No FF Points for Q Club

[bertee]

I am a Qanatas FF and due to my inability to gain acess to a lounge at Heathrow Terminal 5,I have considered biting the bullet and joing the Qantas Club.
Now the joining fee of $A770 is a bit steep,but I thought that it would be money well spent and I would get a few points.
Well it seems that Qantas do not reward you with points for this Qantas spend and my FF membership fee is not credited off this either,although if I had joined the Qantas Club first,I would automatically be given free membership of the FF programme.
Now if I wanted to use my points to join I would eat up a whopping 150,000 points to join.
I think that Paul Sheehan in Mondays SMH is on to something here and any one of the 5 million or so FF members should be afraid.Qantas is burning us up big time.
Once again it seems as if Qantas is creating a new elitist class: those who have their points earned but paid for by others.
What is even more worrying is that Qantas is considering going the way of BA in as much as, you soon will not be able to join the Qantas Club. You would only be able to enter if you were flying First or Business,or rack up enough flights and points to get through the door.No fee will get you in.
Now sometimes these lounges get over crowded,so are they really worth it in the long run.?
Then there are the secret Chairman's Lounges,open to a select few and Government Ministers and Celebrities.Have you ever found the entrace or been in one? How much is the entry fee to that Club?

 

[Flashback]

Then there are the secret Chairman's Lounges,open to a select few and Government Ministers and Celebrities.Have you ever found the entrace or been in one? How much is the entry fee to that Club?

If you have to ask, then it's not the place for you. It's by invitation only.

 

[Mwenenzi]

The QClub & QF freq flyers program rules have not changed.

There have been seperate Intl J / Q club, F lounges (not Q Club) for some time and more recently seperate domestic J - Q Plat lounges (not Q Club)

On this web site is a link about getting discount Q Club membership, Become a gold(?) AFF member and save

..,open to a select few and Government Ministers and Celebrities.Have you ever found the entrace or been in one? How much is the entry fee to that Club

Easy: become a Government Minister. Cost is $0. If you need to ask you are not eligible

 

[JohnK]

I am a Qanatas FF and due to my inability to gain acess to a lounge at Heathrow Terminal 5,I have considered biting the bullet and joing the Qantas Club.

Have you checked out PriorityPass or LoungePass. If you are only going to use the lounge once, or even a few times a year, then it will be much cheaper paying for access for a few hours.

Now the joining fee of $A770 is a bit steep,but I thought that it would be money well spent and I would get a few points.

OK QF do not give you any FF points for joining Qantas Club but if you paid with a credit card, like Amex or Citibank, you can earn membership rewards points.

Now if I wanted to use my points to join I would eat up a whopping 150,000 points to join.

Somewhat of a rort but there are a lot of people who earn lots of points via credit card use and do not do a lot of flying so this may look like good value if they only fly once or twice a year.

Then there are the secret Chairman's Lounges,open to a select few and Government Ministers and Celebrities.Have you ever found the entrace or been in one? How much is the entry fee to that Club?

Unfortunately you cannot join the Chairmans Lounge. It is invitation only.

 

[yo yo ma]

I think that Paul Sheehan in Mondays SMH is on to something here and any one of the 5 million or so FF members should be afraid. Qantas is burning us up big time.

Don't forget though, that Qantas is a business and has an obligation to its shareholders too. As a FF, I want good value from my points but as a shareholder, I want good dividends... they just have to get the right balance.

You can read about the Chairman's Lounge in the thread below...

http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...how-get-chairmans-lounge-membership-5131.html

 

[oz_mark]

They have kept the old system, and people were complaining that under that system, that even having stashes of millions of points they could not redeem them. Qantas have given people with such stashes, the opportunity to use them for flights. Maybe such people should have been more careful in what they were asking from a FF program!

 

[opusman]

Well it seems that Qantas do not reward you with points for this Qantas spend

QF generally only award points for actual travel so this is not surprising. You don't get points for paying for flights, only for actually flying. If you pay by an affiliated card you will get point (and often bonus points depending on the card scheme.)

 

[Travel Guru]

What is even more worrying is that Qantas is considering going the way of BA in as much as, you soon will not be able to join the Qantas Club. You would only be able to enter if you were flying First or Business,or rack up enough flights and points to get through the door.No fee will get you in.

I for one wouldnt be complaining if they did can paid memberships and make it exclusively for status or J/F pax only, perhaps then I wouldnt have to sit outside in the concourse to get some peace and quiet.

But as for whether its value for money, I was always happy to pay for it if only so i didnt have to line up in the general queue to check bags...thats worth its weight in gold, the lounge is a bonus.

TG

 

[bertee]

I for one wouldnt be complaining if they did can paid memberships and make it exclusively for status or J/F pax only, perhaps then I wouldnt have to sit outside in the concourse to get some peace and quiet.

But as for whether its value for money, I was always happy to pay for it if only so i didnt have to line up in the general queue to check bags...thats worth its weight in gold, the lounge is a bonus.

TG

What do you do when there is a long queue in your line up ? yes the Lounges can be a little overcrowded with Public Servants and wanna bees taking up space paid for by others.
What would you do if Qantas dropped lounges altogether in its razor slashing frenzy?

 

[JohnK]

What do you do when there is a long queue in your line up ? yes the Lounges can be a little overcrowded with Public Servants and wanna bees taking up space paid for by others.

I don't quite understand this statement. Who is a wanna bee? Not to start an old debate again I feel a person who has Gold/Platinum status has more right to be in the Qantas Lounge than someone who pays $99/year for Qantas Lounge membership, and salary sacrifices, because of the company they work for has a good corporate deal with Qantas.

What would you do if Qantas dropped lounges altogether in its razor slashing frenzy?

This is not likely to happen anytime soon. The easiest solution is to restrict access to the lounges, like removing paid memberships, and also making status hard to attain.

 

[serfty]

... or removing complimentary membership ... :shock:

 

[oz_mark]

This is not likely to happen anytime soon. The easiest solution is to restrict access to the lounges, like removing paid memberships, and also making status hard to attain.

I have never been sure of the numbers of people in the lounge as how many are in there by virtue of FF status, or how many are there by virtue of paying for it.

 

[vt]

Methinks Bertee is what they call a Forum TROLL :mrgreen:

Seriously...your posts dont make alot of sense.

Lounges are nothing special. Yes, they offer "free" things, but you have earned/bought it so it is not "free". I am Platinum so get lounge access, but getting to platinum on discount economy meant I may only spend 50 days a year in Melbourne.

When I have a kid next year, I am aiming for 0 (ZERO) flights. So when I am no longer WP/SG, I may pay for Lounge membership or I may spend the $300 at the airport buying the drinks/food/mags/paper for $100 instead.

I am really sick of idiots saying there are 2 classes of flyers. :evil:

Well guess what...there IS!

The Frequent Spender points program just started recently so now people have no grounds for complaints about not being able to use their points.

 

[oz_mark]

... or removing complimentary membership ... :shock:

Then we'd all have to get AA status and get in using the OneWorld agreements

 

[JohnK]

... or removing complimentary membership ... :shock:

It is a possibility but I still think they would remove paid memberships first before getting rid of complimentary membership. Maybe I am wrong.

It would also be interesting to see the breakdown of people using the lounges, paid versus complimentary, and who is more important to QF.

 

[medhead]

I for one wouldnt be complaining if they did can paid memberships and make it exclusively for status or J/F pax only, perhaps then I wouldnt have to sit outside in the concourse to get some peace and quiet.

Except the QC is jammed packed full of statused pax not the passenger with the paid membership. It is simple logic that the people who fly enough to get complimentary membership of QC are also in there using the QC a damn side more than the people who pay for the QC membership because they don't fly enough to get a free membership.

So if we want to solve QC overcrowding then another answer is to reduce the benefits of the statused pax. This will be much more effective than kicking out the paying customer.

And don't bring up that furphy about how the statused deserve the lounge because of all the flying they do. The statused pay their arifares to fly, because they fly a lot they get free flights, priority upgrades, seating preference, baggage preference and lounge access. If you don't like your free lounge acces don't use it! Leave it for those of us who pay for access.

Paid QC members don't expect to get "free flights, priority upgrades, seating preference" because we pay for QC, and why should we.

Finally the other idea that statused pax are highly valued because they fly with QF is also wrong. The highly valued people are the ones who have a say in where the flying budget is spent and they get the chairman's lounge.

edit: for JohnK, on usage. Me, paid QC member, flys < 10 times a year = maybe 15 hours of QC usage. WP flys, what(?), every week say, 100 flights per year = 100+ hours of QC usage. The law of averages says it is the statused that are overcrowding the QC not the paying members. Plus plenty of you complain about crowding at the beginning and end of the business day and week. I rarely use the QC at those peak business times and guess what the QC is not crowded. QED.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Except the QC is jammed packed full of statused pax not the passenger with the paid membership. It is simple logic that the people who fly enough to get complimentary membership of QC are also in there using the QC a damn side more than the people who pay for the QC membership because they don't fly enough to get a free membership.

I'm not sure about that. I know that plenty of people in my company fly. The split is probably 50/50 between Gold/Plat and Silver/Bronze+QC when I meet colleagues there.

Whilst it is certainly true that WP and SG fly a lot more, there are a *lot* more Silver and Bronze members who have QC membership.

So if we want to solve QC overcrowding then another answer is to reduce the benefits of the statused pax. This will be much more effective than kicking out the paying customer.

The same tired argument. Funny how each proposal always involves the proposer retaining their access, and other people missing out.

Finally the other idea that statused pax are highly valued because they fly with QF is also wrong. The highly valued people are the ones who have a say in where the flying budget is spent and they get the chairman's lounge.

There are different levels of being valued. I'm pretty sure that a WP is *valued* by QANTAS because they fly a lot, and QANTAS makes money flying people places.

That is not to say that there aren't other people who are *valued more*. But please don't say that WPs aren't valued.

The business pax that do 3-4 business class trips to LA or London or Hong Kong each year earn QANTAS plenty more money than you do.

edit: for JohnK, on usage. Me, paid QC member, flys < 10 times a year = maybe 15 hours of QC usage. WP flys, what(?), every week say, 100 flights per year = 100+ hours of QC usage. The law of averages says it is the statused that are overcrowding the QC not the paying members.

Completely faulty application of logic.

If a WP uses the lounge 100x as much as a regular QC member, but there are 100 QC members per WP, then the law of averages would say that there will be just as many WPs and QC members in the lounge at any given opportunity.

Plus plenty of you complain about crowding at the beginning and end of the business day and week. I rarely use the QC at those peak business times and guess what the QC is not crowded. QED.

QCs are busy then because that's when a lot of people are flying. The type of people who can either *afford* QC membership, who are travelling with someone (e.g. from their company that can "guest" them in), who do have status etc.

Again, faulty application of logic here.

 

[medhead]

I'm not sure about that. I know that plenty of people in my company fly. The split is probably 50/50 between Gold/Plat and Silver/Bronze+QC when I meet colleagues there.

The same tired argument. Funny how each proposal always involves the proposer retaining their access, and other people missing out.

There are different levels of being valued. I'm pretty sure that a WP is *valued* by QANTAS because they fly a lot, and QANTAS makes money flying people places.

That is not to say that there aren't other people who are *valued more*. But please don't say that WPs aren't valued.

The business pax that do 3-4 business class trips to LA or London or Hong Kong each year earn QANTAS plenty more money than you do.

QCs are busy then because that's when a lot of people are flying. The type of people who can either *afford* QC membership, who are travelling with someone (e.g. from their company that can "guest" them in), who do have status etc.

Again, faulty application of logic here.

I think you should reconsider your own tired arguments and faulty logic before you point fingers.

Your company is representative of all travellers? No I didn't think so.

The only tired argument is the suggestion that statused pax are more highly valued than paid QC members and therefore paid membership should be discontinued. This argument is based on the fault logic that WP are more valued than paid QC members. I reject that starting point, but I didn't say that WP aren't valued. DO you understand that - I didn't say that WP aren't valued.

In any case, if removing pay QC membership is an answer to the overcrowding problem, then so too is removing freebees to SG and WP. Especially if you're 50/50 model holds true. In this case QC might actually get more money from paid SG and WP members. And then maybe they would treat the place and other QC members with some respect instead of a free piss up on Friday afternoon on the way home.

As for who earns more money, I'm sure that QANTAS have done the sums so that the extra value from statused flyers covers the amount they charge for QC membership. The fact that I pay for my QC mebership says that QF get the same value from me.

As for faulty logic on usage; QC is busy at peak business times, full of the business travellers, who are more likely to have status and hence be on the free QC membership.

As I said (did you actually read what I wrote?) when I travel at the non business traveller times the QC is not busy at all. Which is more indicative of the traveller who is more likely to have paid QC membership.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I think you should reconsider your own tired arguments and faulty logic before you point fingers.

Your company is representative of all travellers? No I didn't think so.

At least I had some evidence. Unlike yourself.

The only tired argument is the suggestion that statused pax are more highly valued than paid QC members and therefore paid membership should be discontinued.

No one is making this argument - certainly not me.

In any case, if removing pay QC membership is an answer to the overcrowding problem, then so too is removing freebees to SG and WP.

Again - this is a strawman argument - yet another logical fallacy. First you can't apply statistics properly. Now you create arguments to demolish when *I* never suggested getting rid of paid QC membership.

All I pointed out is that there are *always* suggestions on reducing overcrowding. And the suggestions always seem to have the proposer retaining access, and other don't. Status flyers say "get rid of paid membership" and visa versa.

As for faulty logic on usage; QC is busy at peak business times, full of the business travellers, who are more likely to have status and hence be on the free QC membership.

Again - you have no evidence of this. I at least provided *some* evidence - my fellow travellers from my company. That said, my company is part of a certain worldwide consulting organisation that employs over 100,000 people world wide, so you can probably guess who it is. We send a lot of money QANTAS' way (at least in Aus), and do a lot of travelling. And there are still plenty of people who are only Bronze/Silver despite the fact we probably do more travelling than the average company.

As I said (did you actually read what I wrote?) when I travel at the non business traveller times the QC is not busy at all. Which is more indicative of the traveller who is more likely to have paid QC membership.

Conclusion is not supported by the facts in evidence:
a) Are exactly the same number of people flying? The planes are 100% full at 7:30 on a Monday morning. If fewer people are flying, then there are fewer people in the QC, all other things equal

b) Are the people who are in the QC at peak times more likely to be able to afford QC membership (e.g. through corporate deals, and salary sacrifice) than at other times? If so, that would be more people in the QC

c) Are the people in the QC at peak times more likely to know someone who can "guest" them in (e.g. another person from the company who already has access)? If so, that woudl mean more people in the QC

I'm sure that more status pax are *part* of th reason why peak times are more crowded. But there are probably many *other* reasons as well.

I know that I've been in the QC many times on Sat/Sun, and there are plenty of people there. Too many for my liking.

 

[medhead]

No one is making this argument - certainly not me.

Again - this is a strawman argument - yet another logical fallacy. First you can't apply statistics properly. Now you create arguments to demolish when *I* never suggested getting rid of paid QC membership.

No, "you" never made that argument, but I never said you did. If you think the suggestion has not been put in this thread then I suggest you try reading the thread again. You come in half way through a thread, ignore the first half and accuse someone of misquoting you. Talk about logical fallacy. :!:

All I pointed out is that there are *always* suggestions on reducing overcrowding. And the suggestions always seem to have the proposer retaining access, and other don't. Status flyers say "get rid of paid membership" and visa versa.

And in this thread the suggestion has been made by the statused to drop paid qc members. I'm simply pointing out that the opposite proposition is equally valid. You agree with me why keep agruing the toss.

Conclusion is not supported by the facts in evidence:
a) Are exactly the same number of people flying? The planes are 100% full at 7:30 on a Monday morning. If fewer people are flying, then there are fewer people in the QC, all other things equal

b) Are the people who are in the QC at peak times more likely to be able to afford QC membership (e.g. through corporate deals, and salary sacrifice) than at other times? If so, that would be more people in the QC

c) Are the people in the QC at peak times more likely to know someone who can "guest" them in (e.g. another person from the company who already has access)? If so, that woudl mean more people in the QC

You ask for evidence but then use more likely. On using statistics, I was only using your own made up statistics.

The "evidence" you've put up doesn't disprove my conclusion. Do you really believe that regular business travellers monday to friday are not "more likely" to be statused. Where is your evidence for disagreeing with this statement. Some company where your circle of friends are representative of the other 100 000 employees and also representative of the Australian travelling public. Get real.

To your questions:
a) All things are not equal, that's my point. Sunday night 2 weeks ago my plane was full yet the QC and J lounge was practically empty. Monday morning 10:30 am, my plane was full, QC practically empty, I even got to sit at the TV. anecdotal evidence, maybe, but evidence none the less.

b) More likely! where is your evidence. I'd suggested that these people in peaktimes are more likely to have work pay for their travel and to be too cheap to pay for QC if they didn't get it by status. As for salary scarifice, I only hope the ATO doesn't audit anyone doing that.

c) More likely, again! Are these people guesting them in more likely to travel a lot and have got their QC access by status?

I note that you claim there are other reason for overcrowding, but you don't seem to nominate any....