Loyalty Bonus changing from 1 July 2013

[dfcatch]

The appropriate solution will depend on the problem wishing to be solved....

Eg:

- Lounge overcrowding
- Encouraging FFs to continue to fly with QF in the short vs medium vs long term
- Maximising profit within QFF by not giving away points unnecessarily.
- Striking the balance between benefits and Status Levels
- Avoiding solely YUPP flyers (or similar) from being in the wrong program

Etc etc.

 

[nlagalle]

Not on Qantas they weren't. ASA's were introduced in the great program revamp of July 2008. Velocity had them before that.

I was sure it was before then... oh well. Memory is failing me!

 

[JohnK]

With the ever increasing competition I'll think we'll see easier access with more frequent DSC offers, etc.

Yes. Create more elites and then look for ways to reduce benefits.

Which benefit is going next? I would say no First Lounge access before JQ flights.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Just throwing some ideas out there...

We could simply remove the squiggle system, and tie it to the status levels instead? Say, to qualify for PS/SG/WP etc, you must reach the specific number of SCs, with half of those SCs earned on QF/JQ/3K codes. If you do SYD-MEL every week on QF/JQ, it doesn't affect you. If you want to do a YUPP, that's fine too, but it'll only get you halfway to WP. I don't think that's unfair?

And with the loyalty bonus being reset every year, there's probably no point keeping it separate to the status system either. Say, if you gain/retain PS, you get a "gift" of 8000 points. If you gain/retain SG, you get another "gift" of 8000 points, etc. The end result would be very similar, but you wouldn't have to keep a separate tab to see how many SCs you need to reach the next bonus level.

 

[dfcatch]

Just throwing some ideas out there...

We could simply remove the squiggle system, and tie it to the status levels instead? Say, to qualify for PS/SG/WP etc, you must reach the specific number of SCs, with half of those SCs earned on QF/JQ/3K codes. If you do SYD-MEL every week on QF/JQ, it doesn't affect you. If you want to do a YUPP, that's fine too, but it'll only get you halfway to WP. I don't think that's unfair?

And with the loyalty bonus being reset every year, there's probably no point keeping it separate to the status system either. Say, if you gain/retain PS, you get a "gift" of 8000 points. If you gain/retain SG, you get another "gift" of 8000 points, etc. The end result would be very similar, but you wouldn't have to keep a separate tab to see how many SCs you need to reach the next bonus level.

Second suggestion is fine - but TBH, they would just scrap the bonus and save the money. The Loyalty Bonus no longer works as it was originally designed, it was meant to be a reward that spanned more than your membership year (ie. it still had some value for you to fly on QF, even if you didn't earn enough to move up/achieve status). QF will probably just scrap the Loyalty Bonus at some point. (Although they should just fix it back to the old system - QF/JQ only would be a good compromise solution).

As to your first point - I disagree.

NZ for example have that with Gold Elite - certain percentage of SC must be on NZ metal/code.

Problem is that a YUPP/CX flyer could fly one or two FASA's on QF and qualify. There is no "frequent" requirement. (Someone flying exclusively F isn't penalized by not having status as they receive all the benefits via COS).

If someone is making lots of SC, but not many ~..... Then that means:

A/ They are flying F/J long haul and receiving benefits via COS.

B/ They are predominately flying other OW airlines and probably should be in a non-QF program.

AFFs complain about all these non-genuine WPs taking up their F lounge spaces - whether they be YUPP flyers, DSC beneficiaries or so on.

Increasing the ~ requirement weeds them out.

I mean seriously - should someone have WP if they're not flying 12 QF segments per year?

Even VA have flagged 8 as the requirement. (And VA give away SCs through credit cards).

Bottom line IMHO - the only kind of WP making it on less than 12 flights is the kind that doesn't need status to receive the benefits.

I think the ~ system (as opposed to minimum SC on metal) is the better system to weed out those who ONLY have status because they went on a DSC run.

(My membership year just reset, and I'll have 11 QF flights before Xmas, another 4 already booked for the new year, and another 4 being actively considered in the next cpl of months. And I don't consider myself that Frequent compared to most on this forum - but that's already 19 QF metal flights - I don't think it's a difficult hurdle.)

 

[serfty]

...
And with the loyalty bonus being reset every year, there's probably no point keeping it separate to the status system either. Say, if you gain/retain PS, you get a "gift" of 8000 points. If you gain/retain SG, you get another "gift" of 8000 points, etc. The end result would be very similar, but you wouldn't have to keep a separate tab to see how many SCs you need to reach the next bonus level.

In the latter 90's when a QFF member qualified or requalified Blue, Silver or Gold they would received one, two or two complimentary "Upgrade" certificates respectively. UC's replaced these certificates and the "Loyalty Bonus" replaced the UC's.

Past meets future ...

 

[medhead]

. (And VA give away SCs through credit cards).

I used to think that but it's worth remembering that those credit cards make them money. So I've decided that the SCs are not really given away.

On the broader question rather than enhancing away benefits, I'd rather qantas make it hard to attain levels. That has been my stated position since they took ATA. As I generally have 12 QF flights booked at any one time increasing the ~ requirement seems reasonable to me. No doubt this opens me to the accusations of the "remove from others but I can keep" school of thought. But it is becoming clear that the choice is pay more or get less. If anyone wishes to disagree with my assessment I can only ask "is my face bovvered?"


Sent from the Throne

 

[Awesom Andy]

As to your first point - I disagree.

Fair enough. I was basically on the thinking that, at least they would need to do some JASA/FASA to get there, rather than something like SYD-MEL return in red-e twice or simply as MEL-xSYD-LAX return as part of their YUPP trip. But if the bar is still too low, then, yes, raising ~ would be a better idea. I'm based in SIN, and wouldn't have any issues if they doubled their ~ requirements, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem for most AU based flyers.

 

[Kangol]

A/ They are flying F/J long haul and receiving benefits via COS.

They don't get points bonus, EC seat selection, premium desk, award requests etc....

 

[medhead]

I'm not sure what EC is, but all F and J passengers get seat selection.


Sent from the Throne

 

[The Rok]

I'm not sure what EC is, but all F and J passengers get seat selection.


Sent from the Throne

Emerald City!

 

[Kangol]

Emerald City!

Beat me to it!
i was being lazy / trying to start a new trend

 

[medhead]

Emerald City!

Beat me to it!
i was being lazy / trying to start a new trend

Thanks, nice trend. Worth using.

Now I'm not sure I can agree that EC is that exclusive. I have only one experience to relate; as a WP got an upgrade and the seat map showed me in EC. Thought about checking in, but stupidly waited until I got to the airport 6 hours later, by which time I was in row 22. Sure my experience is limited but I'm still not sure EC is all that exclusive - in status terms.


Sent from the Throne

 

[TonyHancock]

Sure my experience is limited but I'm still not sure EC is all that exclusive - in status terms.

I know it as the Sapphire Shed.

 

[dfcatch]

Fair enough. I was basically on the thinking that, at least they would need to do some JASA/FASA to get there, rather than something like SYD-MEL return in red-e twice or simply as MEL-xSYD-LAX return as part of their YUPP trip. But if the bar is still too low, then, yes, raising ~ would be a better idea. I'm based in SIN, and wouldn't have any issues if they doubled their ~ requirements, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem for most AU based flyers.

AA - I'm not at all suggesting dropping the SC requirements for each level, but I'm also not suggesting "increasing" them. IMHO the qualification levels (SC-wise) for PS/SG/WP are about right - but I feel that increasing the minimum flight requirement adds some difficulty (as Medhead articulates above).

Right now - to achieve status (and let's just use WP as the example) requires you to make 1400 SC (and 4 qualifying flights). 1400 SC is quite a hurdle, you're not going to make it simply by flying a few red e-deals. But you could, in theory, achieve it/maintain it with only a token effort of flying on QF.

So to me - there are three options (If in fact there is an identified problem of Status being too easy to achieve, and IF this problem needs solving from QF's perspective):

1/ Increase the SCs required for Qualification;
2/ Implement a "minimum SC requirement on QF Code" - the NZ / P1-style requirement
3/ Increase the required segments - the ~ requirement.

Maybe it's just me - but to me it seems glaringly obvious that Option 3 is serious low-hanging fruit that would probably result in the closest thing to win-win-win.

(ie. keeping QF, existing Status pax, and potential status pax all happy).

I'm probably guilty of going OT from the Loyalty Bonus Change topic (sorry) - but as a serious question - I'd love for others to apply their critical analysis to the idea of increasing the ~ requirement......

In all my previous discussions with people on this topic - the only plausible objection came regarding the WP who does 2 return F trips to LHR each year (that this FF would lose WP). My response is that as an F flyer they don't need WP.......


On-topic.......

The more Serfty reminds me of the old-old system, the more I'm convinced that if not returned to the old system, the Loyalty Bonus will be scrapped within 14 months......

QF needs to decide whether the Loyalty Bonus is to:

1/ Reward people for long-term loyalty to QF (with a shorter-term reward than LTS/LTG); or
2/ Just as a progressive bonus throughout the membership year for Gold's and above.

This will decide whether it gets reformed "back", or simply scrapped.

 

[medhead]

1/ Reward people for long-term loyalty to QF (with a shorter-term reward than LTS/LTG); or

My opinion/interpretation of the recent (last couple of years) series of changes is that QF/QFF no longer value long-term loyalty. It is short term-ism similar to sharemarket performance requirements.

 

[dfcatch]

They don't get points bonus, EC seat selection, premium desk, award requests etc....

- They don't care for points bonus - they're NOT Frequent Flyers (at least not with QF).

- I would take F seat selection over EC anyday
(Don't forget that an F flyer making WP on their 2 x return F flights to LHR who isn't making more than the ~ minumum) isn't needing to have Row 4 seat selection )

- F service is pretty good without needing premium desk

- Same goes for award requests......

The question is whether such a flyer is a Frequent Flyer - I posit that they are not.

Further - I suggest that such a flyer is less concerned with such benefits as the rest of us. Clearly their purchase of F seats at whatever cost that is outweighs those smaller benefits (if it even is on their own dime).

And whilst they may qualify only on this, if they do even a small handful of other flights in whatever class - then they meet the ~ requirement.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I mean seriously - should someone have WP if they're not flying 12 QF segments per year?

because last time I checked this is a frequent flyer program that is part of the oneworld alliance. And the benefit is status credits and miles on any partner airline. QF don't fly the places i want to go, nor do they offer the class of service I want to most places, and they have an inferior business class on other routes (CX full flats compares to skybed mark 1).

QFFF is very lucky they get any business from me at all. I do my 4 ~ cause I have to. The rest I'll fly someone else until QF can actualyl deliver a product that meets the competitors.

QFFF needs my business because they sell points to credit card companies that get sent straight back into QFFF. If They increase the ~ I'll join asia miles and perhaps miss out on credit card points. But so will they miss out on selling them to the bank!

 

[amaroo]

because last time I checked this is a frequent flyer program that is part of the oneworld alliance. And the benefit is status credits and miles on any partner airline. QF don't fly the places i want to go, nor do they offer the class of service I want to most places, and they have an inferior business class on other routes (CX full flats compares to skybed mark 1).

QFFF is very lucky they get any business from me at all. I do my 4 ~ cause I have to. The rest I'll fly someone else until QF can actualyl deliver a product that meets the competitors.

Hit nail on head:!:

Without OW.........QF would get very little business from me.

I've done my years of DOM commuting - long haul makes up our flying these days & OW alliance is the key to attract our money. QFs offer outside of LHR & LAX - isn't that impressive.

 

[The Rok]

- They don't care for points bonus - they're NOT Frequent Flyers (at least not with QF).

- I would take F seat selection over EC anyday
(Don't forget that an F flyer making WP on their 2 x return F flights to LHR who isn't making more than the ~ minumum) isn't needing to have Row 4 seat selection )

- F service is pretty good without needing premium desk

- Same goes for award requests......

The question is whether such a flyer is a Frequent Flyer - I posit that they are not.

Further - I suggest that such a flyer is less concerned with such benefits as the rest of us. Clearly their purchase of F seats at whatever cost that is outweighs those smaller benefits (if it even is on their own dime).

And whilst they may qualify only on this, if they do even a small handful of other flights in whatever class - then they meet the ~ requirement.

But the PAX who does two return trips to LHR is already meeting the ~ requirement and hitting WP.