Prediction: QP guests will be enhanced next. What do you think?

[reductionist]

No wonder they're doing door tallies in MEL. Must be wondering which benefit to enhance next!

If I was a betting man (which I am) I'd put money on the next enhancement being related to guests. It'd be an instant $$$ win for QF if they restricted QP/SG/WP pax to a small-to-medium sized number of yearly guest passes (perhaps initially for non-travelling pax) and forced them to pay for a guest card if they need more.

This anecdotal evidence of QF tracking numbers of pax & guests at lounge entrances seems to have only surfaced AFTER the removal of any time access. I think when management sees the large amount of lounge guests admissions they are going to put it high on the list of potential enhancement areas.

There must be semi-large number of semi-retired Mr & Mrs Jones' types who semi-regularly use the QP and have basically paid 1 Qantas Club membership fee between them. I'm no expert in airline operations but it just seems to me that lounge guests are eating into lounge profits.

It also seems like there is basically zero ways for QF to measure what effect removal of ATA has had apart from asking lounge dragons. This is hardly scientific, don't you think? I agree with what others have suggested, that the lounges are just as populated as they were before.

Here's some dodgy math:

The aforementioned Mr & Mrs Jones travel domestically 12 times per year (maybe this number is a little high, but humour me a little bit). Mrs Jones is a Qantas Club member. The renewal fee is $470. Each time they use the lounge they both enjoy some food & a premium beer. For the sake of argument let's say the food costs QF $2/each & the beer costs $3/each.

So that's 24 [lounge visits] x 2 [pax] x ($3 [beer] + $2 [food]) == $240 == Half of the QP renewal fee. This basically leaves $9.60 remaining per pax per visit to pay for staff, facilities, top-tier pax and their guests.

Again, those numbers are quite rough and likely inaccurate. But, if you think my numbers are so wrong that my argument is beyond invalid, let me pose a question to you. How many Qantas Club members do you think DON'T try to get value out of their membership? If you paid for a QP membership, would you try to get the most out of it as often as possible? I know I did, and I always encouraged my guests to do the same. Up until recenlty Qantas had next to zero record of this however.

What do you think?

 

[markis10]

What is old is new once again, we came from that system to a certain extent, I doubt we will go back. I dont have figures on how many guests are taken in, but I expect it would be less than 10% of the total customers for the day, school holidays and AFF F lounge runs excluded.

 

[dfcatch]

1/ I've seen the door tallies before.

CNS being my home port I know they had the tally sheet for a significant period of time before ATA was "enhanced".
They tracked both your entitled access (status/class/QP membership/comp. Invite), airline, and of course guests. They also did track use of ATA (in a more personal port like CNS I was ALWAYS asked what flight I was on.)

2/ The math is irrelevant IMHO. But your point is valid and stands.
However as i've mentioned in the Overcrowding Thread, I'm a firm believer that guests are a major contributor to lounge crowding.

3/ I don't believe that QP members and their guests are the main cause of overcrowding. I would hazard to guess that status-access pax and their guests are as big as, or a bigger contributor. Although, again it doesn't actually matter.

If we take your math example, we could do the sums again, but apply it to your average SG or WP who utilizes the lounge more often than your average QP member, and may also bring a guest.
Of course your SG/WP member hasn't paid a QP membership fee, so they are a straight cost.

Of course the SG/WP brings higher average revenue to QF so they are given "complimentary QP membership".

Regardless of whether we're talking about status or QP pax, either way, they both have an over-generous guest allowance.

4/ We could go back to the old system where everyone was given 10 guest passes per year.
If you had a partner that always travelled with you and needed extra guest access - then you bought an Annual Guest Card. That's what it's there for.
With today's technology you could link the guest passes to the FF card and account. You could even tier it so:
QP - 10 passes
SG - 20 passes
WP - 30 passes

Or something along those lines.

It makes it more flexible too. Say I want to take my parents into the lounge when flying internationally. I can only take 1 in, unless I want to buy an Annual Guest Card. For a once a year trip - this is ridiculous.
Under the above proposed pass system - I could "use" 2 passes and it's all good.

Especially seeing as I hardly ever use my current "1 guest EVERY visit" allowance.

5/ There is obviously a business reason why QF switched from the old pass system to the 1-guest-every-visit system. (or 2 guests domestically for WP).
I'm not privy to this commercial reasoning and it will obviously be a consideration.

6/ If Markis is right - that guests are a small percentage, then no one here would really object to going back to the old system..??..??

But I believe if we did an AFF straw poll - there would be a number of us that would have to curtail our guesting under the above proposed system. Which of course - would prove my theory on guests.

7/ Disclaimer - under my personal current flying patterns, I would be better off under the pass system than I am now.
If I was REGULARLY guesting the same partner, colleague, friend etc (AKA liking the current system) - then surely either they would be SG/WP themselves, or I could justify an Annual Guest Card.

 

[medhead]

I've said it a number of times, but I would welcome a return to the guest pass system. It really gives me the tom cough that I can take in 4 guests per week when travelling alone, but I can't take in my whole family when travelling with them twice a year. :evil: Sure the lounge staff are pretty good at letting my kids in with me. But it angers me greatly to have to be effectively begging for one extra guest considering the number of guest spots that I never use.

So that's 24 [lounge visits] x 2 [pax] x ($3 [beer] + $2 [food]) == $240 == Half of the QP renewal fee. This basically leaves $9.60 remaining per pax per visit to pay for staff, facilities, top-tier pax and their guests.

The numbers look roughly ok, given the assumptions. But you haven't considered what they are paying for with that $9.60 per pax per visit. I would rough say 20 seconds at the door to check BP, 30 seconds to get their beers, maybe a 1 minute on cleaning and 2 minutes for food prep. Say 4 minutes of total staff time per visit, $19.20 should be more than enough to cover that cost. Or in other words, staff costs divided by a large number of guests = very small cost per guest.

 

[dk4]

There have certainly been a few posts recently, across the forum, about guest lounge access entitlements. IIRC, same sort of testing posts seemed to crop up shortly before AnyTimeAccess was removed. :shock:

One thing though, that I think needs to be factored into the equation, is that Mr & Mrs Jones also pay for a QF/JQ ticket to access the QP (so an overall profitable relationship must consider that transaction's value, not merely the cost of the QP component).

As it happens, I know a few Mr & Mrs Jones (or variants) i.e. one member (but always travelling as a pair). Perhaps there is some merit in removing QP members' guest access privileges completely (and forcing them to purchase an annual guest pass, or other entry instrument, for the companion)? Probably depends on what the competion does tho...

But, having said that, most of the Jones that I know, are p!ssed off about the recent round of enhancements that came with NGCI, so annoying them any more right away, may prove counter-productive!

 

[Awesom Andy]

That actually sounds like a good idea, but if everyone wants to take their families in on the same day, to, say, here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....flyer-program/crowded-mel-j-lounge-29347.html

 

[dfcatch]

There have certainly been a few posts recently, across the forum, about guest lounge access entitlements. IIRC, same sort of testing posts seemed to crop up shortly before AnyTimeAccess was removed. :shock:

One thing though, that I think needs to be factored into the equation, is that Mr & Mrs Jones also pay for a QF/JQ ticket to access the QP (so an overall profitable relationship must consider that transaction's value, not merely the cost of the QP component).

As it happens, I know a few Mr & Mrs Jones (or variants) i.e. one member (but always travelling as a pair). Perhaps there is some merit in removing QP members' guest access privileges completely (and forcing them to purchase an annual guest pass, or other entry instrument, for the companion)? Probably depends on what the competion does tho...

But, having said that, most of the Jones that I know, are p!ssed off about the recent round of enhancements that came with NGCI, so annoying them any more right away, may prove counter-productive!

If changing the guest rules - I would apply the same new rules to both paid QP members AND status members.

Remember - your status of SG or WP simply gives you "complimentary QP membership". SG is identical to QP members as far as lounge access goes.
And now that ATA has been removed - WP simply gets and extra guest domestically.

 

[dk4]

If changing the guest rules - I would apply the same new rules to both paid QP members AND status members.

Remember - your status of SG or WP simply gives you "complimentary QP membership". SG is identical to QP members as far as lounge access goes.
And now that ATA has been removed - WP simply gets and extra guest domestically.

I dont have a problem with that, Ive already started flying other airlines after ATA was removed, so I can just find one who wants my business and makes me a better offer. Qantas is free to do as it pleases (although it may cause further 1W program defections).

The main guest access I used with my WP membership was during ATA, where I would organise for people to fly QF/JQ, take them to the airport (or pick them up) and guest them into the lounge (or wait for them) its is simply easier to generally use the lounge of the airline that you/they are flying. Since ATA has gone, my behaviour has changed, and I no longer suggest/influence people to fly Qantas for this purpose.

But equally, at $10 a pop, have taken large groups of people into JQs lounge at OOL, so I dont have a problem paying a reasonable price when i need to.

 

[reductionist]

3/ I don't believe that QP members and their guests are the main cause of overcrowding. I would hazard to guess that status-access pax and their guests are as big as, or a bigger contributor.

Yep. I guess the main point I was trying to make was that perhaps there's not much money left in the Qantas Club kitty to cover the costs for status pax who currently do not pay QP fees (directly). If you then add their guests into the equation as you suggested... Well, it's not hard to see why the quality of the pizza is so cough.

Pretty sure I'd be happy with your suggestion of some annual free guest passes and purchasing a guest card if I needed more. But I know some ppl on here will disagree with that.

 

[reductionist]

The numbers look roughly ok, given the assumptions. But you haven't considered what they are paying for with that $9.60 per pax per visit. I would rough say 20 seconds at the door to check BP, 30 seconds to get their beers, maybe a 1 minute on cleaning and 2 minutes for food prep. Say 4 minutes of total staff time per visit, $19.20 should be more than enough to cover that cost. Or in other words, staff costs divided by a large number of guests = very small cost per guest.

What you're saying is true but like mentioned above, that $9.60 needs to cover SG & WP pax plus their guests. That must be a bit of a squeeze, no?

 

[medhead]

What you're saying is true but like mentioned above, that $9.60 needs to cover SG & WP pax plus their guests. That must be a bit of a squeeze, no?

No, I don't think it needs to cover them at all. Status gets "complimentary membership" of the QP. As these are separate group entities, I would imagine that there are some payments exchanged between the entities. Even if there isn't a payment, there surely we can conclude that Qantas has determined that SG and WP have contributed enough (at least equivalent to the paid QP fee) to the coffers to get the free membership. If a payment wasn't being made that the QP entity would be making a loss due to the massive use of the QP by status QFFs, if only receiving paid QP fees.

So that $9.60 only needs to cover the cost of the paid members use of the QP.

 

[dfcatch]

No, I don't think it needs to cover them at all. Status gets "complimentary membership" of the QP. As these are separate group entities, I would imagine that there are some payments exchanged between the entities. Even if there isn't a payment, there surely we can conclude that Qantas has determined that SG and WP have contributed enough (at least equivalent to the paid QP fee) to the coffers to get the free membership. If a payment wasn't being made that the QP entity would be making a loss due to the massive use of the QP by status QFFs, if only receiving paid QP fees.

So that $9.60 only needs to cover the cost of the paid members use of the QP.

Yes I imagine that there is some internal cost centre transactions between QP and QFF.

Just as there is between airlines when a OWS/OWE/QP member uses an AA/BA/CX etc lounge.

 

[beardoc]

I think the thing that's been forgotten in this discussion is that QF may not see the QP as a profit making entity in itself, but as something that is offered in order to encourage people to remain loyal to their main business, which is people flying with QF. A cheap corporate membership of a few hundred dollars may not pay for itself directly, but if that QP member then goes to their corporate travel department and says "I will only fly with QF when possible", then it's a win for QF.

That's the main reason DJ started their lounges - it wasn't that they're making money on The Lounge - but it was the only way to make a dent on people that keep their loyalty to QF because of the lounges and the QFF program.

 

[drron]

Well drron,aka mr Jones,would be very unhappy if mrs.dr.ron,aka mrs Jones,couldn't guest him into Flounges.
My feeling if there were to be any enhancement of guesting arrangements would be bringing the domestic access into line with the international lounges-that would be no problem.
Re introducing guest passes would be OK except the CRAFT problem would often see me at the lounge and the passes at home so there would have to be the technology in the card itself as that stays in the wallet.
Of course when it comes to overcrowding in the J lounges it is for a change not the fault of QP or NB members.

 

[reductionist]

Yes I imagine that there is some internal cost centre transactions between QP and QFF.

OK, I understand the point you guys are making here. And I had to give it all of 2 seconds of thought before I agreed with you. My proposed example & numbers were decidedly over-simplified but I think the discussion still has some merit.

If you can put the numbers aside for a moment and allow me to be a bit more specific in my line: If you were running QF what would be your next enhancement to the lounges (if any)?

 

[medhead]

If I was running it and I was concerned about crowding my next enhancement would be a tiered gust pass system that is linked and tracked electronically via QFF/QP account.

I'm not sure about the tiers as I don't have the financial info, but basically higher status = more passes. A rough guess for a platinum would be no more than 50 guests per year. This offers a reduction on guests for most domestic legs undertaken on a regular basis. So to get platinum on SYD-MEL requires 140 flights per year, a potential 280 guests per year. Doing a basic appraisal like this on other routes would result in a significant reduction in potential guests. This makes the guest spot more valuable, something to hold and use not something to throw away on random strangers.

I would also have greater restrictions on guest pass use in the F lounges. Mainly so that immediate family can get in, but not unlimited work mates (or strangers). Perhaps also with a maximum cap. Something like 2 (or 1) unrelated guests, unlimited family guests but the first 2 family guests use your unrelated allowance.

Continuous improvement process to assess crowding following the changes, with a feedback loop to alter the number of guest passes.

Extra guest passes as a loyal option or bonus. 2400SC option for 15/30 guest spots, option for 3 guest spots every 450 SC. The options here are many and varied.

Then I would improve the food, once crowding is under control.

 

[Keith009]

For some reason the phrase 'self-fulfilling prophecy' comes to mind... if this really does happen. :-|

 

[reductionist]

For some reason the phrase 'self-fulfilling prophecy' comes to mind... if this really does happen. :-|

I'd be surprised if they hadn't already thought about it. What about you?

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Guests won't ever be removed so long as the airline wants to continue making money.

I'm not concerned at all.

 

[reductionist]

Guests won't ever be removed so long as the airline wants to continue making money.

Guests will never be totally removed IMO. I think they will get enhanced in some way however.