Why QF's changes to partner status earn are going to backfire on QF

[DTM1]

I'm sure that the changes are likely to have little impact on the occasional flyer, who is typically price sensitive (and therefore less "sticky" to QF) in any event.

However, for the frequent travelers (particularly high status pax who largely, although not exclusively, fly at the front of the plane), the equation is quite different. These are the "sweet spot" for QF international, and the ones who should be looked after more carefully.

No doubt the purpose of the plan was to target pax who were flying partners instead of QF (and that part makes sense), but given the reduction in the number of destinations and the frequency of services in recent times, many of us have no option but to fly on other airlines. Given the flow-on benefits to my QF account, I have tried to stick to OW (although this is not always possible). However, with the recent changes which treat flights on OW partners as "second class", it changes the equation.

That is, for many frequent fliers, these changes may be difference between maintaining/achieving status. If that's the case, then the logical choice is to consider other airline programs (eg Marco Polo, AAdvantage). Once you are already considering another program, you will look to maximise your options in those programs, particularly when it comes to status.

All of a sudden, the incentives to book QF flights change. For pax traveling frequently to Asia, Marco Polo suddenly becomes more attractive and all of a sudden, QF is going to see high revenue pax switching to CX for flights into Asia (this incentive already existed to some extent, with no status bonus for CX flights - unless on another OW codeshare e.g. AA to the US from HKG). Once these pax start choosing CX for those flights, QF has lost pax who were typically loyal, or at least incentivised to remain captive.

Other airlines have adopted similar approaches have been able to largely succeed due to their network. This is not the case for QF international. Sure, people will stay loyal domestically, but QFi should be worried about the international side of the business.

Once the loyalty horse has bolted, it isn't coming back.

In my view, the smarter approach would have been to introduce the proposed approach, but only on routes flown by QF. That would incentivise pax to stay loyal by keeping their focus on the QF program. The proposed approach risks killing the goose.

Just my 2c worth.

cheers

 

[JessicaTam]

I agree, especially with your suggestion that the SC earn only be cut for those routes QF flies. QF are removing the incentive to choose their program, and giving members the opportunity to look at other airline programs in a different light.

 

[ketsuzei]

giving members the opportunity to look at other airline programs in a different light

That's been the biggest change for me since a year ago. Not just considering other programs, but also the liberating possibility of just flying with whichever airline offers the best alternative for a given route and day. So after a few years packed almost exclusively with QF bookings, my next year includes trips on TG, EY, EK, SQ, NZ, CX, OZ, and NH. The net upshot is that I'm now a whole lot less interested in the QFF ecosystem.

 

[eastwest101]

Obviously bleating about competition and the price of fuel does not seem to be working so the answer to your problematic division that is apparently not making money and has rubbish or overpriced products, uncompetative FF scheme, starving the problematic division of capital and losing the economy of scale is to decrease the incentive for your customers to fly your OneWorld alliance partners, and thus incentiving your customers to start to look at other alliances/parters or airlines? Seems a strange way to run a business to me....

 

[cmon0005]

Totally agree as well on all your points.
A recent example is where I flew MEL-SYD-HKG-SYD-MEL on Qantas Y, HKG-KTM on Dragonair Y, KTM-DOH-DXB-DOH-DEL on Qatar F/J, BOM-HKG on Cathay Y, all because QF don't fly to any of these routes and there are no codeshares (well there is on BOM-HKG, however its on an airline that doesn't recognise QF status, ie non-OW airline so no good for me!).
All the flights except for the Qatar flights were ticketed by Qantas so not only would they have made money from the Interline revenue from KA/CX (commission) but also some money from the points credited from KA/CX and QR.
Under the new 'program rules' I would be penalised not only for flying these routes, but also penalised for giving them interline revenue as well as points revenue.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Qantas really should have explained the logic behind the changes to keep it transparent.

But instead it came across as negative, penny pinching and like staff either don't care or are stupid.

Poor execution IMO.

 

[moa999]

I think what they are trying to do is quite obvious
and that is to get you to fly QF, JQ (or QF coded EK) to the Middle East, Asia, and Europe

For the vast majority of travellers to Europe they will be flying on simple return journeys and this will direct them to go via DXB (rather than DOH, SIN, KUL, HKG in particular).
For Asia they are trying to direct us to SIN and then onwards with 3K, or to HKG and onwards with the Chinese partners

Its oneworld, just one is more equal than others.

For a limited number who do more complex trips, you will have a choice to make as to whether you want to go through QF/JQs hubs or not.

 

[Himeno]

In my view, the smarter approach would have been to introduce the proposed approach, but only on routes flown by QF. That would incentivise pax to stay loyal by keeping their focus on the QF program. The proposed approach risks killing the goose.

This exact idea has been mentioned to QF multiple times right from when the changes were first announced. They said they would look at it. No news since.

It is understandable if QF gives QFF members fewer SC when flying on partners on a route QF does - eg, MEL-HKG, SYD-NRT. It is not understandable why QFF members should be punished for flying on partners where QF doesn't operate, eg HKG-JFK.

 

[opusman]

It wouldn't surprise me if QF's IT systems are simply not up to it. Easy to load different SC rates on a per-airline basis, much harder to differentiate between QF and non-QF routes.

 

[moa999]

Rather than the syd-hkg-jfk-syd trip on a variety of airlines, QF would prefer you to do two trips, all on them.

Just a bit more emphasis on loyalty in the program

 

[roncritch]

It wouldn't surprise me if QF's IT systems are simply not up to it. Easy to load different SC rates on a per-airline basis, much harder to differentiate between QF and non-QF routes.

With the lack of QFi routes now, it should only take 10 minutes to load manually!

 

[DTM1]

I think what they are trying to do is quite obvious
and that is to get you to fly QF, JQ (or QF coded EK) to the Middle East, Asia, and Europe

For the vast majority of travellers to Europe they will be flying on simple return journeys and this will direct them to go via DXB (rather than DOH, SIN, KUL, HKG in particular).
For Asia they are trying to direct us to SIN and then onwards with 3K, or to HKG and onwards with the Chinese partners

Its oneworld, just one is more equal than others.

For a limited number who do more complex trips, you will have a choice to make as to whether you want to go through QF/JQs hubs or not.

The strategy makes sense in the middle east, but it doesn't stack up in Asia. For pax traveling on in Asia from SIN or HKG, there is now a penalty to flying OW partners. Would make more sense, particularly in Asia to impose the restriction on flights into HKG and SIN, but not to forward journeys.

 

[DTM1]

Rather than the syd-hkg-jfk-syd trip on a variety of airlines, QF would prefer you to do two trips, all on them.

Just a bit more emphasis on loyalty in the program

That's possible, but it then becomes a question of weighing up how many people would do that versus the damage to their loyalty brand. I think some people would do that, but not many. I have done that, because I prefer the CX hard product over to JFK and it avoids the mad rush in LAX (particularly when your body clock thinks it's the middle of the night). However, it's more expensive, even as a DCIR*.

Even then, QF would pick up the flights to and from HKG. This way, if I was looking at Marco Polo, I'd simply switch the entire itinerary to CX, so QF gets nothing. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[Limewood]

I'm now choosing via HKG on OneWorld carriers or other airlines from there to numerous destinations world wide direct and not via Dubai if one so chooses, and so far plenty of J award seats. Like many just fed up with these constant changes and poor implementation, so my allegiance has waned a great deal and reading through so many posts on AFF not alone.

 

[Cynicor]

Completely agree with the comments in this thread. BAEC is going to be next year's carrier I think. Need some advice on the best address to use, though. Do i use my MYUS address, or a SIN relative, or a friend in the UK. In fact, does mail that has a "typo" of "Austria" end up in Australia anyway? Any advantages to a particular location?

 

[JohnK]

A while back I said watch this space regarding changes to partner earn. Nothing has eventuated but it is not 01 July yet anyway.

Hoping Qantas reviews the decision to reduce SCs earn on routes Qantas does not fly.

Just so we are clear I have no objection what so ever with Qantas reducing SCs earn for Oneworld partners flying the same routes. e.g you should not be able to earn the same SCs flying CX SYD-HKG as you would for a QF flight. ADL-HKG is a different story though and people flying CX on that route should not be penalised.

 

[Paddy55]

A while back I said watch this space regarding changes to partner earn. Nothing has eventuated but it is not 01 July yet anyway.

Hoping Qantas reviews the decision to reduce SCs earn on routes Qantas does not fly.

Just so we are clear I have no objection what so ever with Qantas reducing SCs earn for Oneworld partners flying the same routes. e.g you should not be able to earn the same SCs flying CX SYD-HKG as you would for a QF flight. ADL-HKG is a different story though and people flying CX on that route should not be penalised.

Agree 100% JohnK... reduction in Oneworld "non-compete" partner flight SCs just doesn't make sense... unless there are substantial anti-OneWorld sentiments living somewhere in QF :shock:

 

[Isochronous]

This is exactly my criticism. Especially now that I am HKG based, my travel is mostly back to Australia, intra-Asia, or Europe. Since my European flights are punished by QF despite there being no QF option from HKG, I am now planning a switch to BAEC. Once I do that, my incentive to keep buying PE and J HKG-SYD-MEL fares evaporates and CX becomes more attractive since they offer a direct product to MEL of a high standard (even though I prefer QF food). Under the still-current system I still make sure I always fly QF HKG-Aus and then when I go HKG-Europe its CX/BA/AY.

 

[DTM1]

Be very interesting to see if QF pay any attention to this issue and whether Red Roo has any response.

 

[Steelo]

A while back I said watch this space regarding changes to partner earn. Nothing has eventuated but it is not 01 July yet anyway.

Hoping Qantas reviews the decision to reduce SCs earn on routes Qantas does not fly.

Just so we are clear I have no objection what so ever with Qantas reducing SCs earn for Oneworld partners flying the same routes. e.g you should not be able to earn the same SCs flying CX SYD-HKG as you would for a QF flight. ADL-HKG is a different story though and people flying CX on that route should not be penalised.

I also agree JohnK - given they were using the words "fairer" this would have been a logical approach. I am not sure of what the actual additional cost to QF would be of doing this - but it appears that the only tangible cost I could identify would be the cost of those pax gaining status benefits using these routes.