No soft landing to PS in my case, I have flown 1 sector and earned 80 QF SC

[incumbent]

A friend confirmed that she kept WP status for seven years after a flurry of travel within an 18-month period, mostly on CX. So maybe, at least back then, there was a kind of "n year rule" where each lot of 1,200 SCs got you an extra year. There weren't so many bonuses for high SC counts back then.

 

[medhead]

From what I can gather, the OP was saying that the 'soft landing' option didn't appear on the account summary page... ie, if you fail to meet the requirements to retain gold, you'll be given silver regardless.

None of which supports the following part of the thread title. Not being displayed is not the same as no soft landing. Not being displayed is what happens for everyone, Not unique to the OP!

No soft landing to PS in my case

Putting all that aside, why can't we have something that clearly articulates the issue. I'm certainly not going to claim I'm 100% crystal clear in all of my posts, but then I'm also not 100% obscure and opaque either.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

None of which supports the following part of the thread title. Not being displayed is not the same as no soft landing. Not being displayed is what happens for everyone, Not unique to the OP!

but the OP wouldn't know that! hence their question.

 

[medhead]

but the OP wouldn't know that! hence their question.

Sorry, did the op actually ask a question, or did they make a series of statements?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No mention of soft landing back to PS, as it says, 80 SC to keep SG on my account.
Does it mean since Simpler and Fairer/Fairer and Simpler, no soft landings anymore?
I am aiming to work my way to keeping SG by flying, at least till Jul 16.
My anniversary was Jul 15. 2 months in, plan to fly a bit more though.

Sorry, did the op actually ask a question, or did they make a series of statements?

The OP asked a question - as shown in the original post which I have copied above.

OP indicates there is no mention of a soft landing on their account, and asked if that means they have been removed.

OP probably didn't know (but does now) that soft landings aren't reflected in any literature, or on an individual's account page in QFFF.

 

[RichardMEL]

OK look before this descends further I think perhaps what Poochie should TRY to take from this thread, and a few others over time is to TRY to be more clear, and perhaps give us much detail as possible when posing a question(if there is one, which again it is not clear if there is one).

Pooch, I know sometimes it's difficult for you and I feel we don't mean to be critical and many of us do want to help you, but it is often hard to decipher some of your comments/posts/responses.

So maybe next time before you post, it might help to say make a draft of your post, and ask a friend or someone else to read it and see if it's clear and gets any questions across? Or at least read it through a few times and try and imagine how someone who doesn't know you and your situation might read what you're saying? it may help.

Please I hope you take this comment in the spirit in which it's intended - as trying to be constructive.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

If this thread goes on any longer I'll need three year therapy.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

I'm glad I got into this thread after my first couple of drinks in the Hilton ADL Exec Lounge.

 

[JohnK]

Why be confused - see post #29 ...

That is not what confuses me.

To be specific, soft landed SG-> PS with no ~'s, then comped PS->PS with no ~'s but > 250 SC's 3 year average.

i.e Soft Landings don't require 4 ~'s and the three year rule seems to have applied as well.

Agreed.

As I said the "3 year rule" is only to be used as a guide and is not the definitive decision making process in use by Qantas when assessing status comps. Not sure why it is mentioned as gospel because you can have enough SCs for the 3 year average but still not be comped. It has happened more than once.

 

[serfty]

...

As I said the "3 year rule" is only to be used as a guide and is not the definitive decision making process in use by Qantas when assessing status comps. Not sure why it is mentioned as gospel because you can have enough SCs for the 3 year average but still not be comped. It has happened more than once.

Why is that confusing?

Can you cite a circumstance where someone who did not achieve a requalification level, had not previosly been comped and averaged such a three year level, but did not so receive a status in relation to that average.

 

[QF029]

The more important question is why even start this thread with its highly misleading title. There's a whole 9 months before the provision of a soft landing will even be known. The OP has ZERO information to support the claim they've been singled out to be denied a soft landing.

More fool you for reading any canine threads for anything other than entrainment.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

had not previously been comped

this apparently being a key issue (hence some complaints where QF has pro-actively comped status, even though someone made it anyway, thereby using up their one-off ability to comp in future)

 

[JohnK]

Why is that confusing?

This thread is confusing and not related to the comment I made.

Can you cite a circumstance where someone who did not achieve a requalification level, had not previosly been comped and averaged such a three year level, but did not so receive a status in relation to that average.

There are many posts on AFF. Need to search for them.

 

[jamesatfish]

I'm with the OP to some extent - the new Status Credit wheel and text can be a bit confusing to know where you stand in terms of status.

For example, my status always shows as "Lifetime Gold" next to the wheel, but "Platinum" at the login option at the top of the website page.

Similarly, after my WP status was comped in early September, my new card with 09/16 expiry arrived in mid September. The status wheel however continued to show a WP expiry date of 09/15 and "1020 SC to retain Platinum", right up until 1 October when the new expiry date showed up.

With soft landings being a fairly well known policy I can understand the confusion if the site implies that your status retention is a "retain or bronze" scenario when that may not be the case.

 

[woodborer]

With soft landings being a fairly well known policy I can understand the confusion if the site implies that your status retention is a "retain or bronze" scenario when that may not be the case.

But the site doen't make that implication. It just tells you how many Status Credits you need to retail your current status. It makes no statement at all about what happens if you do not make the number. It doesn't say go to bronze, or anything of the nature.

 

[serfty]

...
There are many posts on AFF. Need to search for them.

I have seen a few stating they did not get a comp. but none complied with "... had not previosly been comped and averaged such a three year level, but did not so receive a status in relation to that average.".