The QFF CEO event thread (and AFF associated interactions)

[drewbles]

Food offerings were sandwiches, party pies (apparently not NPPPs), pizza, then later chicken, rice, salads etc.. Similar to J lounge, just a bit nicer. Help-yourself spirits, wine, sparkling, beer (basically same offerings as J lounge). F&B is available whenever the lounge is open.

The best part was that someone bought up the NPPP's to the man himself. He has assured us, they will make a return to the J lounge after we voiced our disproval of their removal

 

[rockyroad]

Thanks for the updates Sounds like a great event.

So is it possible to be CL and WP1? or does CL already come with everything WP1?

It is a by invitation only, Old Boys Club. I do know a few CLs that do not fly a lot and sometimes in Y on non OW airlines but still get the CL treatment. Met a nice couple once in the FLounge that were flying SQ in Y. He was CL, so it seems CL did then have Flounge ATA.

Go figure?

 

[Febs]

It is a by invitation only, Old Boys Club. I do know a few CLs that do not fly a lot and sometimes in Y on non OW airlines but still get the CL treatment. Go figure?

The rough criteria are well-documented on here - MPs, higher-ups at large corporates with significant travel spend, significant figures in the military etc... My understanding is it's a way to look after those who can influence decisions in QF's favour, in a significant manner.

So even if CEO of company X flies on the occasional non-OW flight, I'm sure their company is pumping millions into QF each year. Hence the treatment.

Cheers,
- Febs.

 

[Lawlass]

Most complaints were that ATA means they can no longer:
...
2) Access QF lounges when travelling on a QF Partner airline, but on a route that QF don't fly (example was Newcastle to...where again, Fiona? on Brindabella or Aeropelican)

OT, but isn't Aeropelican owned by Qantas? Seems a bit scabby not to allow QP access if so?

(This totally comes from when I used to jump out of aeropelican twotters... we used to joke that we should get FF points, until we realised we never actually travelled more than a couple of Ks horizontally)

 

[Alanslegal]

A number of guest passes per year would solve this, and also stop the problem of excessive use of QF lounges by flyers travelling SQ or Etihad (yes, this was a problem).

Thanks for the detailed and well put out summary Febs but I am going to pull you up on this one ..... have you been sucked in by today's spin re: ATA? Excessive use when flying SQ or EK? Did QF even provide some statistical data on this earlier today or was it just more spin? Everytime I sit in the SYD T1 Lounges whether it be the F Lounge or the QP, when the QF5/QF31/BA10/BA16 flights are called for boarding, the entire lounge clears out. I don't see a bunch of ATA pax hanging around (appearing) to be waiting for SQ242 or whatever it is that is due to depart around the same time.

More importantly, I recall ATA removal very vividly because ATA was removed because one of the key issue was overcrowding, so to reduce crowding QF decided to kick out WP's on ATA. Not long after ATA was finished, QF starts selling reduced QP memberships. If discounted QPs doesn't increase patronage inside the lounges, then the double status credits promotions that were concurrently running would have squeezed in a few more souls. Not only does this promotion retain existing SG/WPs but it also creates new SG/WPs. The latter, means more people into the cramped lounges.

 

[rockyroad]

..So even if CEO of company X flies on the occasional non-OW flight, I'm sure their company is pumping millions into QF each year. Hence the treatment...

So too does a WP or even more times 3 WP1 pump money into QF. To deny ATA is simply not good business. It is simple to weed out those that abuse the privilege. Why make those WPs and WP1s that do not abuse the privilege to suffer loss of ATA because of the actions of a few? Sorry but it is not good business / benefit management but just knee jerk management that chops tier wide, like the domestic priority boarding denial is easier than actually delivering the benefit approach by QF.

 

[rockyroad]

Thanks for the detailed and well put out summary Febs but I am going to pull you up on this one ..... have you been sucked in by today's spin re: ATA? Excessive use when flying SQ or EK? Did QF even provide some statistical data on this earlier today or was it just more spin? Everytime I sit in the SYD T1 Lounges whether it be the F Lounge or the QP, when the QF5/QF31/BA10/BA16 flights are called for boarding, the entire lounge clears out. I don't see a bunch of ATA pax hanging around (appearing) to be waiting for SQ242 or whatever it is that is due to depart around the same time.

More importantly, I recall ATA removal very vividly because ATA was removed because one of the key issue was overcrowding, so to reduce crowding QF decided to kick out WP's on ATA. Not long after ATA was finished, QF starts selling reduced QP memberships. If discounted QPs doesn't increase patronage inside the lounges, then the double status credits promotions that were concurrently running would have squeezed in a few more souls. Not only does this promotion retain existing SG/WPs but it also creates new SG/WPs. The latter, means more people into the cramped lounges.

Alan I agree with you. This is just another smoke screen for a knee jerk QF decision, like the denial of domestic priority boarding. I have never seen any data that supports the QF decision to remove a stated WP benefit. For QF to claim this was because of a few WPs flying SQ and EY is just so much smoke and mirrors. Besides if QF had the data, it would be simple for QF to speak to the WPs involved instead of chopping the benefit tier wide.

 

[bugayev]

So too does a WP or even more times 3 WP1 pump money into QF. To deny ATA is simply not good business. It is simple to weed out those that abuse the privilege. Why make those WPs and WP1s that do not abuse the privilege to suffer loss of ATA because of the actions of a few? Sorry but it is not good business / benefit management but just knee jerk management that chops tier wide, like the domestic priority boarding denial is easier than actually delivering the benefit approach by QF.

Hang on, let's not confuse the issue.

The major case in point was where WP's with ATA were using the lounge despite not flying with QF or a Oneworld airline - the most egregious cases being the T2 lounge in SYD and people flying on Virgin.

Whether or not we choose to accept their proposition as accurate, that is the belief that was put to us and we are now relaying to those of you who weren't there. Please don't shoot the messengers who raised the issue repeatedly and vocally, and put the case as best we possibly could.

When dfcatch is online, he will be able to explain the whole thing more fully as he had the most detailed conversations about this.


As for priority boarding, Stephanie confirmed this will be implemented AA-style soon as she acknowledges that any other option would mean that people coming from the Club or J lounge will not have any choice but to join the large queue (she spends a lot of time watching those queues!)

 

[Febs]

Thanks for the detailed and well put out summary Febs but I am going to pull you up on this one ..... have you been sucked in by today's spin re: ATA?

Ha, no. I think there's always going to be disagreement re: ATA here. At the very heart of it - why allow someone to use your product, without paying for it? If you ran a lounge, would you be happy with people coming in every day, only to fly off on a competitor?

Yes, I liked ATA. But the reasons I liked ATA can be solved with a number of guest passes provided to WPs each year (+ arrivals/same day access, which already exists).

The way I look at it - I used ATA when:
1) Arriving, occasionally
2) Seeing family off at the airport, or vice-versa
3) AFF events
4) ...and whilst I never needed to, I would have used it to access lounges if I had to fly a competitor.

1 has been solved already. 2 and 3 would be solved with the provision of guest passes. 4, I'd be happy to concede (though I never ended up being in this position).

So too does a WP or even more times 3 WP1 pump money into QF.

Different league mate. You're talking about one flyer. I'm talking about someone who influences the travel spend of an organisation like IBM, PwC, the Federal Government, etc..

Why make those WPs and WP1s that do not abuse the privilege to suffer loss of ATA because of the actions of a few?

Sure, but do you not think the situation could be solved by the provision of the above-mentioned guestpasses, rather than the blanket return of ATA?

like the domestic priority boarding denial is easier than actually delivering the benefit approach by QF.

I believe we were told to watch this space. Edit: Yep, see bugayev's post above and wait for dfcatch's post.

 

[rockyroad]

...Please don't shoot the messengers who raised the issue repeatedly and vocally, and put the case as best we possibly could...

No one is shooting the messenger, just the message.

I and it would appear others never observed the claimed WP ATA abuse. If the abuses occured and were documented as claimed, surely it would have been the proper course of benefit management to talk to those seen to be abusing the benefit instead of chopping the benefit for the vast majority that never abused the benefit.

QF have never understood this and their actions in effect said we were all to blame for abusing the benefit. I have both QF and VA WP and have never abused the ATA benefit as I suspect the vast majority of QF WPs never abused the ATA benefit. But we all suffer, according to the latest QF disclosures because of a small number of those that QF claimed did abuse the benefit. Sort of like an old English king proclaiming "Chop Off All Their Heads". Sure it gets the guilty parties but at what cost?

 

[awilcockson]

The best part was that someone bought up the NPPP's to the man himself. He has assured us, they will make a return to the J lounge after we voiced our disproval of their removal [/COLOR]

Somebody?

That was me thank you very much. And you can all thank me when NPPPs are back on the lounges next week

Thanks to Red Roo and the rest of the QFF staff for a fantastic day. Quite informative and getting us into the CL was the icing on the cake.

 

[rockyroad]

Different league mate. You're talking about one flyer. I'm talking about someone who influences the travel spend of an organisation like IBM, PwC, the Federal Government, etc...

Ah so maybe we should ask parliament to investigate benefits given by QF to those in the government that can influence the spending of tax dollars for their own personal benefit?

Sorry but what you suggest is corruption. Plain and simple.

 

[Febs]

Ah so maybe we should ask parliament to investigate benefits given by QF to those in the government that can influence the spending of tax dollars for their own personal benefit?

Yep good luck with that. Let us know how you go.

Anyway, I've given my 2c. Not going to dirty this thread with any more debate - there are other threads for that. I liked ATA, can see the reason QF took it away, and think a number of guestpasses each year would make a nice compromise. Plain and simple.

Cheers,
- Febs.

 

[rockyroad]

The rough criteria are well-documented on here - MPs, higher-ups at large corporates with significant travel spend, significant figures in the military etc... My understanding is it's a way to look after those who can influence decisions in QF's favour, in a significant manner.

So even if CEO of company X flies on the occasional non-OW flight, I'm sure their company is pumping millions into QF each year. Hence the treatment.

Cheers,
- Febs.

If you are correct, this is just another example of QF gifting individuals CL personal benefits to gain business by a non competitive process. You agree with this as a proper process?

 

[bugayev]

If you are correct, this is just another example of QF gifting individuals CL personal benefits to gain business by a non competitive process. You agree with this as a proper process?

I'm also not going to engage with you on this any further, but CL is not something given in the hope of future benefits. It forms part of a corporate travel agreement, is approved by the board of Qantas, and is made as an acknowledgement of the position (not the person) and their significance to Qantas. This could be an MP as a leading figure in government, a CEO or Chairman whose company spends millions with them, etc.

It's not bribery, it's not corruption, it's business.

Perhaps if this is such a contentious topic it would be best to start a separate thread - best not to take this one too far away from the broader discussions that occurred with Simon and Stephanie at the lunch.

 

[Febs]

If you are correct, this is just another example of QF gifting individuals CL personal benefits to gain business by a non competitive process. You agree with this as a proper process?

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of CL, all I'm saying is, based on what I've heard/read/seen, and based on CL members I know, it seems to be given as a benefit/privilege/thank-you/call it what you will to those in higher-up positions in the military, government, education and corporate sectors. I believe often an organisation will be given a number of memberships as part of a large contract, for them to distribute as they see fit. You may call it corruption, others may call it a gift/benefit/thankyou?

Also, I don't think it's a secret that most MPs are CLs?

 

[cele]

ATA will be a never ending debate on this forum and if QF has made it clear it won't be coming back, then in my view, people should get over it. Yes DJ has it as does others (eg CX DM) but if QF makes a conscious decision to restrict to CLs (yes they have ATA FL), then so be it. People should vote with their wallets if they are unhappy.

I myself had been waiting for details around P1 and I have to say i'm somewhat disappointed with what i've seen today. I'll probably pursue dual OWE (WP & CX DM) instead. I am not a CX fan boy, but they do set a good example of how to treat to tier members -- ATA, 2 guests to CX's FL, guaranteed J seats, plenty of rules bent; partner DM for DM+ members (their version of super elite status).

(BTW - i've always wondered why there isn't a CX forum on AFF given there are 7 flights a day to/from HKG and MEL & SYD.... perhaps its adequately covered on FT)

 

[rockyroad]

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of CL, all I'm saying is, based on what I've heard/read/seen, and based on CL members I know, it seems to be given as a benefit/privilege/thank-you/call it what you will to those in higher-up positions in the military, government, education and corporate sectors. I believe often an organisation will be given a number of memberships as part of a large contract, for them to distribute as they see fit. You may call it corruption, others may call it a gift/benefit/thankyou?

Also, I don't think it's a secret that most MPs are CLs?

To grant CL as part of a competitive tendering process for airline travel, I have no issues with. To grant CL as a gift to a MP or other high ranking members of society as you mentioned above, I do have issues with as the grant was not based on a competitive tendering process based on value delivered to QF via the contract.

For QF to grant CL outside of a competitive tendering process, would suggest they expect the CL granted individual to influence flying spending toward QF and away from their competitors, because of the granted CL.

There are no free lunches.

 

[rockyroad]

ATA will be a never ending debate on this forum and if QF has made it clear it won't be coming back, then in my view, people should get over it. Yes DJ has it as does others (eg CX DM) but if QF makes a conscious decision to restrict to CLs (yes they have ATA FL), then so be it. People should vote with their wallets if they are unhappy...

I did vote with my wallet. And the WP1 details released so far have made me even more certain that I made the right move.

 

[PP1]

I suggest you make another right move and take your grievances against successful and public persons elsewhere