QF introducing "Parental Pause" & increasing transfer limits

[anat0l]

I don't think this is a compassionate gesture by the airline, it's loyalty handcuffs.

Without this move, a customer re-entering the workforce might defect to another airline. With this move, they are more likely to keep flying the original airline. And if they don't fly for a while, it costs nothing for the airline to deliver.

Well that's a more prosaic answer than the compassion angle.

I guess it doesn't answer the case for those who believe they are entitled to a pause even though they aren't procreating, fostering or adopting a child.

 

[Pushka]

Sure QF could extend this concept to anyone and everyone who had a "valid" excuse, i don't think that's practical and something QF would entertain.

IMO this has nothing to do with loyalty, it's a bit of compassion towards people who are wanting to (or have decided to) start a family and therefore will need to take a break from travel.

Bravo QF.

Well, given that child rearing is a choice why do they need compassion? I don't need to take a break from travel, I have to! And certainly not by choice.

 

[anat0l]

Well, given that child rearing is a choice why do they need compassion? I don't need to take a break from travel, I have to! And certainly not by choice.

Child rearing is a choice, but it is certainly given some "encouragement" compared to other forms of "breaks from travel" (or work for that matter). For example, baby bonuses, child allowances, and now, paid parental leave (as well as a form of protection from workplace discrimination). I'm not sure if the government does this to encourage Australians to procreate, i.e. it is well-known that the population replacement rate is negative in Australia, but are we being actively encouraged to have a family in Australia, is another thing altogether. (This is all without thinking about the motivation behind QF's new and VA's long running "parental pause" benefits).

As for coming down with a certain condition, I don't think there's much of a catch all for that in society except for possibly life insurance policies. Ditto if you were an employee of Queensland Nickel who has just been given the sack out of no fault of your own.


In any case, Qantas started this in response to some sort of feedback from their members. To be honest, now that one reflects on all of it, they may have just introduced this idea simply because others told them Virgin had the idea, not necessarily that some boffin agreed that parents who have taken parental leave were being hard done by or something like that (or we'd like to keep their loyalty, so here's a way it might be done). As for others who may have pared back on travel for reasons "beyond their control", I'm sure none of those considerations really came to mind, but operationalising such a system would prove to be a significant challenge anyway.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The way I see it QF are now formally offering parental leave. They aren't formally offering sick leave or financial stress leave etc etc.
They have previously offered all three kinds of leave informally on a case by case basis. You only have to search the comp threads on here to see that.
Offering parental leave formally is a no-brainer for them. VA is already doing it. Formally offering the other kinds of leave would be fraught with difficulty and be of negligible benefit to QF.
Everyone would be onto it. OzBargain running red hot.
A new 1000 plus thread on here about which conditions/ retrenchments were successful for the sick leave.

 

[Origin]

The removal of the number of transfers between people is really cool. Just have to keep track of how much of the 600k you've used up per year.

No need to keep track. Qantas do that automatically on the family transfer page and tell you what you have left to transfer of the 600,000 (or your points balance if less than 600,000)

 

[juddles]

Cynically speaking, isn't this an easy way for people to extend their status by claiming the existence of a possibly fictitious child?

And it's interesting that Platinum Ones do not have children. I haven't seen that pop up in the P1 experience thread.

I actually like that P1 is exempt - it means at least there is one status level still hard to attain / preserve. It seems that slowly every other blooming status can be held by people who do not actually fly........

 

[medhead]

I guess the thing is:

• Why should people who decide to start (or extend) a family deserve our compassion?
• Why should compassion manifest itself in terms of a status extend? Should life be more, take it as it is, but we're thinking about you?

Nothing to do with our/AFF compassion. It's all about Qantas compassion. therefore wrong questions asked.

I actually like that P1 is exempt - it means at least there is one status level still hard to attain / preserve. It seems that slowly every other blooming status can be held by people who do not actually fly........

That question misses the point - Platinum One is also platinum. I say unsafe assumption to say P1 is excluded.

 

[woodborer]

That question misses the point - Platinum One is also platinum. I say unsafe assumption to say P1 is excluded.

Safe assumption. P1 is explicitly excluded

Platinum One members and members who have received complimentary Gold or complimentary Platinum status are not eligible to apply for a Status Hold

https://www.qantas.com/fflyer/dyn/flying/status-hold-terms

 

[medhead]

Safe assumption. P1 is explicitly excluded https://www.qantas.com/fflyer/dyn/flying/status-hold-terms

Which can be contrasted to P1 marketing as just another OW Emerald level.

 

[woodborer]

Which can be contrasted to P1 marketing as just another OW Emerald level.

Given the timeframes, chances are you'll still be Emerald...

 

[Mattg]

Personally I don't see this as Qantas discriminating against those that can't or don't wish to have children.

Can't we just accept this for the goodwill gesture it is? It may or may not also be a smart business decision, but Qantas didn't have to do this and I commend them for doing so.

 

[anat0l]

Nothing to do with our/AFF compassion. It's all about Qantas compassion. therefore wrong questions asked.

The complaints on the thread relate to this compassion from Qantas. My questions simply generalised or at least would mirror the same questions put to Qantas when they were thinking up this decision, which has been argued to be discriminatory and flawed.

As the support of the post which I posted shows, some people believe Qantas' "compassion" is misguided and/or exclusionary; a follow-up post to mine shows that this is not even a matter of compassion, though it doesn't really address then, why people who are on parental leave? (It has to be more than just "flavour of the month")

Personally I don't see this as Qantas discriminating against those that can't or don't wish to have children.

Can't we just accept this for the goodwill gesture it is? It may or may not also be a smart business decision, but Qantas didn't have to do this and I commend them for doing so.

When I heard of this benefit the first time, although I am not a parent and not intending to be so in the next 24 months (let alone one with status), my first reaction is that it was a nice thing for Qantas to do.

I didn't think of the whole other argument here which is discrimination against those who (a) choose not to have children, and (b) would benefit from a similar "goodwill gesture" due to similarly... "incapacitating" circumstances (wrong word, but you get the idea). The probing questions here were to find out why that might be the case.

Some may never be happy with Qantas no matter what they do. Others may think, "Don't insult us - do it right or don't do it at all."

 

[Anna]

As an aunt, I could be annoyed about parents getting special benefits except I've had a couple of comps myself over the last 20+ years of flying, so I think it would be hypocritical.

Pushka I think you should try your luck putting a case to QF for a status hold, if you had bookings you had to cancel due to a medical condition.

 

[anat0l]

Just to show people here are not the only ones not happy with this new benefit, read the first two comments on the same story on AusBT:

Qantas Frequent Flyer status hold parental leave family transfers - Australian Business Traveller

 

[love_the_life]

Personally I don't see this as Qantas discriminating against those that can't or don't wish to have children.

Can't we just accept this for the goodwill gesture it is? It may or may not also be a smart business decision, but Qantas didn't have to do this and I commend them for doing so.

It's not a goodwill gesture; it's a commercial decision based on what the opposition offers.

It doesn't affect me directly but I can see some inequality created as a result.

I haven't read the full T & Cs but if you pause your membership for the baby/ies and then do fly during that period as most do, is your access to lounges etc also paused? It should be. A bit like a gym membership where you pause and therefore do not have access during this time.

 

[Mattg]

It's not a goodwill gesture; it's a commercial decision based on what the opposition offers.

It doesn't affect me directly but I can see some inequality created as a result.

I haven't read the full T & Cs but if you pause your membership for the baby/ies and then do fly during that period as most do, is your access to lounges etc also paused? It should be. A bit like a gym membership where you pause and therefore do not have access during this time.

Commercial decision or not (and I would indeed argue that it's a smart business move), they didn't have to offer this but chose to anyway. I don't personally understand the need to criticise Qantas for not extending this to anyone and everyone. It's clearly aimed at parents, and I don't think it's either necessary, nor in Qantas' interests to extend this to others that take a break from flying for whatever reason.

Yes, Virgin offers the same thing but only for 6 months.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I haven't read the full T & Cs but if you pause your membership for the baby/ies and then do fly during that period as most do, is your access to lounges etc also paused? It should be. A bit like a gym membership where you pause and therefore do not have access during this time.

No it isn't. The parent retains their status during the parental pause.

It would be an absolutely crazy commercial decision of QF to suspend lounge access during the pause, also very difficult to enact.

 

[moa999]

A lot of the responses on this thread are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL2vdivPQAI

 

[love_the_life]

No it isn't. The parent retains their status during the parental pause.

It would be an absolutely crazy commercial decision of QF to suspend lounge access during the pause, also very difficult to enact.

Ah, so it's more a Parental Extension than Parental Pause.

 

[snabbu]

Personally I don't see this as Qantas discriminating against those that can't or don't wish to have children.

Can't we just accept this for the goodwill gesture it is? It may or may not also be a smart business decision, but Qantas didn't have to do this and I commend them for doing so.

Exactly what I was getting at. Why is it so difficult for some folks to accept things at face value I'll never understand.

Each to their own I guess.