What's the next move VA?

[grubbidok]

Fly ahead still exists, but just not on the three cheapest fare buckets. It does not technically exist at all on the opposition (except P1 on a flexi).
You get what you pay for.....

My answer is in relation to a comment that most elites wouldn't buy Getaway fares. I was highlighting that with the totality of the changes (which includes, but is not limited to, fly ahead) VA are now treating their BFOD clients far worse than QF does.

There are a hell of a lot of people out there on BFOD, and more and more companies are breaking with loyalty and taking on formal or informal BFOD policies (informal usually allows avoidance of TT or JQ but that's about it). While they often can't choose higher fare buckets, they often *can* often choose between the airlines if the price difference is within a band. Given that Getaway fares aren't usually much cheaper than Red-E-Deals, and the gap is narrowing, I'm just questioning the wisdom of VA's approach to this significant market, given that this treatment also includes now also vastly lower earn rates compared to QF, for no significantly better or cheaper product.

Also - I've flown ahead quite a few times on Red-E-Deals on QF, with and without status. So while it's not "guaranteed" in a policy, they will do it on a discretionary basis. VA now won't even entertain the concept anymore even if the plane is empty if you're on a Getaway fare. I don't think the comparison is as much "VA allow it on higher fares and QF don't" as much as "VA actively refuse it on lower fares but guarantee it on higher fares and QF will only do it on all fares a discretionary basis").

 

[Pleb Status]

My answer is in relation to a comment that most elites wouldn't buy Getaway fares. I was highlighting that with the totality of the changes (which includes, but is not limited to, fly ahead) VA are now treating their BFOD clients far worse than QF does.

There are a hell of a lot of people out there on BFOD, and more and more companies are breaking with loyalty and taking on formal or informal BFOD policies (informal usually allows avoidance of TT or JQ but that's about it). While they often can't choose higher fare buckets, they often *can* often choose between the airlines if the price difference is within a band. Given that Getaway fares aren't usually much cheaper than Red-E-Deals, and the gap is narrowing, I'm just questioning the wisdom of VA's approach to this significant market, given that this treatment also includes now also vastly lower earn rates compared to QF, for no significantly better or cheaper product.

Also - I've flown ahead quite a few times on Red-E-Deals on QF, with and without status. So while it's not "guaranteed" in a policy, they will do it on a discretionary basis. VA now won't even entertain the concept anymore even if the plane is empty if you're on a Getaway fare. I don't think the comparison is as much "VA allow it on higher fares and QF don't" as much as "VA actively refuse it on lower fares but guarantee it on higher fares and QF will only do it on all fares a discretionary basis").

If flying PER-East Coast for example, you still only need 53.33 sectors to requal WP on VA versus 60 sectors on QF. So it all depends on the flight sector mix, particularly once partner airlines are included (and earn on Elevate fares is far better than QF on longer sectors).

Also, if you want to guarantee Fly Ahead, you can only do it on VA. So if it is that important to you, there is really only one option.

Finally, if corporates only care about the final cost then axing conditions is smart as the main concern is keeping the final cost below the opposition. If they are not prepared to pay for the fruit then why offer it if you win the contest anyway.

Edit:
VA are 'ahead of the curve' in introducing the Getaway fare grouping as this is similar to (but nowhere near as extreme) what European and US airlines are offering as Basic Economy.

They have gone after anything they may have offered above the opposition on these basic fares only.

I suggest that QF will be offering a similar "simplified' product by the end of 2017, just as the dominoes fell with the US majors.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Pretty sure I have read that pooling in Hilton won't help you to earn status, it just lets you move points around.

I have no doubt that is correct. I wasn't intending to suggest that Hilton pooling would contribute to status, simply that they have both running concurrently.

Imagine the outcry here by the haters if VFF started bringing in some benefits based on individual SC earn and some on pooled SC earn.

Not at all. The pooling would still exist and contribute to an annual status. LT status would be based purely on an individuals personal tally. No problems. No confusion. No outcry. It would actually be an advancement for everyone, not just selected parties, but more importantly, it would remove a major obstacle for VA that QF have over them. I think the only issue is VA not wanting to tie themselves into long term benefits. Short term promises that are quickly discarded are more their thing, unfortunately.

 

[nlagalle]

Given the amount of own goals VA have kicked in the last year I really can't see them winning disenchanted FFers back in a hurry.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

VA are 'ahead of the curve' in introducing the Getaway fare grouping as this is similar to (but nowhere near as extreme) what European and US airlines are offering as Basic Economy.

They have gone after anything they may have offered above the opposition on these basic fares only.

I suggest that QF will be offering a similar "simplified' product by the end of 2017, just as the dominoes fell with the US majors.

The domestic market here is significantly different to the US market (and the European market). There is an interesting dynamic over there - United and American Blindly Copy Delta For All of the Wrong Things - that isn't the case here.

There are a lot of things that QF could copy from VA but haven't, such as revenue-based points earn or the Saver Lite fares (no checked bag) which VA had for a little over 2 years. Or VA's superior priority boarding ... but I digress

What's your inclination to think that QF would follow VA in terms of a simplified product similar to Getaway by the end of this year?

I'd wager they won't.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

There are a lot of things that QF could copy from VA but haven't, such as revenue-based points earn or the Saver Lite fares (no checked bag) ... VA's superior priority boarding ...

... rolling status year,
... status hold
... family pooling

I think others have said in many threads that VA have shown good innovation, which is why I suggested the biggest thing they've failed to pick up on is LT status. That alone will hold many genuine FFers with QF regardless of what trinkets VA offer.

 

[nlagalle]

... rolling status year,
... status hold
... family pooling

Rolling Status year, you can keep that.. the down side is you only get 12 months of status. On QF you can get nearly 2 years depending on when you qualify

Status hold: from my last reading the Qantas version was much more generous.

Family pooling.. possibly a good reason why there is no lifetime status

 

[dajop]

The domestic market here is significantly different to the US market (and the European market). There is an interesting dynamic over there - United and American Blindly Copy Delta For All of the Wrong Things - that isn't the case here.

Have read somewhere (can't find quote) that the big three airlines in the US act as one as they are punished - by the aviation analysts on Wall St - if they don't do the same sort of things. Not sure if true or not, but hey makes a good story and that's what news is all about right? Anyway that is very different to Qantas and VA - who have different types of shareholders to keep happy - VA with it's eclectic mix of foreign airlines probably has a different mandate to QF. Hence one doesn't always follow the other.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

I think others have said in many threads that VA have shown good innovation, which is why I suggested the biggest thing they've failed to pick up on is LT status. That alone will hold many genuine FFers with QF regardless of what trinkets VA offer.

Good innovation may be open to debate but they have shown a willingness to experiment. LT status is often mentioned as something VA should implement, but then again it's also often mentioned how those who achieve LTG have no incentive to keep flying QF and should switch to another program

In any event, I would be inclined to think that VFF hasn't somehow magically overlooked LT but has assessed it and deliberately chosen not to implement it.

Have read somewhere (can't find quote) that the big three airlines in the US act as one as they are punished - by the aviation analysts on Wall St - if they don't do the same sort of things. Not sure if true or not, but hey makes a good story and that's what news is all about right?

I recall reading that too and believe it's true (and stupid, but not surprising).

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Good innovation may be open to debate but they have shown a willingness to experiment. LT status is often mentioned as something VA should implement, but then again it's also often mentioned how those who achieve LTG have no incentive to keep flying QF and should switch to another program

This is purely through Qantas lack of maturing of the LTx product level that the perception of no loyalty appears.
In reality, the propensity for a member to continue buying QF flights drops by a factor of X if the member has a reasonable % of intl flights, and they hold influence over the budget.

Qantas could fix this up right now by giving all LTG members 700 status credits head start each year, and create a new product for non-QF based port and non-QF CC earning countries. These are leaks which means the FFP cannot close the loop on loyalty.

In any event, I would be inclined to think that VFF hasn't somehow magically overlooked LT but has assessed it and deliberately chosen not to implement it.

Most Velocity folks I speak to are about trying to do something different to QFF, to be fresh and innovative - and LTx status is seen as copying Qantas, as some kind of liability hanging over your head when a member reaches the status.

A heap of Qantas LTG folks have shifted flights AND CC activity from QF to VA, and Velocity is afraid that by having a LTx level it will put itself in the same position as Qantas (aka: perception of losing members).
What does not seem to be understood, is that the number of people who actually reach LTG is tiny in comparison to the number who know lifetime status is a possibility (and thus remain loyalty to both Qantas and QF Loyalty). The differential in members who hang around for the long term therefore represent the opportunity differential to drive loyalty. When combined with partner earn (not just flight-earn), the overlap is ~25% (industry ave) which widens the gap of the revenue to missed-revenue ratio.
Even a basic one to one propensity value can match the equation to lost revenue.

Heck, even the ****tiest loyalty programs in the world have figured this out.