huh? Frequent spenders have no status
No - not really. There's only limited amount of space in airports for lounges, and on planes for upgrades. When it costs $100m+ to buy a plane, then that takes a lot of extra SGs/WPs to justify buying one.
Actually, I think they should. As more people fly the number of status pax gets larger. As flights get cheaper there is less margin to fund the benefits.
Better to just revalue the requirements, rather than listen to the perpetual moaning about devaluation.
None of these suggestions actually addresses the cost of providing these benefits. Everyone wants more benefits. But no one wants to actually pay for them. THis is why I think that this entire thread, and all the ones like it, are simply a waste of time.
QF is not here to benefit loyal flyers. There are here to pay their shareholders dividends. And until people here can actually quantify the costs and benefits of the changes they are suggesting, everything's pretty much a waste of time.
The only pressure QF will respond to is if people actually go fly someone else. But for all the moaning here, not many people actually seem to be flyng the competition (other than a few notable exceptions).
Some good points.....
1/ We agree! Frequent spenders have no status. Therefore, they are not using status benefits. So, more QFF members (spenders) is not putting pressure on the number of status pax or the cost of providing status benefits.
2/ If there are increasing numbers of status pax due to more people flying, then that means QF is generating increased revenue as a result. Generally speaking you'll find that there is a positive correlation between the number of status pax and the revenue earned by QF for the flying by those individuals in order to earn/retain status.
3/ Yes lounges and planes cost money. It's called cost of goods sold. You also have to have the CapEx to provide the capacity to place BIS and therefore generate revenue. The plane is not full of WPs on award flights. There are plenty of fare and fuel fine paying pax on board.
4/ The provision of a loyalty program and benefits is always going to be a cost centre (notwithstanding QFFs profit) if you view it in isolation. That is the whole point of a loyalty program.
To simplify it - let's think about the frequent customer card for the local coffee shop.... Every 10th coffee is free. There is a cost to provide that free coffee, the shop doesn't have to do it. But by looking after your most valued customers, it stops them trying out the coffee from the shop across the road, even if the coffee used is maybe a little finer, or the barista cuter.
5/ If QF do take their customers' loyalty for granted, then they will lose a percentage of customers as soon as those customers feel that a competitor provides a reasonable service on their preferred routes.
6/ Revaluing the requirements neglects to recognize that flyers have made significant commitment to fly QF, often at additional expense to alternatives.
7/It's easy to suggest making it harder to achieve status when your employer is paying for your fares. But that doesn't make you more loyal. Especially when your company could just as easily switch to another airline and potentially save money.
Personally, IMHO it's the self funded status pax who are most loyal and least likely to change carriers. It's human nature to care more when it's your own money.
8/ You may be right though - QF may do exactly that - move the goalposts back. But that is only acceptable if accompanied by SIGNIFICANT new and improved benefits. A lounge refresh, and maintenance of existing benefits is not good enough. And we shouldn't be resigning ourselves to it being inevitable and we shouldn't be indicating to QF that we're ok with that.
Especially when the question is "what improvements would make us more loyal and fly more?".
