Qantas surveying members about spend-based status attainment

[moa999]

The revenue or $ model is interesting.

Conceptually would have thought the "ideal" situation is a profit model - ie. You book fares that are most profitable to the airline you get more status. Arguably a well designed TP/SC system is more flexible than a pure $ based system. To an extent BA had this wrong as their system allowed cheap TP runs on partners.

Of note on these BA changes is I guess the fact that overall airlines are pretty low margin, and so there is an incentive to capture anything ancillary at near zero cost.

You see this in the uncapped BA Holidays earn which I assume is cause BA takes a high percentage of those hotel bookings, albeit as I understand it via Expedia so it's competing with hotel status programs.

Albeit they are capping CC earn to 2500 TPs which gets you a long way towards Bronze, but only 12% of Gold.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I read an anecdote on another forum saying Finnair went to a revenue based model because they had so many elites flying economy, drinking and eating and basically draining profit. You buy a cheap economy fare but get into the platinum lounge and you could consume more than the airline actually makes from you.

But again there’s room for a hybrid model. For example pure $ spend, but also a ‘minimum $ spend’ plus BIS miles or segments.

 

[Lynda2475]

One simple change without devaluing status and maintaining certainty would be to require more QF flights ~ (as QF profit more when you fly on their metal excluding JQ).

Keep the SCs the same but require 4 QF flights for silver, 8 QF flights for gold and 12 QF flights for Platinum.

Or require 50% of the qualifying SCs for each level to be on QF metal. So a minimum of 150 (125 requal) of the 300 (250) for PS on QF metal: 350 (300 if requal) of the 700 (600) for SG on QF metal and 700(600) for WP. P1 already has a QF flight qualifier.

IMO a QF metal flight requirement much fairer than spend based SCs (as spend doesn't equate to profit, especially if majority of your flying is on JQ or OW partners). And DSC already have the QF metal requirement.

 

[jase05]

especially if majority of your flying is on JQ or OW partners).

Which is why I think BA have gone down the route where partners aren’t revenue based.
They have gone a step too far though and wonder if it will be dialled down a touch

 

[moa999]

gone down the route where partners aren’t revenue based.

Suspect that's more because
1. They don't get that revenue.
2. They may not even have visibility on it
(Eg. You book a SYD-MEL fare on QF website)

I assume there is something in the BA/AA agreement that gives them visibility on most AA fares (obviously IB covered under the IAG grouping)

That said it's an absolutely horrible TP earn on QF going forward, particularly in Economy.

Tier Points awarded (percentage of miles flown)
From 1 April 2025:

Economy Lowest (M, K, L, N, G, Q, S, V, O): 2%
Economy Flexible (Y, B, H): 7.5%
Premium Economy Low (T, R): 6%
Premium Economy Flexible (W): 12.5%
Business Low (I): 12.5%
Business Flexible (J, C, D): 25%
First Low (A): 20%
First Flexible (F): 30%

So most eligible Y SYD-MELs (nothing Y, B, H are rare categories) would earn 9 TP. The higher category 33TP.
And Business might get you 55 or 110 TP.

Nothing that Bronze is 3500 TP, and Gold (OWE) 20000 TP.

 

[jase05]

That said it's an absolutely horrible TP earn on QF going forward, particularly in Economy.

Yeah, not sure why QF got put on the naughty list.
Perhaps QR’s influence is starting to come through

 

[justinbrett]

I don’t think QF really needs to, it’s already managed to constrain partner earn on many routes, with some partner J earning as Y, and for its own services it has so many sub categories of cabin that’s basically achieved spend based status already.

 

[moa999]

not sure why QF got put on the naughty list.

Its only QR and AY on the 'nice' list - basically double that for QF and the other oneworld airlines.
And AA on the super-nice list where £ count along with IB (presumably mostly due to the transatlantic JV)

 

[justinbrett]

Yeah, not sure why QF got put on the naughty list.
Perhaps QR’s influence is starting to come through

Probably because QF has penalised BA earn for years

 

[Lynda2475]

Its only QR and AY on the 'nice' list - basically double that for QF and the other oneworld airlines.

And presumeably IB ? The airlines that share Avios currency, so QR definitely an influencer (negative).

 

[jase05]

And presumeably IB ? The airlines that share Avios currency, so QR definitely an influencer (negative).

IB is on the revenue earn list same as BA and AA

 

[justinbrett]

And presumeably IB ? The airlines that share Avios currency, so QR definitely an influencer (negative).

Although Avios was founded as the BA currency, so perhaps it’s BA’s influence.

In fact perhaps BA has been playing a very long game after being dumped for EK.

 

[mviy]

I guess a revenue based system may make things a bit fairer for self-funded travellers as work travellers may need to self-fund more travel/spend to be able to maintain status.

 

[Lynda2475]

I guess a revenue based system may make things a bit fairer for self-funded travellers as work travellers may need to self-fund more travel/spend to be able to maintain status.

Those with work funded travel will still receive SCs for travel they didn't purchase themselves so need only self fund any gap, vs self funded travellers who still need to fund 100% themselves but at a likely much much higher price.

 

[gethsemene]

So lifetime gold (plat equivalent) is now a £550,000 spend on British Airways, so over a cool million AUD! Don’t think I’ll be making the switch once I reach LTG!

 

[jpp42]

So lifetime gold (plat equivalent) is now a £550,000 spend on British Airways, so over a cool million AUD! Don’t think I’ll be making the switch once I reach LTG!

Lifetime Platinum on Qantas is likely considerably similar or higher, if you can average $20/SC regularly that would be about AUD $1.5M. But I suspect the kind of regular premium flyers that have a chance at LTP would be spending more than this, per SC, so actual cost of LTP is likely to be to be somewhat more.

 

[Supersonic Swinger]

As sure as the sun rises in the east, this is coming for QFF, it's only a question of timing.

Airline valuations are driven by the FF programs and that's aided the more they can tie the program to inventory which is unlimited in capacity (overall economic spend) rather than fixed (available airline seats).

They have likely worked out that net/net losing all the flyers chasing higher status through existing program quirks is worth it, BA and VA being just the latest examples.

 

[justinbrett]

As sure as the sun rises in the east, this is coming for QFF, it's only a question of timing.

Airline valuations are driven by the FF programs and that's aided the more they can tie the program to inventory which is unlimited in capacity (overall economic spend) rather than fixed (available airline seats).

They have likely worked out that net/net losing all the flyers chasing higher status through existing program quirks is worth it, BA and VA being just the latest examples.

I predict QF will end DSC promos long before they switch to a fully revenue based system (I’d argue it’s already a semi-revenue based system for reasons above). But they seem to be doing the opposite, with two promos this year.

QFF is far more commercialised than most non-US programs and is a huge money spinner, so I’m not sure they have the same motivation that others do.

A far more likely change is increase to the QF/JQ 4 sector requirement. It’s remarkable QF only requires -3% of SCs to be QF for WP.