Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - Best way to treat Marco Polo Club

I do about 140-150,000 miles a year on One World. More than 50% on CX.

As CX dishonoured its club rules a few years ago and dumped life membership (I was 85% of the way to qualification at the time), isn't it more sensible to do 100K with AA and then balance to CX for a green card. At the end of the day on reaching the 1 million miles mark I get AA life membership, and the CX green card protects some of my airport priorities.

Any comments or suggestions?

There might be a chance in the future that CX will invite some of its long standing Marco Polo Club members as their "Life Members".

You must never see the past as the measurement for the future. What they did in 1999 might be short lived and such measures can be introduced in years to come. What happens today does not necessarily guarantee what the future will hold.

For the time being, I am putting all my Club Miles on CX and hope I get recognised for my loyalty to the airline down the track. I fly 90 percent of my mileage on CX so I must be a high value customer to them. I hope they will one day reward their long standing valued customers.

I am generally a happy customer with Cathay and the same can be said with SQ's PPS Club but their Life PPS is still way too high to achieve, especially when you have to fly in First and Business Class all the time to earn the credits. The advantage with Marco Polo Club is that they recognise your business even when flying in eligible Economy subclasses. I think that is much better of recognising the most loyal customers - bravo Cathay!

However, having said that, SQ's PPS Club does allow its members to earn mileage in another programme - only if the system credits the mileage correctly! Such an alternate option is highly welcomed given the unattractive loyalty scheme offered by the Krisflyer frequent flyer programme. In the meantime, I will continue to credit my SQ flights and other Star Alliance sectors on the highly competitive programmes such as United Airlines, Air Canada and Lufthansa (for First and Business Class sectors as LH gives generous bonuses for premium cabin travel).

All in all, SQ PPS Club and CX Marco Polo Club get's a big thumbs up from a loyal fan of the two airlines.

Are there any pre-1999 CX members who now divide their loyalties with other One World airlines?
Please explain why and any benefits.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sq345:

All in all, SQ PPS Club and CX Marco Polo Club get's a big thumbs up from a loyal fan of the two airlines.</font>

1) Registered recently
2) Key word "loyal fan"
3) Specific mention of SQ and direct comparison aginst CX without much relevance
4) The tone of the response

Is it only me thinks that our old much loved friend http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif is back again as a different entity?.

Who knows.

Welcome, anyways...

fakecd: I don't think so.

Agreed the SQ CX comparison lacks logical relevance to the point I am raising.
So are there any totally loyal to today pre-1999 CX loyalists who now seek to rationalize the Marco Polo club using the freedom to shop within the alliance - One World - for a better deal?
I am seriously looking at AA as I have read of many flyers using more than one airline in an alliance. AA has the life membership incentive. Further, once you get gold with CX there is virtually no incentive to fly more under the post 1999 CX Marco Polo (FFP) rules.
So simply put, once you reach 60K why the hell fly CX? The First Class lounge at HKG is surely not enough incentive? I do not think so.

[This message has been edited by Gold Member (edited Mar 05, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fakecd:
1) Registered recently
2) Key word "loyal fan"
3) Specific mention of SQ and direct comparison aginst CX without much relevance
4) The tone of the response

Is it only me thinks that our old much loved friend http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif is back again as a different entity?.

Who knows.

Welcome, anyways...</font>

His syntax, grammar and vocabulary are all very similar to a few other 'fans' you mentioned.

I think so too!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Gold Member:
So simply put, once you reach 60K why the hell fly CX? The First Class lounge at HKG is surely not enough incentive? I do not think so.</font>Many would disagree with your conclusion. Have you ever been in the F lounge (and still think it isn't enough incentive)? While Oneworld does a good job of broadening status, it is still important to have status on the specific airline that you fly most (and this is sufficiently important to overcome some mileage incentives that other plans may offer). But that's easy for me to say (I'll have 100K base miles by the end of March and requalify as Emerald in 2 different plans, now thinking if I also want CX Diamond or BA Gold or both ...). It all depends how often and where you fly.

Diamond members also get 'unwritten' privileges. Like getting award seats confirmed immediately when there clearly shows a minimum number of revenue seats left even.

And basically MPO service has improved over the past year in recognising the Diamond member. Just hearing these words is enough to justify keeping the status: "Because you're our Diamond member, sir!"

number_6
I go through HKG about 8 times average per year last twenty years. Yes the F lounge is comfortable, and the evening meal (1800-2000 from memory) is very enjoyable as I like sashimi.

However, besides my anger at the 1999 dishonour of the membership code, there are two points I want people to consider:

1. It is much easier to qualify for Emerald (CX Diamond) with another OW airline, AA for example. CX from scratch you need 4 sectors + 30K + 60K +120K = 200K +/-
With AA bang 100K in one year and you are it.
Q is why did CX decide to torture its loyal followers after 1999? Pre-1999 I would fly with two or three 3 clients, insisting they fly CX so they could enjoy the Kai Tak F lounge. Now the distance is too far to encourage clients to join CX (the above equation), so I am no longer insistent to direct pax to CX.

2. As a Diamond member I frequently see pushy green and silver members being promoted whilst my polite inquiries for promotion were ignored. Without a promotion coupon system there is too much injustice to well behaved loyal CX members. This annoys very much, and only encourages me to fly with airlines that have more orderly procedures.

The feeling is that the 1999 dishonouring process was intended to be a rout, and it certainly had that effect on me. CX just wanted to rid itself of members and gave in to AA, BA and QF trying to strip the popular Marco Polo Club of its popularity through OW compliance policies to equalize the various programs. Total marketing stupidity as CX later found out - many long time loyal CX members moved their loyalty to other OW carriers.

[This message has been edited by Gold Member (edited Mar 06, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Gold Member (edited Mar 06, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Gold Member (edited Mar 06, 2004).]

Dishonour is not just to us traveler. cx dishonour also to they own staff the staff tell me. I fly less on cx now because staff on 27475500 line tell me they are treated different depends on nationality. I have service from same staff so we are like friends and i they tell me cx man who is not asian treat the asian different to not asian meaning unfair and discriminate. So cx not only dishonour us but dishonour they own staff.

I fly less cx because i remember all the example i will not say here but remember and then chose other airline.

staff ask me to write to ceo mr philp chen.

will comment from cx about what staff say to me about cx western man in charge of 27475500 staff. they also tell me they not cx staff they are the pccw staff and because this cx also treat them bad except for those not asian.

i thinkcx comment here to explain this important or i will not travel airline unless no choice. UA SQ dragon airline all choice available instead.

cx comment?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Flying Mom:
Dishonour is not just to us traveler. cx dishonour also to they own staff the staff tell me. I fly less on cx now because staff on 27475500 line tell me they are treated different depends on nationality. I have service from same staff so we are like friends and i they tell me cx man who is not asian treat the asian different to not asian meaning unfair and discriminate. So cx not only dishonour us but dishonour they own staff.

I fly less cx because i remember all the example i will not say here but remember and then chose other airline.

staff ask me to write to ceo mr philp chen.

will comment from cx about what staff say to me about cx western man in charge of 27475500 staff. they also tell me they not cx staff they are the pccw staff and because this cx also treat them bad except for those not asian.

i thinkcx comment here to explain this important or i will not travel airline unless no choice. UA SQ dragon airline all choice available instead.

cx comment?</font>

What are you talking about ? Please check your grammer before posting. Also, please do not generalise based on individual cases(if they exist).

------------------
KLM FD PE,CX MPC SILVER

Flying Mom, what is your problem?

You may as well not fly any airline at all as I there is not a single airline in this region that treats their employees like prince and princess.

In your case, going on the basis of your above post, you may as well not fly with SQ, CX, QF in this region because they outsource their loyalty programme call centres and do not offer them with any perks such as free travel and etc.

I think you better get your grammar corrected as well some of your facts. The CEO of CX is David Turnbull not Philip Chen.

I am not sure if you have heard of a word called "outsourcing". In today's business environment, companies outsource some of their business activities such as call centre operations to a company that specialises in this operation so that there is a synergy and efficiencies that can be gained.

In CX's example, they outsource their loyalty programme call centre to PCCW on the basis that they manage all the staff and call centre facilities on behalf of Cathay Pacific. However, there are some CX employeed staff in the centre to ensure that the operations are run according to the airlines standards.

SQ also does the same for its Krisflyer Service Centre in Singapore. If you speak to them, they will also tell you the same - they are treated like s*** from SQ staff.

I don't think you should engage in conversations with call centre staff on how the airline company that they represent via their call centre company treat them. It simply frustrates them more.

Any CEO of a company will tell you how much they love outsourcing as it saves them alot of money.

well said Singapore ! total agreed

as a side note, we don't really know if Flying mom is bluffing or not in regard to conversations with CX staff , most calls to the call centre are usually recorded to ensure quality service , that's why i doubt cx staff would say that on the phone with a customer

Everyone doing it wrong "treated like s***" like you say is also general comment sq345, does not make it right. it is very wrong. If staff talk to me that is a problem not for me it is CX problem especially I choose to fly other airline.

My language maybe not so good as you, but I don't need to be perfect with Engklish to spend money or take english test before I have right to sit on any airplane. Many passenger don't speak english, all passenger i believe DONT like this type of treatment.

you have right to comment i have my right. This is discussion board and you can chose to to read my post or not.

if you are not interested in comment by CX does not mean I am not thank you very much. and if record call they should listen to call tape and see why staff say this maybe true.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Gold Member:
1. It is much easier to qualify for Emerald (CX Diamond) with another OW airline, AA for example. CX from scratch you need 4 sectors + 30K + 60K +120K = 200K +/-
With AA bang 100K in one year and you are it.</font>

Yes, but unfortunately, there's never a Hong Kong airport around when getting 100K on AA and AA's VIP upgrades (and mileage upgrades) don't work on CX. If I was flying CX exclusively, I would go directly for MP DMD. In the meantime, the F Class Wing/Pier CX lounge is a huge incentive.

Dear Flying Mom, I think your friends at CX are either pulling your bluff or you have the wrong company.

CX staff gets much better benefits than SQ staff. CX staff sometimes get upgraded whereas on SQ that never happens no matter what. SQ will rather leave them behind than upgrade their own staff.

As most CX stafff are within asian regions, most do travel home whenever they can. CX never restricts the number of times one can travel to a particular destination. That is something SQ does. A SQ friend who is with SQ told me that his company wants to know why he is travelling so often to BKK and in fact curbs his travel benefits to this destination after 6 times a year I believe. He now buys a full fare ticket on CX instead.

Furthermore, I know most of the check-in staff at Changi as well as the ticketing staff at Ocean Building. I have yet to hear a negative comment as yours.

[This message has been edited by Guy Betsy (edited Mar 10, 2004).]

hello Guy Betsy you are in paris? my best city.

it ok you have your opinion but I remembber one times you have many complaints about cx staff and maybe you side is not on theres.

I know mr chen will get letter with more information and not only one person to write. this is good because if true must be stoped.

SQ345 and a1983 your commenta are absloutely disgusting. This isn't about whether the acusation is true, this is about your attitude to justify poor treatment justified by it being practised by airlines other than CX (if in fact true).

Your comments are arrogant. Does it really matter if ones grammar or spelling is not 100% correct? I don't think so since this discussion website would be quite bare if that was the pre requisite. The two of you would probably be banned also.

I would like to see CX's comment also but I guess we shouldn't hold our breath until a cx representative comments, they are too afraid to address the real issues...just look at the way the incident regarding the inflight incident involving an off duty pilot and an on duty crew was neatly swept under the carpet.

Enough of this nonsense

People are going after each other rather than talking about the issues (thanks to GB for TRYING to keep things on track)

Lets clean it up and get back on the topic

B Watson
moderator

Thank you B. Watson. This nonsense should be stopped immediately and not days later subjecting us to the disgusting personal coments rather than responding to the subject.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Chek Lap Kok:
Thank you B. Watson. This nonsense should be stopped immediately and not days later subjecting us to the disgusting personal comments rather than responding to the subject.

</font>

I moderate with a very free hand giving a good deal of latitude to members believing that is the best way for this small community to function. Your own posts have added to the negative tone of this thread.

FYI - if you had an email address listed I would have sent this to your privately.

If you do not like my moderation, please email Randy but making comments here is not productive.

B Watson
Moderator

B Watson you deleted an earlier post without comment which is censure not moderating. You have now more correctly addressed, this by not deleting my comment and adding yours.

If my comment is negative fine, but don't stop at my comment and do take note of the comments that have driven the response.

Finally if you don't like to be commented about regarding your moderation then nip these personal attacks in the bud is all I was communicating to you, if tht is negative then you really don't know what you are doing.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Chek Lap Kok:
B Watson you deleted an earlier post without comment which is censure not moderating.
</font>

Editing offensive posts is in fact part of the job

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Chek Lap Kok:

if tht is negative then you really don't know what you are doing. </font>

As I said before, email Randy or myself if you do not like my moderation. This board is no place for this dialogue. Lets not play last word here since the thread should not require closing just because you do not want to take this off line. Your comment above is a TOS violation so it would make the most sense for everyone if it just stopped here.

B Watson
Moderator

Thank you CLK.

What is TOS viloation?

I have been insult by my English and i know it not as good as some others here but why you seem to picks on one person and not others when they insults me the worse?

And that is a wrap for this thread folks

For what it is worth, if I viewed the comments in question as an attack on anyones English I would have been all over it - the issue was whether the post was clear in its intentions in terms of the criticism of the agents involved. People criticize my terrible spelling all the time and I do not take it personally!

I will not tolerate anything that even SMELLS of being a personal attack on anyone posting on this board. Believe that I would have immediately stepped in if I had read the comments as being such an attack.

TOS = terms of service which everyone has agreed to in order to have posting privileges on FT

B Watson
Moderator