Platinum "anytime" lounge Access ceases from 1 February 2011

[oz_mark]

What PP lounges, they are soon to have none in Australia.

Mostly Plaza Premium. I'm not in Australia at the moment, hence my comment about international ports.

 

[samiam]

There are also reports that it is not being enforced. Perhaps I will continue to be optimistic.

You know the saying....

Just walked into the Perth QP, pre MEL flight. Flashed card only, no BP and card not scanned. That's 2/2 for PER in a 48 hr period.

 

[JohnK]

Some anecdotes that it is being enforced at some international ports. I will keep my peepers open for WP tags in Priority Pass lounges!

And I have proof and witnessed access to international QF lounges when clearly there were no access rights.

- A Platinum + Partner Gold arriving in SIN were granted arrivals access to QF First Lounge to spend some time with this Platinum.
- This Platinum flying on SQ BKK-SIN was granted access to QF Business Lounge with a guest flying on TG BKK-SYD. Clearly guest does not have access rights.

As always it does not hurt to ask. Don't expect to be allowed to enter the lounge but be pleasant (which I am most of the time) and you never know the answer may surprise....

 

[nlagalle]

Loyalty means nothing unless those loyal people are bringing in profits. Which seems to be a factor that most people here are missing. When airline prices were higher, it's easier to fund benefits for loyal flyers. When there is perpetual pricing pressure from airlines with cheaper cost-bases, then benefits for passengers that fly a lot but don't generate profits goes away. There is nothing mysterious about this.

I'm pretty sure a WP is bringing in profits for QF...

 

[medhead]

Loyalty means nothing unless those loyal people are bringing in profits. Which seems to be a factor that most people here are missing. When airline prices were higher, it's easier to fund benefits for loyal flyers. When there is perpetual pricing pressure from airlines with cheaper cost-bases, then benefits for passengers that fly a lot but don't generate profits goes away. There is nothing mysterious about this.

Yeah that's true but platinums are doing a lot of flying to bring in profits. If they don't think the profits are enough then increase the flying required. That then gives people a stretch target and if the benefits are good enough then people will go for it. That would be more acceptable to me to tell me I need to fly more to keep certain benefits rather than tell me that my loyalty is not valued, that the extra flying I direct to qantas means little past gold level.

 

[awilcockson]

I'm pretty sure a WP is bringing in profits for QF...

A point that seems to be consistently ignored as we are portrayed as nothing but whinging leeches.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I'm pretty sure a WP is bringing in profits for QF...

Really? I think there is a vast spectrum of WPs - flying a few F flights will bring in a lot more money to QF than someone doing 120 $100 SYD-MEL flights, or a WP doing some YUPPs in the US.

A lot of flying means nothing in terms of profits per se. The entire profit of a SYD-MEL JQ flight can be swallowed up with a couple of beers in the lounge prior to departure.

Think about the millions of seats that QF makes available each year. And then look at QF's profit (let's assume that freight makes no money whatsoever). What's the average profit/seat? Maybe $5? or $10? Probably less? Given that F / J have much higher margins, then the Y seats are making what? Next to nothing.

Increasing the amount of flying required is *not the answer* if each flight is not profitable for the airline. That's, perversely, a recipe for worse More closely aligning status with profitability would probably be in QF's interest. But I suspect that would generate howls of outrage. So in the interim, we'll continue to see erosion of benefits and continued inflation of redemption costs.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just stating what I think is obvious commercial reality.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

A point that seems to be consistently ignored as we are portrayed as nothing but whinging leeches.

Who is portraying you as a whinging leech?

Personally, I think QF's move is justifiable. That doesn't automatically mean that I think you are some kind of parasite. (And I don't think that: just to be clear)

 

[JohnPhelan]

I'm pretty sure a WP is bringing in profits for QF...

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter - profit, a.k.a "yield".

The profitability to QF of any particular flyer depends on a combination of profit-per-flight plus frequency-of-flying.

Let's be clear about this - a WP who earns that status by flying only domestically on the cheapest red e-deals is simply NOT a source of much - or any - profit at all. In terms of yield (profit), someone who flies only a handful of times per year in F internationally or J domestically - and therefore is probably only either Silver or Gold - is a much more profitable customer for QF than a WP travelling on red e-deals in Y.

Now, I'm currently a Gold (have been Platinum previously, but don't do quite as much flying any more). However, all my flights domestically are in J, and my internationals are in J (and occasionally F). In any given year, QF is making more profit from my flying than it does from someone flying weekly on red e-deals in Y.

No problem with any of that - but it should not be assumed that, just because someone has WP status, they are more profitable to QF - and therefore more "valuable" - than others who fly less, but at much greater profit per flight.

(Incidentally, this is also why I'm far from convinced that all WPs should have access to the J lounges - some should, because QF makes a profit from them, but not all).

 

[JohnK]

Really? I think there is a vast spectrum of WPs - flying a few F flights will bring in a lot more money to QF than someone doing 120 $100 SYD-MEL flights, or a WP doing some YUPPs in the US.

Here we go again.

If it wasn't for the people doing the hard slog down the back you would not have the schedule there is today and more than likely you would not have the option to fly First Class anywhere as the aircraft numbers are down due to lower passenger numbers.

Where have your so-called profits gone now? JQ anyone?

(Incidentally, this is also why I'm far from convinced that all WPs should have access to the J lounges - some should, because QF makes a profit from them, but not all).

I am better than you are and I deserve lounge access and you don't!

Can of worms! *Open*....

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter - profit, a.k.a "yield".

The profitability to QF of any particular flyer depends on a combination of profit-per-flight plus frequency-of-flying.

Let's be clear about this - a WP who earns that status by flying only domestically on the cheapest red e-deals is simply NOT a source of much - or any - profit at all. In terms of yield (profit), someone who flies only a handful of times per year in F internationally or J domestically - and therefore is probably only either Silver or Gold - is a much more profitable customer for QF than a WP travelling on red e-deals in Y.

Now, I'm currently a Gold (have been Platinum previously, but don't do quite as much flying any more). However, all my flights domestically are in J, and my internationals are in J (and occasionally F). In any given year, QF is making more profit from my flying than it does from someone flying weekly on red e-deals in Y.

No problem with any of that - but it should not be assumed that, just because someone has WP status, they are more profitable to QF - and therefore more "valuable" - than others who fly less, but at much greater profit per flight.

Well AFFer Boss Reggie spends a lot of money on QF premium fares in Premium cabins much like yourself so in your terms of 'worthiness' would be one of those WPs who QF should covet as they would derive a hugh amount of money/yield from a pax such as him. However they have lost a lot of his business as a result of this 'enhancement'.

(Incidentally, this is also why I'm far from convinced that all WPs should have access to the J lounges - some should, because QF makes a profit from them, but not all).

You've got to draw the line somewhere so it's got to be all WPs get access to J lounges irrespective of class of travel or have the J lounge for J class pax only irrespective of status.

For the purpose of lounge access it's all great in theory but it would be nigh impossible to work out easily which WPs QF make a profit from & give J lounge access vs WPs on lower yield fares who are deemed not worthy of access. If it was done this way there would be a different rule every time you travelled which would be an absolute receipe for disaster.

I believe that QF will lose millions of dollars in lost revenue from the removal of ATA however it'll probably take a while for the amount to show up on the balance sheet & even then they've got to admit to their mistake.

They'll probably attribute loss of revenue to some other reason like the QF32 Rolls Royce incident.

My response to JohnPhelan is in blue.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Here we go again.

If it wasn't for the people doing the hard slog down the back you would not have the schedule there is today and more than likely you would not have the option to fly First Class anywhere as the aircraft numbers are down due to lower passenger numbers.

Oh - I agree about the schedule. Each additional pax that fills a seat helps overcome the fixed cost of flying.

For F seats: well, that all depends on how many paying F pax there are. SQ can fly an all-business-class plane from SIN-EWR (my colleague was on it a week ago - quick a nice flight apparently) without the need for anyone doing a "slog" down the back.

Anyway - this is just mis-direction. Profits are not being made by people on cheap tickets. Just because you're a WP doesn't mean you are making lots of profit for QANTAS. And giving out freebies can make one an unprofitable customer. No one seems to be willng to address this.

I am better than you are and I deserve lounge access and you don't!

Can of worms! *Open*....

I didn't write what you are attributing to me. Can you correct it please? Thanks.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I believe that QF will lose millions of dollars in lost revenue from the removal of ATA however it'll probably take a while for the amount to show up on the balance sheet & even then they've got to admit to their mistake.

Revenue loss - maybe. But what's a few million to QF? Not much. And revenue isn't as important as profit.

Profit loss? I suspect that they'll make money out of this.

If there are that many flights ($10m in revenue at $1000/flight is 10,000 flights) then there is a lot of people using a lounge when not flying QF . Either it's happening a lot, or it's not happening much at all. Not sure which way your personal opinion goes.

That all said, I can't recall anyone here saying that they've shifted all their flying to another airline. A bit of toe-dipping in the water with DJ appears to be all.

 

[nlagalle]

Really? I think there is a vast spectrum of WPs - flying a few F flights will bring in a lot more money to QF than someone doing 120 $100 SYD-MEL flights, or a WP doing some YUPPs in the US.

A lot of flying means nothing in terms of profits per se. The entire profit of a SYD-MEL JQ flight can be swallowed up with a couple of beers in the lounge prior to departure.

Think about the millions of seats that QF makes available each year. And then look at QF's profit (let's assume that freight makes no money whatsoever). What's the average profit/seat? Maybe $5? or $10? Probably less? Given that F / J have much higher margins, then the Y seats are making what? Next to nothing.

Increasing the amount of flying required is *not the answer* if each flight is not profitable for the airline. That's, perversely, a recipe for worse More closely aligning status with profitability would probably be in QF's interest. But I suspect that would generate howls of outrage. So in the interim, we'll continue to see erosion of benefits and continued inflation of redemption costs.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just stating what I think is obvious commercial reality.

I believe the words "yield management" were mentioned. well the mystery surrounding it workings.

Also there is also far more Y seats than J seats. so Most of QF's profits will come from Y as opposed to J, wouldn't you agree?

The discussion has been done to death before about which pax is more valuable to QF, the person who flies J or F a couple of times a year, or the person who hikes it between MEL-SYD weekly?

As QF base your staus on SC's earnt which is based on distance and fare type - I would say you don't have anyone that is more important.

 

[simongr]

No scan at the MEL QP or J lounge...

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I believe the words "yield management" were mentioned. well the mystery surrounding it workings.

Also there is also far more Y seats than J seats. so Most of QF's profits will come from Y as opposed to J, wouldn't you agree?

No.

Whether yield management is a mystery is irrelevant to the point. There is a fixed cost of flying a plane, plus a variable cost per passenger.

Provided you can sell a seat for greater than the variable cost, then you are helping offset the fixed cost. This is why selling a cheap seat is better than not selling a seat at all *

* Provided you are not selling the seat "below variable cost", in which case you are just making your situation worse.

Now, this is just addressing the sale of an individual seat on an individual flight. Let's look at the aggregate instead. QF sells millions of seats a year, but only makes a few hundred million in profit. The average profit per seat is only a few dollars. For F seats it's much, much higher. For cheap Y seats, it's a loss (after taking into account the *fixed* costs of running an airline, that need to be apportioned across all flying pax)

To take this one step further: if QANTAS was only selling Y seats, it wouldn't be flying. The profit it makes from cheap Y isn't enough to keep the planes flying. That's why it ditches routes that don't have any premium pax (flex Y, J, F) and gives them to Jetstar (which has a far lower cost base)

So, given that cheap Y seats don't keep the airline flying, selling cheap Y seats where there's additional cost to providing the seat (funding beer in the QP) doesn't make sense. It would make better sense to sell the seat to a non-status pax for $5 less simply due to the savings in costs of providing the seat!

The discussion has been done to death before about which pax is more valuable to QF, the person who flies J or F a couple of times a year, or the person who hikes it between MEL-SYD weekly?

Both are important. The mass of people on cheap tickets keep the planes flying on a more frequent schedule. But the profits come from the people paying expensive tickets. When the GFC rolled around, QF took a dispropotionate hit to profits due to a very small number of people who stopped flying.

Now, I don't often pay for J (maybe a couple of times of year, max). It's PE (mostly) for me (and some Y and J). But I'm under no illusion that I'm generating lots of money for QF. FWIW I fly an average of 2000 miles/week - so far more than then weekly SYD-MEL flyer.

 

[nlagalle]

Anyway - this is just mis-direction. Profits are not being made by people on cheap tickets. Just because you're a WP doesn't mean you are making lots of profit for QANTAS. And giving out freebies can make one an unprofitable customer. No one seems to be willng to address this.

Care to show me that QF AREN'T making a profit on cheapy tickets?

Profit? Or lots of profit? I doubt there is a WP that QF haven't lost money on.

you also have to spend money to make money. And you have to spend some money to keep loyalty too.

 

[nlagalle]

No.

Whether yield management is a mystery is irrelevant to the point. There is a fixed cost of flying a plane, plus a variable cost per passenger.

Provided you can sell a seat for greater than the variable cost, then you are helping offset the fixed cost. This is why selling a cheap seat is better than not selling a seat at all *

* Provided you are not selling the seat "below variable cost", in which case you are just making your situation worse.

Now, this is just addressing the sale of an individual seat on an individual flight. Let's look at the aggregate instead. QF sells millions of seats a year, but only makes a few hundred million in profit. The average profit per seat is only a few dollars. For F seats it's much, much higher. For cheap Y seats, it's a loss (after taking into account the *fixed* costs of running an airline, that need to be apportioned across all flying pax)

To take this one step further: if QANTAS was only selling Y seats, it wouldn't be flying. The profit it makes from cheap Y isn't enough to keep the planes flying. That's why it ditches routes that don't have any premium pax (flex Y, J, F) and gives them to Jetstar (which has a far lower cost base)

So, given that cheap Y seats don't keep the airline flying, selling cheap Y seats where there's additional cost to providing the seat (funding beer in the QP) doesn't make sense. It would make better sense to sell the seat to a non-status pax for $5 less simply due to the savings in costs of providing the seat!

Both are important. The mass of people on cheap tickets keep the planes flying on a more frequent schedule. But the profits come from the people paying expensive tickets. When the GFC rolled around, QF took a dispropotionate hit to profits due to a very small number of people who stopped flying.

Now, I don't often pay for J (maybe a couple of times of year, max). It's PE (mostly) for me (and some Y and J). But I'm under no illusion that I'm generating lots of money for QF. FWIW I fly an average of 2000 miles/week - so far more than then weekly SYD-MEL flyer.

Yes there is a fixed cost to get a plane from A to B. And yeild management determines what fare structures they need to make it profitable. We all know it isn't a simple calculation to get to this answer.

You can't use an aggregate and say they only make a few hundred million in "profit" remembering that it is on paper! There are writedowns and other capital purchases built into it.

How do you know that QF don't make money from Y seats? That's a pretty silly statement. if Y seats didn't keep and airline flying, why do DJ (especially) and JQ still fly in the sky? also if they made so much profit frmo F seats, why are they removing it from most routes?

QF also took a huge hit in flying numbers when the GFC hit. It wasn't a small number of pax that stopped flying.

 

[oz_mark]

To take this one step further: if QANTAS was only selling Y seats, it wouldn't be flying. The profit it makes from cheap Y isn't enough to keep the planes flying. That's why it ditches routes that don't have any premium pax (flex Y, J, F) and gives them to Jetstar (which has a far lower cost base)

So, given that cheap Y seats don't keep the airline flying, selling cheap Y seats where there's additional cost to providing the seat (funding beer in the QP) doesn't make sense. It would make better sense to sell the seat to a non-status pax for $5 less simply due to the savings in costs of providing the seat!

By the same token, if Qantas were just selling J seats, it wouldn't be flying, as there simply aren't enough folk willing to pay. An all J airline is pretty rare. Yield managemant is largely about maximising revenue on an aircraft - and that is done by getting the mix of fares correct - high and low.

...and guess what - without all those folk in Y, J class passengers wouldn't get the frequency they desire.

Point is, whether the DYKWIA J passenger likes it or not, all those Y passengers are important to the viability of the airline, and for the frequency that is available to them.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Anyway - this is just mis-direction. Profits are not being made by people on cheap tickets. Just because you're a WP doesn't mean you are making lots of profit for QANTAS. And giving out freebies can make one an unprofitable customer. No one seems to be willng to address this.

*edited first bit*

As nlagalle says I'd like to see proof QF don't make $$ on cheap tickets. There's lots of variables around that scenario.