Partner Gold rules changes kicked in :(

[simongr]

Hi all

Well yesterday I needed 500+ SCs by 30 September to get partner gold and today the rule changes have kicked in and I now need 800+ SCs to get partner gold

I am going to be way off that sadly but at least I have reconfirmed WP for another year. Very tempted to credit my CX flights to AA on my upcoming trip... Sadly only Gold at AA now as well...

I am actually quite annoyed with how this change has been presented. My status page clearly said that I needed 500+ SCs by 30 September and that was clearly misleading. I knew I should have grabbed a screen shot of it to reinforce my complaint...

 

[Mal]

The T&C's are clear (to me)

20.3.1 Until 3 May 2011, Complimentary Gold Membership may be awarded to a family member or friend nominated by a Platinum Member when a Platinum Member first reaches 2,100 Status Credits within a single Membership Year

20.3.2 On and from 1 October 2010, a Platinum Member may be offered the opportunity to choose one of a selection of benefits (as determined and offered by Qantas), and that selection may include Complimentary Gold Membership, when a Platinum Member first reaches 2,400 Status Credits within a single Membership Year (unless the Platinum member has already obtained Complimentary Gold Membership under clause 20.3.1 for that Membership Year). Details of any such benefit or selection and any additional terms and conditions applicable to this benefit are provided at qantas.com. Any offers made under this clause 20.3.2 will expire at the end of the relevant Membership Year that the Member achieves 2,400 Status Credits or, if the Member achieves 2,400 Status Credits in their Membership Anniversary Month in that Membership Year, the end of the following month. Retrospective claims cannot be made if the offer has expired.

I recall publicity about this - including here.

 

[simongr]

Yes - I was aware of that change - my point is that it very cleared said on my status page yesterday that I required 535 SCs by 30 September to get PG.

What it did NOT say was:

You need 535SCs by 3 May to get PG, failing to do that will mean you need 835 SCs by 30 September. That is what I think is misleading.

I also think that the original publicity was very poorly worded - it said something like:

"Up to 3 September you need 2100 SCs to get PG, after 3 September you need 2400 SCs to get a range of extra benefits" They were less explicit that the 2100 went away.

 

[gumpy]

I just checked my page and noticed the change as well... did they announce this change?

why is QF trying to piss off people?

edit: i see that they did announce it... bleh... My target was the bonus 50k points so it doesn't affect me but I can see how others could be annoyed by this... moving the goal posts whilst someone is working their way there is not nice...

 

[Mal]

Yes - I was aware of that change - my point is that it very cleared said on my status page yesterday that I required 535 SCs by 30 September to get PG.

I agree they could have worded things better, But, they publicised the change, you knew about the change, it happened and now there's lots of angst?

Seems strange to me.

 

[medhead]

Yes - I was aware of that change - my point is that it very cleared said on my status page yesterday that I required 535 SCs by 30 September to get PG.

What it did NOT say was:

You need 535SCs by 3 May to get PG, failing to do that will mean you need 835 SCs by 30 September. That is what I think is misleading.

I also think that the original publicity was very poorly worded - it said something like:

"Up to 3 September you need 2100 SCs to get PG, after 3 September you need 2400 SCs to get a range of extra benefits" They were less explicit that the 2100 went away.

Totally agree it was misleading and the wording of the annoucement was not explicit.

This deceptive situation just helps confirm my decision to do more DJ flying instead of pushing to get 2100, per plan A.

Might submit feedback.

I agree they could have worded things better, But, they publicised the change, you knew about the change, it happened and now there's lots of angst?

Seems strange to me.

My angst is about the deception not the change. It has now happened and confirmed the misleading aspects of the change. Hence the angst now.

 

[simongr]

I agree they could have worded things better, But, they publicised the change, you knew about the change, it happened and now there's lots of angst?

Seems strange to me.

Actually I was not convinced that the change would happen like it did because of the wording on my status page. I was not sure if there was a two tiered system - just PG for 2100 and extra benefits for 2400+. Because my status page continued to say By 30 Sep I took that to mean I would have until 30 Sep not May 3.

EDIT

This must be a first - me and medhead in 100% agreement :shock:

 

[nlagalle]

Actually I was not convinced that the change would happen like it did because of the wording on my status page. I was not sure if there was a two tiered system - just PG for 2100 and extra benefits for 2400+. Because my status page continued to say By 30 Sep I took that to mean I would have until 30 Sep not May 3.

EDIT

This must be a first - me and medhead in 100% agreement :shock:

I'm with you simongr, my page said i only needed 1900 SC's to get PG (I already had it) not it is 2200. I believe if your frequent flyer year had already started and you were PG it should remain the same until you roll over. I do have a screen shot from the other day. I am wondering if I should complain to QF about it. I guess if you don't complain you can't get anywhere.

 

[medhead]

This must be a first - me and medhead in 100% agreement :shock:

I'm not always a disagreeable idiot.

 

[FuzzyAUS]

When i fly back from the USA tomorrow i will be 30 points off partner gold, i am going to get those points and call them and see if they will let it through, as i too had the page that said i only needed xx points by my renewal date to make PG

Fuzz

 

[Storyteller]

Mine is a bit different. I got the 2100 but havn't done anything. So, when I read this thread tonight wondered if I have missed out my not acting on it before 3/05. Quickly logged onto QF & relieved to read:

"Congratulations!
You've now earned enough Status credits to nominate a family member or friend for complimentary Gold membership. Choose now, or wait to reach 2,400 Status credits for a choice of even more rewards."

I knew about the change. So for me the wording could have been taken to mean earn the 2100 & nominate before 3/05, otherwise have to wait until reach 2400 ..

Agree, the wording could be clearer for all situations.

 

[TonyHancock]

This enhancement has really p*ssed me off. I was at 1790 SC's on the 3rd May, and by the 15th May will be at 2155. My year end is July. :evil:

I contacted the premium desk back in November. They couldn't help. Wouldn't it have been more sensible to let this kick in at the end of people's FF year? I know that would have been a bit harder to implement, but when you plan your flights carefully and 10 months in advance it is a bit rubbish to move the goal posts mid year.

As it happens I'll finish up between 2600 and 3000 SC's due to a couple of unplanned trips, but this still makes me feel undervalued and swindled.

Care to comment Red Roo?

 

[cove]

I hear your pain on this thread. 2011 has been a year where changes seem to have gone against the most frequent users of Qantas flights. Seems strange that the goalposts would move on a date like May 3rd.
Simultaneously the JASA runs are back at 5 times last week so a quick fix set of points redeeming flights is very,very expensive. Last time that happened for 4 days but to a lot of us that was 4 days of being quite annoyed.

 

[simongr]

The may 3 date was driven by the requirement for six months notice to be provided for adverse scheme changes..,

 

[Grooba]

Ahh bummer! I was also about to cross the 2100 mark in 2 weeks (a week short of my anniversary) but now the bar has been raised. I do remember the announcement where they said it would change on 3rd May but had forgot the exact date... ohh well.

Another dilution kicks in, great stuff QF! :evil:

 

[tyrolean]

Actually I was not convinced that the change would happen like it did because of the wording on my status page. I was not sure if there was a two tiered system - just PG for 2100 and extra benefits for 2400+. Because my status page continued to say By 30 Sep I took that to mean I would have until 30 Sep not May 3.

EDIT

This must be a first - me and medhead in 100% agreement :shock:

I found the "You need 2100 Points for PG" in my account very misleading. Luckily I made it a bit earlier. I did a short MUC-LHR-MUC on BA to come over the 2100 points, mainly that we could enjoy the benefits on the next trip downunder.
Mrs. Tyroleans card did not arrive yet (despite qualifying about 6 weeks ago), but Lounge access was not a problem.

 

[zeiron]

Totally agree it was misleading and the wording of the annoucement was not explicit.

This deceptive situation just helps confirm my decision to do more DJ flying instead of pushing to get 2100, per plan A.

Might submit feedback.

My angst is about the deception not the change. It has now happened and confirmed the misleading aspects of the change. Hence the angst now.

QF seem to be intentionally misleading and deceptive in a lot of things they do. They make everything sound really positive, but when it comes to the crunch, they fail to deliver. I have finally decided that the expectation/delivery equation is way out of symmetry and like you, have made the decision to cancel my 9 consecutive years of Gold membership and give my business to DJ. I understand they may not be any better, but I doubt they could be any worse then QF!

 

[medhead]

Well just had my feedback call from qantas on this. Apology received. But they think the changes were clearly expressed.

I tried to explain the membership summary on the website but stupidly didn't offer for the CSA to log into my account to see it. Pushed the point the management stuffed this up with a lack of attention to detail.

Really should have got screen shots, so I could take the matter further. Mainly to drive home the message to management.

 

[zeiron]

Pushed the point the management stuffed this up with a lack of attention to detail.

Really should have got screen shots, so I could take the matter further. Mainly to drive home the message to management.

It seems to me that management lack attention to detail in many aspect of their operations and I for one am not necessarily annoyed by this, but what I find inexcusable, is when you bring it to their attention, they dismiss you and dont even have the gall to admit/concede that the issue could have been handled in a much better, clearer fashion. As for driving the message home to them, good luck with that! Isn't the definition of insanity, repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? Welcome to the "new" Qantas!

 

[medhead]

It seems to me that management lack attention to detail in many aspect of their operations and I for one am not necessarily annoyed by this, but what I find inexcusable, is when you bring it to their attention, they dismiss you and dont even have the gall to admit/concede that the issue could have been handled in a much better, clearer fashion. As for driving the message home to them, good luck with that! Isn't the definition of insanity, repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? Welcome to the "new" Qantas!

The person I spoke to, in fairness, did make noises that it could have been better handled. That was my failure in not getting them to log into my account; they couldn't see the problem so couldn't make an informed comment. They did say the feedback would go to management.

The other stupid thing i did was cut them off when they started to say something about if you get near in the future. Instead of saying that is not going to happen, I should have let them finish the sentence.

In terms of pushing the matter, I was thinking of ACCC (or whoever it should be) for misleading conduct. Sure it would achieve nothing, but if a higher up person had to justify the situation to the ACCC it might focus their attention. Screen shots would also allow me to make a claim, rather than feedback that I'm not happy. If that claim is rejected again I can take that further with government authorities, ACCC or whoever.