no going back to that spend of four years ago, so I have to be more creative.

 

[basso]

Loyalty programs are all about gamification. In this case - by changing the overall value proposition - QF have encouraged TonyHancock to re-evaluate his spend. This is rationality - not disloyalty.

Sure, but reading what TonyHancock has to say suggest to me he/she was actinig rationally all along, and used the products to his advantage. But the group that were doing things like flying to Alice Springs to do a turnaround, or to Karratha and back in day, were acting irrationally. I can fully understand that Qantas probably don't care too much about those people being able to get P or P1 doing such things.

 

[trixydoza]

I find a lot of the emotion over this issue utterly nonsensical, including the suggestion that a major corporate entity should be bothered by "gloating" and the idea that it's somehow morally indefensible to hop on a plane to Hobart and fly straight back but fine if you stay there for a three-night holiday.

We had a four-month period in our business that required a succession of trips between CBR, ADL, and HBA. Rational analysis of our options revealed that MASAs would be the most cost-effective way of funding it and avoiding hotel stays wherever possible, thereby allowing Senior Partner (SP) to spend time with his family and me to drink red wine out of good glasses.

SP also happened to be blessed with a double SCs offer for some of that time, and while I can't say with certainty whether pressing the relevant button to register for the offer constituted some kind of moral dilemma for him, I kind of doubt it.

Next time around, should such an opportunity present itself, we might spend more with Qantas, we might spend more with Virgin, or we might spend more on hotels. It will depend on what we consider most rational after taking work/life balance into account where possible.

My own spend on QF is roughly unchanged from when MASAs were in existence.

SP has been P1 as a result of that period, and has cost QF very little during his "reign". Someone asked me at a party recently why he no longer "goes on and on and on" about QF during casual conversations, which I found a little embarrassing but also just a tad sad. I think he might have enjoyed the "game" aspect more than I do, but only as a peripheral benefit of conducting business.

 

[dfcatch]

Yes!



My first year as a P1 was on revenue fares. My second, third and fourth - not so much. I discovered the mASA and saved a fortune. Of course there is no going back to that spend of four years ago, so I have to be more creative.

This is my point - you're not going back to that old spend.

Had mASAs continued - they would have continued to get that out of you.

Now they're getting minimal/nothing.

 

[dfcatch]

b) The planners - spend with a view of reaching a desired outcome, most businesses work hard to retain. For QF this type becomes at risk when they attain LTG ... there is simply nothing left to keep them focused/motivated.

Yep - this is the whole game - it's about motivation and aspiration.

It's also about perception - if the perception is there that the next step up is worth it in terms of perceived benefits, then you start to strategically align everything you do/spend to achieve that goal.

If you don't think that it's there - then you won't

 

[basso]

I find a lot of the emotion over this issue utterly nonsensical, including the suggestion that a major corporate entity should be bothered by "gloating" and the idea that it's somehow morally indefensible to hop on a plane to Hobart and fly straight back but fine if you stay there for a three-night holiday.

Actually it is the people that are on the 'Qantas made a mistake removing them' side that are being nonsensical. Would you go to Hobart and fly straight back if you had to pay full dollars for it. If yes, then fine.

We had a four-month period in our business that required a succession of trips between CBR, ADL, and HBA. Rational analysis of our options revealed that MASAs would be the most cost-effective way of funding it and avoiding hotel stays wherever possible, thereby allowing Senior Partner (SP) to spend time with his family and me to drink red wine out of good glasses.

But what have you lost? You can flitter around all those cities on classic awards and have access to all the same lounges.

SP also happened to be blessed with a double SCs offer for some of that time, and while I can't say with certainty whether pressing the relevant button to register for the offer constituted some kind of moral dilemma for him, I kind of doubt it.

I doubt anyone has a moral dilemma in taking up a double SC offer.

My own spend on QF is roughly unchanged from when MASAs were in existence.

So Qantas have lost nothing. MASA's have gone. Build a bridge, Get over it.

 

[dfcatch]

Sure, but reading what TonyHancock has to say suggest to me he/she was actinig rationally all along, and used the products to his advantage. But the group that were doing things like flying to Alice Springs to do a turnaround, or to Karratha and back in day, were acting irrationally. I can fully understand that Qantas probably don't care too much about those people being able to get P or P1 doing such things.

These people were gratuitously paying QF cash that they didn't need to spend while filling unfilled seats. In fact, by filling the award seats, QF was able to bump up the cash price for the next revenue seat filled on that respective flight.

It was free money to QF.

Now in turn - these folks did one of two things:

1/ Continued to fly QF and avail themselves of their new benefits whilst spending more money with QF.

or

2/ Don't continue to fly and don't utilise any of the benefits.

 

[TonyHancock]

This is my point - you're not going back to that old spend.

Had mASAs continued - they would have continued to get that out of you.

Now they're getting minimal/nothing.

Yes but my point is that the mASA reduced my spend, had it not been introduced I would probably be ignorantly spending a small fortune with QF. Now I am ignorantly spending less than a small fortune with BA/UL/MH.

QF is probably better off though because the increased spend from those that suck up simpler and fairer and divert business away from other OW carriers may well far exceed the loss of revenue from dreadful mASA peeps like me. (...and QF still gets cash out of me for Y and Y+ fares into Asia. )

 

[trixydoza]

MASA's have gone. Build a bridge, Get over it.

I don't have a problem with it either way. It basically required me to make a slight adjustment to the range of options we consider, nothing more. But thank you for demonstrating my point about overly emotive nonsense. I shall flitter off now.

 

[wandering_fred]

Actually it is the people that are on the 'Qantas made a mistake removing them' side that are being nonsensical. Would you go to Hobart and fly straight back if you had to pay full dollars for it. If yes, then fine. ...

Actually if I were to fly to HBA with neither Mrs WF nor staying overnight, there would be major domestic issues, as Tassie is VERY high on her we haven't visited list. OTOH JNB has off and on been considered. In the latter case, QF is well aware of the issues and prices one way fares at totally imaginary levels. (But it's still tempting as CX is a lot less. Oh to not have budget issues.)

One of the current social topics is the different value set that the 1970s to 1990s "kids" have versus the baby boomers. Loyalty and entitlement (pro and con) seem to come up in every "conversation" I have read. I wonder if marketing managers and policy setters understand the differences.

Another look at wandering

Fred

 

[samh004]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

Qantas doesn't need someone burning some points on a BNE-MEL-PER-KTA return on double SCs 2 days in a row. With running commentary? Or someone nesting an ADL-BNE-TSV return with a TSV-BNE-DRW on a weekend. And not just one weekend but multiple weekends. And not just one AFF'er but many AFF'ers bragging about the meetups on AFF. And let's not forget the HBA express complete with trip reports.

...

I am certain Qantas does not need these customers. I feel sorry for those that were genuinely using them for their travel needs. Don't blame Qantas for removing them.

...

You don't have to agree with what I am saying. I'm not making it up. Not easy to delete history. And I am not having a shot at anyone so please don't take it personally. I am stating facts as I saw them evolve on AFF.

I quite enjoyed my KTA visits, though wish there had been the new J product around when I was doing it and not the mix they had back then (although they still have that mix now). On one flight home from KTA I was the sole J pax in a BSI aircraft, had really great service and even got to see the captain on landing (spoiler: just because I was wearing the cap didn't mean I was flying).



I honestly see where QF was coming from with removing the so-called marginal awards, as they were essentially a bug in the old system. With the upgrade, the bug was patched and I don't see why marginal awards should be brought back as an actual feature. It makes no sense. The current system does make sense, though I do find the prices a tad high and as such, wouldn't consider booking one. If the prices dropped a little, they may get a better uptake on them. But then, I have no access to the numbers, so what do I know, they could be hugely popular already.

Seeing as we're all saying different things and no one has to agree with each others personal opinions on the subject of "cheap status", I'd like to publicly state that I don't think Qantas needs any customers who fly around on CX through Asia, nor do I think they need customers who criss-cross the US on YUPP's/KUPP's. I think they need customers who are at least flying their metal (predominantly) but then, that's just my opinion, and no one needs to agree.

 

[dfcatch]

Yes but my point is that the mASA reduced my spend, had it not been introduced I would probably be ignorantly spending a small fortune with QF. Now I am ignorantly spending less than a small fortune with BA/UL/MH.

QF is probably better off though because the increased spend from those that suck up simpler and fairer and divert business away from other OW carriers may well far exceed the loss of revenue from dreadful mASA peeps like me. (...and QF still gets cash out of me for Y and Y+ fares into Asia. )

I agree with your data points - but disagree on the conclusion/analytics.

 

[JohnK]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

I don't know how many did but it was enough for QF to realize that they hadn't thought of that as a way to get to P1 and that they didn't intend on letting it go on.

I was not referring to the OzBargain frenzy in relation to increased numbers of P1's. I put that comment in a separate paragraph. I was referring to JohnK's earlier comments about TSV and HBR as being an example of something that was pretty lucrative for cheap SC earning and was well publicized and detailed on here. There are numerous other examples if you search here from 2011 onwards.

You forget just how little some people spent to attain Platinum One. It is all over this site if you go and search for it.

What is surprising is some of them have spent less to attain Platinum One than what I spend on red e-deals a year which is only ~600 SCs and people are saying I am not profitable for Qantas. If I am not profitable then how is a Platinum One more profitable where they spent less?

And I think the picture becomes even clearer if you see how many people achieved Gold and Platinum for very little outlay.

 

[SQ421]

There's the rub. If taking away a MASA means people go somewhere else, to me means they were never loyal to Qantas. Addicted maybe. It amuses me to see people on this board act like petulant children that have had an ice cream taken off them. Maybe it is withdrawal symptons. Bottom line - MASA ended up making no sense to Qantas, and the clearly make no sense to other airlines. The horse has bolted, all the arguments about how Qantas don't know what they are doing isn't going to bring them back....

No, just that their loyalty is to their hip pocket, before their loyalty to their favourite airline/alliance/hotel chain. Demanding continued loyalty when equations have changed unfavourably sounds bizarre to me. I did exactly one mASA. Even when I knew about them I either didn't have enough points to do anything useful from a mASA perspective, or I didn't need to. I did try and book one on the last day, an AKL-SYD-DFW FASA, just because; but ended up not going ahead with it.

In fact, I remember talking to penegal shortly after, and opined that absence of mASA means I won't feel like I'm giving up on SC's and Points by booking a Classic Award or using points to fly partner airlines. Burning points for classic awards won't feel like it came with an opportunity cost of using those points for a mASA.

As someone else mentioned upthread, this is nothing but a game. Qantas generates the currency needed to play it, and the rules it is played by. And we do what we do to extract the best bang for our buck.

Nothing wrong with that.

I've been QF Platinum since the year I started flying Qantas, in fact I hit 2800 Status Credits in the first year, admittedly a vast majority of them (2600 at least) were from flying Cathay Pacific. Because their fares on routes I need to fly were lower than Qantas; their product consistently better than Qantas, and in the pre-simpler-fairer era, SC earn was the same. Simpler and Fairer followed, and I switched my flying patterns a wee bit to fly QF coded, EK Operated routes; but with fare rules changing and flexibility of those fares going down, this year, I explored switching to BAEC to retain OneWorld Emerald.

Planned trip to the US means I'll be able to keep Platinum for 2016 by only taking a small detour on my way from DC to Chicago; but what happens next year is anyone's guess.

What might keep me with Qantas is the fact that I have 4x trips booked to LAX (in economy, thank you AA!) with them and with the intra-US flying I'll do again, qualifying QF WP will be fairly easy. That, and I have close to half a million points and counting, thanks to existing Credit and Debit Cards. Beyond that, who knows.

I like OneWorld carriers, I'll probably find a way to structure my flying such that I remain OWE. Whether that is on Qantas, BA or AA, I'll only have to wait and see.

 

[SQ421]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

You forget just how little some people spent to attain Platinum One. It is all over this site if you go and search for it.

If lack of spend was a factor, maybe leaving mASA as is but attaching a $$$ spend requirement to Platinum One would've been the way to go.

What is surprising is some of them have spent less to attain Platinum One than what I spend on red e-deals a year which is only ~600 SCs and people are saying I am not profitable for Qantas. If I am not profitable then how is a Platinum One more profitable where they spent less?

In the scenario you describe, neither you nor mASA running Platinum One are profitable to Qantas. And that may be fine. In fact, I very much doubt any single economy passenger is profitable by themselves to any airline (unless they are buying a walk up, full fare economy ticket!).

And I think the picture becomes even clearer if you see how many people achieved Gold and Platinum for very little outlay.

I first hit platinum for under AUD 6k (and without setting foot in LOTFAP) of which $400 went to Qantas.

I renewed platinum next year with 1000 out of 1200 SC's on Qantas (mercifully, EK operated segments with a healthy opup rate!)

 

[TomVexille]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

You forget just how little some people spent to attain Platinum One. It is all over this site if you go and search for it.

What is surprising is some of them have spent less to attain Platinum One than what I spend on red e-deals a year which is only ~600 SCs and people are saying I am not profitable for Qantas. If I am not profitable then how is a Platinum One more profitable where they spent less?

And I think the picture becomes even clearer if you see how many people achieved Gold and Platinum for very little outlay.

But you're only concentrating on the pure cash aspect of it. The fact is that the points spent have a value. And that every point held by QFF members was sold by QFF to a bank, or a supermarket, or partner airline, or to QFF members on QF flights is a liability on QFs books until they are redeemed or expire (or QFF devalues them). So the actual outlay is far higher than you're trying to portray.

 

[SQ421]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

Seeing as we're all saying different things and no one has to agree with each others personal opinions on the subject of "cheap status", I'd like to publicly state that I don't think Qantas needs any customers who fly around on CX through Asia, nor do I think they need customers who criss-cross the US on YUPP's/KUPP's. I think they need customers who are at least flying their metal (predominantly) but then, that's just my opinion, and no one needs to agree.

A minimum spend requirement to achieve status would straighten that out. And given the number of people in this thread concerned about "cheapo" Platinums, I suspect they'll get right behind this enhancement when it is introduced

 

[SQ421]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

But you're only concentrating on the pure cash aspect of it. The fact is that the points spent have a value. And that every point held by QFF members was sold by QFF to a bank, or a supermarket, or partner airline, or to QFF members on QF flights is a liability on QFs books until they are redeemed or expire (or QFF devalues them). So the actual outlay is far higher than you're trying to portray.

I was about to edit my reply to include that.

Then again, maybe Qantas was hoping the points would expire and the liability written down that way, than have the points redeemed.

 

[TomVexille]

Re: I've felt the sting of the QFF Loyalty Middle Finger

I was about to edit my reply to include that.

Then again, maybe Qantas was hoping the points would expire and the liability written down that way, than have the points redeemed.

Well that's definitely something they bank on happening to a percentage of points. And they would really like us to buy more toasters based on the number of emails I get encouraging me to buy goods with my points. And I suspect they really want to keep reducing the number of points out there, why else have they come up with SCs on classic awards promos and 15% of Classic awards promos.