Qantas online Mall, cookies and points

[RooFlyer]

I'm assuming the first red sentence is your highlighting of their reply and the last red sentence is your comment/query.

If so, you need to be bothered to make a manual claim if you want the points. Qantas and its partners are ALWAYS stuffing up points given / not given - check out this and other threads! its a hassle and shouldn't happen, but that's the situation.

They also use generic replies to brush people off, in part I think hoping they'll give up - don't!!

if you have the MALL e-mail (and not just the supplier e-mail) you should be OK. What was the documentation you sent which they said wasn't good enough?

 

[wxxnxs]

I'm assuming the first red sentence is your highlighting of their reply and the last red sentence is your comment/query.

If so, you need to be bothered to make a manual claim if you want the points. Qantas and its partners are ALWAYS stuffing up points given / not given - check out this and other threads! its a hassle and shouldn't happen, but that's the situation.

They also use generic replies to brush people off, in part I think hoping they'll give up - don't!!

if you have the MALL e-mail (and not just the supplier e-mail) you should be OK. What was the documentation you sent which they said wasn't good enough?

The biggest problem is I don't have the mall email, Ebay and The Iconic both got lost, the only supplier which I have received points is DJ. I only sent the suppliers' confirmation emails regarding my orders, and I always use that for manual claim on Velocity global store without issues.

I don't think I made any wrong steps on my order, otherwise I wouldn't be able to receive points from previous purchases.

 

[opusman]

Seems like typical QFF cough. I never got an email for a DJs purchase either, so presumably they will claim this makes it invalid despite my fulfilling all of their stated requirements.

Their cookies-based system is obviously completely unreliable; I certainly see no reason to ever try buying anything through their "mall" again.

 

[PaulST]

My bonus points arrived yesterday too. I also just receivedca an email from the FF and QC people and they've also said that I would have been eligible for the double bonus points deal too so I guess they'll arrive over the next few weeks. ~20,000 points isn't too bad! (almost covers the 25K I burnt upgrading to J on QF128 yesterday).

 

[mannej]

Completely unreliable? I've never not had a purchase post (base points).

 

[opusman]

Completely unreliable? I've never not had a purchase post (base points).

It works some of the time rather than all of the time; wouldn't you call that unreliable?

 

[mannej]

It works some of the time rather than all of the time; wouldn't you call that unreliable?

But that isn't completely unreliable then is it?

 

[opusman]

But that isn't completely unreliable then is it?

I'm not sure what you think the semantic difference is; if you can't rely on something then the fact that it works sometimes doesn't mean you can ever actually rely on it.

 

[mannej]

I'm not sure what you think the semantic difference is; if you can't rely on something then the fact that it works sometimes doesn't mean you can ever actually rely on it.

The process though not perfect isn't completely unreliable, as seen by a number of members who haven't had issues with the base points posting.

To call it completely unreliable is just a touch misleading.

 

[burmans]

Seems like typical QFF cough. I never got an email for a DJs purchase either, so presumably they will claim this makes it invalid despite my fulfilling all of their stated requirements.

Their cookies-based system is obviously completely unreliable; I certainly see no reason to ever try buying anything through their "mall" again.

Agreed, so THEIR system stuffed up and didn't recognise the transaction and hence didn't send the email of give us points or send the email and that's somehow our problem. No thinks, I'll use shopping portals that actually work next time.

 

[burmans]

The process though not perfect isn't completely unreliable, as seen by a number of members who haven't had issues with the base points posting.

To call it completely unreliable is just a touch misleading.

Don't agree, if it failed all the time it would be reliable not unreliable, it would just reliably fail.

 

[mannej]

Don't agree, if it failed all the time it would be reliable not unreliable, it would just reliably fail.

I haven't had it fail once, so it's not completely unreliable in my experience.

 

[wxxnxs]

When Velocity global store launched, they also had the same issue, but their back office people were keen to help solve the issue, they just asked the proof from the supplier which was sufficient enough to process the claim. Qantas FFP has a long way to go, wish Qantas get another huge loss in this year as well.

 

[opusman]

I haven't had it fail once, so it's not completely unreliable in my experience.

It's failed 100% of the time for me.

 

[RooFlyer]

The process though not perfect isn't completely unreliable, as seen by a number of members who haven't had issues with the base points posting.

To call it completely unreliable is just a touch misleading.

Oh good grief. Such tortured semantics I think just highlights how coughpy (and unreliable) the whole thing is.

Don't agree, if it failed all the time it would be reliable not unreliable, it would just reliably fail.

Exactly.

I haven't had it fail once, so it's not completely unreliable in my experience.

Ah! Its not completely unreliable in your experience.. Very pleased for you. May you keep it up .

 

[burmans]

I haven't had it fail once, so it's not completely unreliable in my experience.

Ah a sample size of one, that's always reliable.

That's a bit like saying I am white and I am human therefore all humans must be white. Flawed logic.

 

[mannej]

Ah a sample size of one, that's always reliable.

That's a bit like saying I am white and I am human therefore all humans must be white. Flawed logic.

The AFF sample size isn't particularly large either, so the same could be said of your argument.

FWIW your analogy is daft.

 

[burmans]

The AFF sample size isn't particularly large either, so the same could be said of your argument.

FWIW your analogy is daft.

Agree, it is daft to take your own experience and extrapolate whilst ignoring the experience of others.

 

[mannej]

Agree, it is daft to take your own experience and extrapolate whilst ignoring the experience of others.

Which is exactly what you are doing when ignoring those who haven't had an issue.

 

[opusman]

Which is exactly what you are doing when ignoring those who haven't had an issue.

Not really; you're claiming it is reliable, and accusing me of being misleading because you seem to think "completely unreliable" somehow means that it never works. That's not what it means. There's no semantic difference between "unreliable" and "completely unreliable"; they both mean that you can't rely on it to always work, which unless you're accusing all of us of lying, is clearly the case.