I would flick that fare back to VA's feedback and say - really? 5 sc?
it would be 15sc. Then next Jan 1, the Getaway fare would earn 10sc and the Elevate 20sc.
The $445 fare is a freedom fare which currently gives 30SCs (as it previously did as a flexi) and after Jan it will still earn 30Scs, so there is no magical SC benefit for my my popular route and class.
The $319 QF also earns 30 SCs and the $299 JQ fare also earns 30SCs. The SC "normalisation" that trippin_the_rift spoke of, also does not apply to me as I earn more SCs than needed in any case and the surplus with VA is lost whereas any surplus with QF/JQ goes toward my life time status balance. I've also been thinking about the graph that accompanies a TTR calculator search and it visually is a tad misleading. It show just the little wee bit right over in the left corner as being those VA flyers worse off with regard to SC earn, however that wee little bit would likely make up the lions share of VAs customers! I dodn't have data, but I'm guessing that out of the main cabin (non-business) possibly 80% would be on the old saver type of fares and maybe 20% on flexi fares???? For those like me who have been on flexi fares, my SCs remain unchanged, so there is no magical increase, yet early indications are we should be expecting huge fare increases if they are indeed reducing capacity.
The argument about fare buckets being the reason for that ridiculous example I previously posted and then somehow trying to suggest that actually indicates VA are doing really well at selling all their seats whilst QF and JQ cannot, is just a furphy. The price is high because VA have decided to reduce capacity on that sector in that time slot. Both their opposition fly higher capacity aircraft and do quite well at filling them regardless. VA fly a tiddler and then attempt to rip off their customer because of their poor decision. What will it get them? An extra couple of hundred bucks, whilst QF and JQ are selling perhaps 60 additional seats netting them $18 000 to VA's $300 and QF/JQ keep the customers semi-happy whereas VA rightly cops flack for being a rip-off. I'm glad I'm not a VA investor with quality management like that. Further, what would most people rather, fly a chokker block full F100 of fly a semi-full 738 with greater chance of a shaddow?? I know what I'd prefer.
Restricting capacity is a double edged sword and if VA are going down that path, they're treading some very thin ice. OPEC tried that in a big way twice. The ensuing oil shocks of the '70's and '00's very likely made them some excellent short term profits, but what it really did was to funnel huge investment, coupled with overwhelming customer support, into alternatives and now we see OPEC pretty much a thing of the past. Sure they can still cut supply, but the whole world is rapidly transitioning away from the reliance on their product. I see VA as a miniscule reflection of that concept.
Perhaps they just can't afford to fly the appropriate planes on a sector, but the comment has been made on this forum a number of times, that they can't expect to drag themselves out of the hole they're in by cutting routes, capacity and service whilst jamming in unrealistic fares. They're doomed if they do and I can say I really hope that never comes true as Australia needs two competitive airlines. If VA is placed into administration like Ansett was, it would be disasterous for all of us as QF service would disintergrate and the fares would skyrocket, so I hope I'm wrong.
