Qantas surveying members about spend-based status attainment

[33kft]

While my spend is much lower in retirement, it will now be my life’s work to make sure Qantas doesn’t get one cent of it.

I'll never get people on here. There's just a steady stream of people joining to have a whinge. But it's about the airline that hasn't implemented this, hasn't stated they will, and the only evidence they "will" is a survey?

Go lie down, take a valium, and if you're lucky enough to still be Platinum in 2027, @clifford will send you some flowers to celebrate.

 

[Mikeact1]

I did that survey last week. I made it clear in my responses that following Virgins spend model was a huge turn off, and rated bum in seat flying as my top preference. Upvoted DSC promos over credit card or shopping SCs as DSCs still require you to fly.

All my travel is also now 100% personally funded, I don't want to see those who have businesses to channel company spend through without flying QF get higher status.

QF already allows you to transfer points between family members, but if you need to use your kids or partners SCs to get status then sorry but you don't fly enough to deserve the status.

If they are going to make changes id prefer they require something like 50% of SCs need to be earned on QF metal than move to $ spend over fare class + distance.

I disagree totally...if I want to spend my company $'s on partner flights to achieve status, then I will.

 

[siri]

I would say, there is already cost base points at present since same route and same class got different points. All depends on how much you paid. This method is ideal for domestic flyers since domestic fares are very profitable to qantas. Present system that cater for cost+distance is a balance affair unless they fiddle with this equation. To business class traveller it does not matter either way.

 

[KiwiFlyer79]

I would rate the chances of this happening in the next 5 years above 90%.

Everything is pointing in this direction:
- International competitors have switched
- Main domestic competitor has switched
- Doug Parker is on Qantas' board
- As Delta has shown, there's plenty of juice to be squeezed from the switch when you're at the premium end of the market.

My husband has been subjected to flying Delta since our move to the US. He flies regularly for work and has barely cracked Silver. He managed to score Gold through a points match on his Hilton status for heaven's sake. Delta relies so heavily on affliated credit cards it's hardly even an airline anymore. That's how they expect you to 'pay' for checked luggage on any ticket that isn't 'First Class'. We have both basically bottomed out with both our Qantas and Virgin frequent flyer (previously Platinum and Gold respectively) memberships because we live in a Delta hub city and there are so many miles and dollars and legs you have to earn I honestly have no idea how the people getting perks manged to get them.

We hate the FF system here and can't wait to never fly US airlines again.

 

[elanshin]

I just remembered the on air episode with Ben Lipsy (head of loyalty at flying blue) and him saying that you need to have a loyalty program that can generate irrational behaviour.

Revenue based spends do the opposite of that - everything becomes very clear. You won't go on a funny roundabout extra leg that might generate more SC per $ but ultimately you didn't need to fly. Or that you booked flex instead of sale etc.

The other thing that i think gaming companies have figured out is that when you have currency conversion and its not super clear cut on the exchange rates, whilst it may be confusing ar times, the confusion is also what allows for better returns on results.

I personally don't think full revenue based spends will have nearly as much actual profits, but who knows if QF will actually go down the route or not.

Edit: if anything i feel airlines should look more seriously at gaming companies and how they do reward structures. Temu was so wildly successful because they turned shopping into a pseudo gaming/achievement experience.

 

[33kft]

Of all of the citing of what other airlines are doing, the only one that makes me think it is possible is BA. Why would QF be inclined to follow VA who have gone LCC and have a tiny lounge network over other full service carriers on this particular model? Same with the US carriers who have long marched to their own beat on status and lounge access, why would QF be inclined to adopt US airline standards when primarily competing in Asia Pacific?

BA is the only airline I would consider similar, but I have no way of knowing to what degree IAG and Avios as a revenue-based model contribute to that decision.

I'd love to hear an honest appraisal of why QF would want their established, expensive lounges empty? And before the answer given is the word expensive - QF group already have their LCC, they aren't ceding the business market voluntarily.

The problem for the usual suspects of QF doom and gloom is that unlike the drawn out CR+ chatter replete with anecdotes and no data, this one is binary. It either happens or it doesn't. They're either right or wrong.

We shall see, but until then it is not the model that QF has adopted, unlike that list of airlines repeatedly cited that have. It is better to earn with QFF and benefit from the status quo than to stay with an airline which has made status unachievable to most.

It's like the argument about how VA's WiFi is so superior because nobody uses it, unless they are platinum or pay more than anyone in 2025 would pay for internet on a domestic flight. Some airlines can only make it work if all of their premium status inclusions are unutilised, others are going to make it work by sweating those assets. People can decide if domestic WiFi is worth $30K pa or not. The choice is there, it's not necessarily a uniform position that all airlines are going to adopt.

 

[levelnine]

My pre-BA switch prediction (90% confidence) of a Qantas switch within 5 years is looking awfully good right now.

It's instructive to look back at the BA elites in denial that it would ever happen to them before the change, trotting out many of the exact same arguments we see in this thread (BA already awards status roughly based on spend via tier points, US is a different market, the move will fail to incentivise irrational behaviour, to stop lounge overcrowding double tier points will end before any move to revenue based).

 

[drron]

I really couldn't care if QF goes to spend. The 2 of us travel to where we want to go when we want to go. Although Mrsdrron is LTG it is nearly impossible for us to get such an award. We have resorted to flying JQ's pretend business BNE-BKK on a QFF award just so we can use her QFF points. A daytime flight so not so bad.

We want J awards to a place we want to go at roughly the time we want to go on a reasonable airline. For us at the moment that is through VA with their QR and SQ arrangements.

For OW airlines we are going back to AA as I do have LTP with them and even though their awards don't come out until 330 days prior I can see awards there on flights that are not available or have better availability than QFF. QR for the first example and BA the second example. I can find more days available on BA SYD-SIN on AA than I can on QFF.

 

[Gremlin]

Why would QF be inclined to follow VA who have gone LCC and have a tiny lounge network over other full service carriers on this particular model?

Because you don't have to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun the other guy trying to outrun the bear.

The market, both domestically and internationally, for good or ill, is moving towards a model with far less members attaining tiered status. Qantas have a (relatively) captive market and (relatively) little opportunity to scale membership internationally. It doesn't need to outperform the market on offering, so it won't.

I'd love to hear an honest appraisal of why QF would want their established, expensive lounges empty?

I don't think they want them empty. But they do want them less at capacity and cheaper to run. And lounge access to be a profit centre, not a cost centre. Or is that the quiet part out loud?

I personally don't think full revenue based spends will have nearly as much actual profits

Betting against the market then?

 

[33kft]

Because you don't have to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun the other guy trying to outrun the bear.

They have had a long time to close that gap. Perhaps they have realised that they already have a carrier with low fares, no frills, minimal status attainment potential and no independent lounge network (but at least a decent international network) in their stable

 

[Sabot]

Of all of the citing of what other airlines are doing, the only one that makes me think it is possible is BA. Why would QF be inclined to follow VA who have gone LCC and have a tiny lounge network over other full service carriers on this particular model? Same with the US carriers who have long marched to their own beat on status and lounge access, why would QF be inclined to adopt US airline standards when primarily competing in Asia Pacific?

BA is the only airline I would consider similar, but I have no way of knowing to what degree IAG and Avios as a revenue-based model contribute to that decision.

I'd love to hear an honest appraisal of why QF would want their established, expensive lounges empty? And before the answer given is the word expensive - QF group already have their LCC, they aren't ceding the business market voluntarily.

The problem for the usual suspects of QF doom and gloom is that unlike the drawn out CR+ chatter replete with anecdotes and no data, this one is binary. It either happens or it doesn't. They're either right or wrong.

We shall see, but until then it is not the model that QF has adopted, unlike that list of airlines repeatedly cited that have. It is better to earn with QFF and benefit from the status quo than to stay with an airline which has made status unachievable to most.

It's like the argument about how VA's WiFi is so superior because nobody uses it, unless they are platinum or pay more than anyone in 2025 would pay for internet on a domestic flight. Some airlines can only make it work if all of their premium status inclusions are unutilised, others are going to make it work by sweating those assets. People can decide if domestic WiFi is worth $30K pa or not. The choice is there, it's not necessarily a uniform position that all airlines are going to adopt.

Not sure how similar BA and QF are honestly, outside of being "National Carriers". Markets, geography and destinations are all vastly different.

I think people forget how unique Qantas' circumstances are sometimes.

 

[RooFlyer]

Why would QF be inclined to follow VA who have gone LCC and have a tiny lounge network over other full service carriers on this particular model?

Why? Easy. if it’s more profitable then they’ll do it. Simples.

The fact they’ve got some of the stickiest frequent flies around the globe in their frequent flyer program. I think will enhance the chances of them doing it too.

 

[elanshin]

Why? Easy. if it’s more profitable then they’ll do it. Simples.

The fact they’ve got some of the stickiest frequent flies around the globe in their frequent flyer program. I think will enhance the chances of them doing it too.

I disagree that its profitable. It may appear more profitable in the short term and in measurables, but i highly believe the harder to measure stuff would make it actually less profitable.

But those are very hard to track on a balance sheet.

You just need to keep dangling the carrot rather than a massive overhaul which causes everyone to do actual number crunching. Thats when they wake up and start looking at bfod.

That's exactly whats happening at BA right now. People are crunching numbers for the first time instead of just blindly and blissfully ignorant of anything not BA or OW.

 

[Sabot]

Why? Easy. if it’s more profitable then they’ll do it. Simples.

The fact they’ve got some of the stickiest frequent flies around the globe in their frequent flyer program. I think will enhance the chances of them doing it too.

Or are they sticky because of the current arrangements?

 

[RooFlyer]

I disagree that its profitable.

You are not disagreeing with me. I was just saying that they would do it if it was profitable.

 

[33kft]

You are not disagreeing with me. I was just saying that they would do it if it was profitable.

I think we all collectively agree that this is true, but only in the context of the multi-dimensional question of whether a change is profitable or not, and on the basis that it was significantly profitable - not marginally. Doubling fares would certainly be profitable if the market would bare it. Making changes could result in losing revenue and therefore reduced profitability, even if the individual changes reduce cost or increase revenue, because it may alienate profitable passengers.

I doubt they know if it will be profitable, and there's always going to be a degree of risk in there. Perhaps asking their members was a step towards understanding if it would be a profitable move, and whether the quantum of profitability is greater than that of risk, and how it would help or hinder their current brand image woes, and what cost would be involved in implementing it and all of the associated impacts across their operations.

 

[RooFlyer]

I doubt they know if it will be profitable, and there's always going to be a degree of risk in there.

Anyone: What would the pitch to management be for the change? What comes after the BUT:

"We are going to massive piss off just about all of our engaged frequent flyers and get caned in the press. BUT ...."

 

[trippin_the_rift]

QF will go spend-based for everything eventually for two simple reasons.

1) Everyone at QF is incentivized not to rock the boat, to do what their boss wants and keep their job. Think about it - Sky-high property prices in Sydney don't pay themselves...interests are aligned with their job and short term bonuses.... while the long term effects come in long after they've moved into another role. QF will justify it under some bogus reason like 'you told us you want this....' just as BA did.

2) They can do it because you have no choice. What you gunna do? Fly Jetstar? Virgin?

The question is, who at QF is fighting tooth and nail on behalf of members? ...and when are they going to squeeze that person out?

 

[Sabot]

QF will go spend-based for everything eventually for two simple reasons.

1) Everyone at QF is incentivized not to rock the boat, to do what their boss wants and keep their job. Think about it - Sky-high property prices in Sydney don't pay themselves...interests are aligned with their job and short term bonuses.... while the long term effects come in long after they've moved into another role. QF will justify it under some bogus reason like 'you told us you want this....' just as BA did.

2) They can do it because you have no choice. What you gunna do? Fly Jetstar? Virgin?

The question is, who at QF is fighting tooth and nail on behalf of members? ...and when are they going to squeeze that person out?

Domestically that may be true, but internationally? Good luck.

 

[Gremlin]

I doubt they know if it will be profitable, and there's always going to be a degree of risk in there.

Emerging experience shows that it's profitable overseas. The question is "why would it be different here?"