The QFF CEO event thread (and AFF associated interactions)

[Jobu]

CL is a different program separate from Frequent Flyer which has defined benefits for "high value" passengers on Qantas. Given the confidentiality surrounding that, those of us who were in the CL don't wish to break too many confidences, but needless to say it is truly impressive.

You wouldn't be a CL and WP1 though - the CL would override any SC earn you had (as it's possible to be CL and earn 40 SC per year as much as it is possible to be CL and earn 5000).

Thanks b. I do realise that, I'm quite familiar with the CL. My question is, do CL members automatically get all of the benefits of WP1?

Cheers

 

[AnonymousCoward]

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.

There was never any ATA access for WP to the FLounge.

That said, I agree that there are far too many people travelling in Y/W/J who have access to the F Lounge (given how many people there are that exit around 4-5pm). So, I'm more than happy for QF to start upping the requirements for WP to include more flying on QF, and less flying on YUPPS and whatever.

 

[medhead]

Well let me wade into the ATA advice that was given. It's great that the topic was raised today. Really appreciate that effort. I'm also not shooting the messenger, but I think some critical analysis of the message is warranted. I also am waiting to hear the full and complete answer. To my comments:

• The platinum frequent flyer has spent a vast sum of money to earn that status. So the benefits are not given away for free
• The abuse of ATA by people on SQ and EK flights was given as a reason. ISTR that ATA was not available for international flights before it was removed. Hence that reason seems to fail a basic test
• Then abuse of the SYD T2 lounge when flying virgin was mentioned. Again that doesn't stand up. Anyone doing this in any significant way is a) not going to maintain platinum especially if cost is that big a factor as they'll be on discount Y, and b) soon going to earn DJ status including lounge access.
• The one and only time I used ATA at T2 SYD, the lounge was much more empty than the T3 QP was at a similar time.

To date the reasons that QF have provided do not stand up. IMO they have made a commercial decision. I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem I have is the seemingly false reason that are being given. If they can't, or won't, afford ATA just say so.

Which now gets me to the point of ATA. QF have asked us what will make us fly qantas more often. Well, I can categorically state that removing ATA has made me fly QF less. Why? Because I need to get lounge access with DJ and I choose to do so by flying. I fly enough that I can maintain plat/plat or plat/gold. I could probably make 2400SC but that's about it. I know I'm at the bottom of QF WP, I'm never going to get op ups. Anyone in my situation would be crazy not to divert enough flights for double status. ATA would actually make me not divert spend to DJ. So hopefully that is a basic outline of why I don't accept the message and why QF were crazy, IMO, to remove ATA. NB I would have be happier with a higher WP qualification requirement

Having said all that, I've been a strong advocated for guest passes and I see those as a real benefit. Mainly because I won't have to beg for lounge access when traveling with my family on QF. So great outcome, depending on details.

A BTW to end on: I see we've had a mild "get over it" comment. I find that to be a form of bullying, it denies me the ability to have an opinion. Hopefully this will not degenerate into a series of "get over it you whingers" posts. Mainly because these guys have taken up the issue at this lunch, without needing to do so and it would be an injustice to that effort if we are not allowed to discuss the message that has been given.

 

[dfcatch]

Ok - finally home.

I'll split this into two posts seeing as I've been dobbed in for the ATA discussions (definitely a hospital pass ).

Firstly - again, thank you to Red Roo, Steph and Simon for a great lunch, and thanks for all the arrangements and flying us in for the event. It was very much appreciated (and I'm sure I can make myself available for the next one )

I won't touch P1 as it's been covered well, and it really isn't relevant to me (unless some of you guys start sponsoring my flying).

There was some good candid conversation and questions, and I was pleasantly impressed with both Simon and Steph's willingness to engage, even on some of the sharper topics.

I certainly appreciated my comments regarding JQ being taken on board - particularly my question of "Why should I direct spend to JQ over other carriers" on non QF routes?

I was also very appreciative of being allowed into the CL, it will probably be my only time, but it was a nice gesture, so thank you.

 

[dfcatch]

ATA - (dons hard hat).

RULES - don't shoot the messenger. If you wish to comment on the content here - post in the ATA thread. This is strictly "reporting on the discussion".

It started with a question regarding whether the removal of ATA was really an Int Lounge issue rather than Dom (as evidenced by the immediate compromise of arrivals access)?

Simon advised us that it was an issue for both the Int and Dom lounges. Simon used EK and SQ as examples for Int, and SYD T2 DJ as example for Dom.

It's fair to say that both Simon and Steph feel quite strongly about the removal of ATA, more so than any other issue discussed today, and that they clearly see it as a "die in the ditch" issue for them.

A number of us put the proposition to Simon that some uses of ATA may have gotten caught up in the blanket removal. The primary example was dropping off family members for the once a year vacation, and signing them into the domestic lounge prior to departure.

In fairness - IMHO I feel that Simon genuinely acknowledged that this was not the target of the ban, and that it constituted a reasonable anytime use.

Without wanting to put words in Simon's mouth (because he didn't say this), but he seemed receptive to the proposition that it should be permitted for Platinums to take "mum and dad" into the lounge for their once a year trip, provided they were flying QF.

We made some suggestions as to how this might be accomplished, whilst still meeting QF's goals (ie. Lounge access only when flying on QF).

Guest passes (either the old QP style, or the Silver comp. style were the notable suggestions.)

Whilst I'm not holding my breath - I think it's fair to say that our compromise suggestions were taken on board, and if there is tweaking in the future, this could be a low-hanging fruit for QFF to reach a realistic compromise on ATA without compromising their core position.

I was, and am, grateful for it's consideration.

 

[serfty]

CL still have ATA.

One evening in the ML T2 First Class lounge I observed a nearby CL and partner who were flying economy on EK being assisted; even with a promise to monitor the EK flight and personally advise when it start boarding.

CL is offered to quite a few including those who may fly one or twice a year (not necessarily on QF) who have a major influence on very large travel budgets.

---

ATA did indeed apply to Qantas First Class lounges until April 2008 - it was revoked about two months before the Marc Newsome designed First Class lounges opened in late May of that year.

 

[simongr]

Ugh Shiraz - did something die in my mouth?

Well apart from the sore head thanks to Simon, Stephanie and Trevor (Red Roo who was much taller in real life than I expected but I am not sure aout the beard) for a great event. Frankly I saw no benefit for QFF holding this event as we're not press, not WP1 (mostly) and in the main are just a bunch of angry whingers so the fact they had it all was great!

I won't say you saw it here first but Priority. Boarding. Is. Coming!

People have raised the majority of things discussed so I won't repeat them. One of the big takeaways for me was the fact that a lot of the changes or desires we have are constricted by their IT systems which might also explain the slowness of change.

I won't get into the ATA debate as it is a non issue for me but it certainly is a non negotiable point for QF (excepting the ideas around guest passes perhaps) .

It Ws great to meet people face to face and I will have to try and catch up for another Shiraz with some of you when I am in MEL next (Monday next week) or PER (Tuesdaynet week)...

 

[reductionist]

I won't say you saw it here first but Priority. Boarding. Is. Coming!

Very happy to hear this.

Also a small number of lounge guest passes would be very much appreciated.

Thumbs up on these 2 points.

 

[Princess Fiona]

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)

I asked the question regarding ATA flying partner airlines on regional routes. Stephanie seemed to take this on board and said that QF would look into it. I think it is very petty of QF not to allow QP access to WP's flying on those routes not serviced by QF or JQ. I personally never really thought of this as ATA until it was removed.

 

[markis10]

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)

I agree with your comments with regard ATA, and have to a certain extent voted with my feet, as a result there are now a few more DJ fliers in my company having experienced the lounge as part of their Brisbane visit and left overwhelmed.

As for P1, having thought it through, the travel angel is a very good benefit to those that truly earn it, I have had an angel a number of times in the last 14 months proactively intervene when they could see my plans where about to go pear shaped, ring me and tell me what they expected and organize to put me on alternate flights after having held a seat on each of the options prior to among the call. When you have a tight schedule for meetings in places that dont have half hourly flights, this sort of benefit is significant to the road warrior who cares about his customers and his creditability.

I am a little surprised that QF have not announced any partner benefits with some of their partners, perhaps it's an ace being held up the sleeve so to speak, but someone hitting the level of SCs expected won't be a traveler whose experience stops at the baggage carousel.

 

[Alanslegal]

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?

I agree there will always be differing opinion. How's the use of my juxtaposition words there?

I would have been happy, would definitely be less vocal, if QF came out in the first instance and said "we are removing ATA benefit because it is unfair for us, when someone who is not flying with us is still able to access our lounges". But they did not do this. They came out said it was a crowding issue. Then at the same time started offering discounted QPs memberships and double SC credits .... work that out!

 

[serfty]

[MOD HAT]

Any Time Access is not going to be available for WP1

Please continue further "Any Time Access" Discussion and its relation to WP on the appropriate thread:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....tinum-anytime-lounge-access-ceases-25773.html

​

[/MOD HAT]

 

[melbourne rebel]

I am a little surprised that QF have not announced any partner benefits with some of their partners, perhaps it's an ace being held up the sleeve so to speak, but someone hitting the level of SCs expected won't be a traveler whose experience stops at the baggage carousel.

This was a question I put to Simon and his response was plans are afoot and there will be announcements regarding tie ups with current and future partners.

 

[bsymons]

I "could" make WP1 @ 3600 SC if i allocated AA F flights to QFF - but i dont fly enough on QF codes, and the benefits are moot really... because i dont fly enough on QF!!

Ironically, i pretty much maintain WP using AA (with my 4 flights home for xmas on QF) and maintain AAdv ExP with 10 - 12 HNL/FAI flights on Alaska Airlines with an AA HNL/DFW thrown in for good measure...... im sure thats not what the good people at the FF programs intended!!

 

[medhead]

[MOD HAT]

Any Time Access is not going to be available for WP1

Please continue further "Any Time Access" Discussion and its relation to WP on the appropriate thread:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....tinum-anytime-lounge-access-ceases-25773.html

​

[/MOD HAT]

To clarify: the thread title is the QFF CEO event etc. Much more than WP1 was discussed at that event. Are we allowed to discuss those other things that happened at the event and the answers provided? Or are we stuck with discussing WP1 only. For example, i want to say something about guest passes. I also what to say something about the reason given at the event for ATA removal. In the later case that is not relevant to the earlier thread because these reason/examples were not raised in that thread.

Personally given the restrictions that are being placed on other discussion (eg ATA or even anything not WP1) I think that WP1 should only be discussed in the existing thread for WP1. (as well)

 

[StevePER]

OT, but isn't Aeropelican owned by Qantas?

Aeropelican is indeed OT. Good one!

Still trying to get my head around this thread. Sounds like a good shiraz was had by all!

 

[serfty]

To clarify: ...

That's all well and good; however comment had germinated on the specific topic of ATA that drifted beyond any real relation to the lunch discussion. ATA has been discussed ad-nausuem with over 1½ thousand posts in the thread mentioned - such discussion should be there, not here. (... and yes, the reasons for ATA removal {same} are indeed offered/discussed in that thread.)

 

[reductionist]

Did the (in)consistency and/or quality of the cabin service come up in conversation at all?

 

[dfcatch]

Oh - good to see Ewing at the hotel bar the other night....... Not sure if anyone mentioned it

Although he did look a little lost without Lawlass giggling away within earshot!!

 

[nlagalle]

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)

Very true about km's travelled, but QF does have the minimum points guarantee! :mrgreen: mind you they were part of Ansett (or affiliated?) when I used to jump out of them..