Programs: CO PLAT, Hilton Gold, SPG Gold, PC Gold, MR Gold
Posts: 678
I only have an AF Amex card, as this is the only miles earning card I am aware of in France. Otherwise I put all my miles on NWA and avoid Air France. My wife earned 22k miles on NWA with most of the earning on flights in expensive classes. She got a nice letter stating that they appreciated her continued travel on NWA and would like to offer her silver status for another year.
I only have an AF Amex card, as this is the only miles earning card I am aware of in France. Otherwise I put all my miles on NWA and avoid Air France. My wife earned 22k miles on NWA with most of the earning on flights in expensive classes. She got a nice letter stating that they appreciated her continued travel on NWA and would like to offer her silver status for another year.
Air France will learn soon enough...
Cheers,
Timo
The standard Amex will earn Membership Rewards which can be converted to miles for several programs. Or you can look abroad, for example, when you have a German bankaccount you can get the M&M Mastercard (or the Hilton HHonors Visacard). The biggest issue is to get the bankaccount, but this is possible for French residents also.
The German AAdvantage Visacard is NOT available for non-German-residents.
Almost 10 pages of FTers taking their business elsewhere. Just like myself. I wonder if AF/KL really want to close their eyes at this.
They will. And that's not because they give a toss about their loyal and frequent customers (they do, but that isn't the driver here). It is a commercial logic which I believe it works. "10 pages of people saying they will leave"... what that means in reality:
Some pax that have a choice of routing (through AMS/CDG vs. another alliance's hub) will indeed take their business elsewhere.
Some pax that fly to/from Netherlands or France may switch to another airline also serving those routes.
Sure, those are lost revenues. But what it also means:
Many pax are angry at AFKL and say they'll leave. But then they won't, because they already have so many miles on FB and almost nothing elsewhere that they decide that it's better to "fill up" on FB miles than to start at zero in another FFP
Many pax won't leave because they have some status level with FB which gives them benefits which they would lose unless they can status match to a carrier that covers their travel patterns just as well
Many pax are angry at AFKL and say they'll leave, but once their anger has faded, they'll revert to old habits, i.e. using AFKL.
Many pax can't leave, because their corporate contract doesn't allow them to use other airlines
Many pax won't leave because the alternatives are worse, either in terms of service (want to do Paris-Abidjan on Air Ivoire?) or in terms of routing (rather fly CDG-NIM directly than route through Tripolis or Addis Abeba), or times don't suit their schedule (AFKL has a very dense network, offers many flights)
Many pax will leave "a bit", basically do what I do since years: take AFKL when the gain in convenience/time gain/less hassle is bigger than their not so great service, so they leave for flights where there's a real choice, but stick to AFKL when there isn't. Few people will make a religion out of avoiding AFKL.
Many pax won't leave because the changes in mileage earning/spending don't affect them because they aren't allowed to use miles for private use anyway
Many pax won't leave because they aren't aware of the changes, or don't realize the amplitude of changes
Many pax don't leave because they fly so little that in any case mileage earning isn't a consideration when picking their flight (e.g. expat family traveling home once a year)
Many pax don't leave because by default they pick their "home carrier" for the very infrequent travel they do. Some probably don't even realize that AF and KL are one company.
And add to that that the new scheme penalizes lower fare buckets, so if it's those pax leaving because they earn less miles for their cheap fares, that means less lost revenue anyway.
AFKL is not so badly managed in commercial terms, and I think from a strategic point of view the decision isn't stupid. It may be tactially unwise because ill-timed at a time of recession where pax numbers go down anyway. But I don't think that our predictions of a massive outflow of pax because of FB changes will materialize.
The decision sucks from a customer point of view, but that probably didn't play a role in their decision making process.
__________________ Air France flights this year that worked smoothly (except force majeure): 35%
I can understand that quite a few people get upset about the changes FB are making from April 1st of this year, BUT as for most companies they are not running a charity.
I acquired my silver status in just one year based on the number of qualifying flights I took and not on the points as I would have been out shorted. In many ways the new system based on how much you paid for your fare is (in my opinion) more fair. I guess it's a little bit like when Business Class was first introduced by Jan Carlzon of SAS who found it unfair that full paying customers should sit next to passengers who paid a 10th of their ticket and therefore introduced Business Class. Same goes for the FB programme.
I guess most people who are not too happy with this change are those who don't pay for all their flights but rake in on the benefits. I probably would feel the same, but we're all in different situations so it doesn't apply to me.
I was in the BA (OW) Frequent Flyer program as well, and never got close to get the elite status mileage or tier flights required.
I'm sticking with FB and think that AF have an excellent service (except for their useless call centre, but that's a different story)...
I can understand that quite a few people get upset about the changes FB are making from April 1st of this year, BUT as for most companies they are not running a charity.
I acquired my silver status in just one year based on the number of qualifying flights I took and not on the points as I would have been out shorted. In many ways the new system based on how much you paid for your fare is (in my opinion) more fair. I guess it's a little bit like when Business Class was first introduced by Jan Carlzon of SAS who found it unfair that full paying customers should sit next to passengers who paid a 10th of their ticket and therefore introduced Business Class. Same goes for the FB programme.
I guess most people who are not too happy with this change are those who don't pay for all their flights but rake in on the benefits. I probably would feel the same, but we're all in different situations so it doesn't apply to me.
I was in the BA (OW) Frequent Flyer program as well, and never got close to get the elite status mileage or tier flights required.
I'm sticking with FB and think that AF have an excellent service (except for their useless call centre, but that's a different story)...
You have a very good point in it and - from AFKL point of view - a very reasonable business decision behind it. However, what annoys me - and probably many others as well - is the fact of milage expiry of already accumulated miles. When the flights were taken, they were to expire after 36 months and now they just changed the rules and all these miles expire after 20 months, i.e. they changed the rules ex-post. This (to many people) little nasty details proves that FB has no will whatsoever to keep the "contract made" between their customers and them. Honest business looks different. And that drives me away.
...
Sure, those are lost revenues. But what it also means:
...
Many pax won't leave because they have some status level with FB which gives them benefits which they would lose unless they can status match to a carrier that covers their travel patterns just as well
...
The decision sucks from a customer point of view, but that probably didn't play a role in their decision making process.
But the very fact that some other carriers/FFPs are offering a status match shows that they value FFs rather more than AFKL and that they have a somewhat different interpretation of the economics of FFPs!
But the very fact that some other carriers/FFPs are offering a status match shows that they value FFs rather more than AFKL and that they have a somewhat different interpretation of the economics of FFPs!
I agree that there are airlines out there who do status match. But then, what would be the use of status on another alliance when the new alliance doesn't fit one's personal travel pattern? Imagine the Paris-based business traveler with frequent travel to Japan, Italy, Germany, Ireland, the US, and Argentina. In the past he took AF, and he had his AF (admittedly, lousy) status perks on every trip from/to Paris because AF served all these destinations. Now he does a status match. But to whom? To oneworld? Sure, that gets him to Japan (JAL) and to the US (American), but Italy would involve changing planes in Spain, Germany would involve changing planes in London, Ireland no idea, and Argentina would mean going through Madrid. What a hassle for trips he could previously do nonstop on AF. And if he goes for Star, he has coverage of Japan (ANA), the US (United, US, soon CO), Germany and Northern Italy (LH). Better, but still not the same coverage.
I simply suspect that many people won't bother flying detours or making stops just for the sake of using another alliance's status benefits and for the sake of boycotting Air France. Those customers are the "loyal indifferent": they're not really happy, but they won't leave because they don't expect elsewhere to be better.
There are some cases where people's individual travel patterns can indeed by covered by another alliance, and those people may indeed leave.
But that's why I wrote "many pax", not "all pax".
Don't get me wrong, I do not claim that Air France is a very customer-oriented company - I think numerous of my posts on this forum illustrate evidence and anecdotes that tell the contrary. But this is a business decision, where their calculation must have been that the number of flyers who really have the choice, the freedom and the will to switch is acceptable when balanced against the benefits of cutting benefits.
__________________ Air France flights this year that worked smoothly (except force majeure): 35%
When the flights were taken, they were to expire after 36 months and now they just changed the rules and all these miles expire after 20 months, i.e. they changed the rules ex-post. This (to many people) little nasty details proves that FB has no will whatsoever to keep the "contract made" between their customers and them. Honest business looks different. And that drives me away.
I was under the impression that miles would only expire unless you took another flight within 20 months of the last acquired flyer miles. In all fairness I can't see what the big deal is between 36 months (3 years!) and 20 months (1.6 years), as most people - with elite status - who are members of FFP's would be flying with a AFKL carrier during a period of at least 1 year.
I could image that there are millions of FF points lying idle and now its time for a major clean up.
I can understand your rage over AFKL not honouring the contract you signed up for when you (we) joined. I think for "old" timers there should be other options than same rules for everyone, but the admin involved would probably be a nightmare and next to impossible without being too costly.
AFKL know exactly what they are doing and I highly doubt it that they are deliberately doing anything to lose out on potential punters.
I don't expect AFKL to distinguish between the sign date of the individuals and consider different expiry times. I am raged about the fact that already accumulated miles - at times when the 36 month rule was valid and no-one even thought about 20 month - are to be expired after 20 months as well.
Let me give you an example to make my point clear: You have lots of miles in your FB account and use 150.000 miles for a F Class award CDG-SFO for this fall, which is the valid milage at the time of booking. AFKL then changes the rules and require now 200.000 miles and then they tell you that at the time of travel 200.000 is the number of miles needed and ask you to add another 50.000 miles or they will not let you fly. In this case they did the same as with the expiry. They changed the rules about the usage ex-post (validity vs. amount needed) and demand on the new rules to be applied at the time of usage. Do you still consider this as a minor issue?
There have been quite a few airlines around which reduced (cleaned-up) the milage validity. Every single case I know of, they did not touch the validity of already collected miles but applied this rule only to new miles. That is fine with me (and honest) and everyone knows at the time of travel about this. FB decided to do different. What's next? How reliable is AFKL in terms of promises/contracts made? Who guarantees you that AFKL refuses to take you on board because they would like to fill their seats with full paid tickets instead of reduced tickets? ...
I acquired my silver status in just one year based on the number of qualifying flights I took and not on the points as I would have been out shorted. In many ways the new system based on how much you paid for your fare is (in my opinion) more fair.
So how would you feel if suddenly, your flights only counted for 0.25 segments or 0.5 segments, and you would not make it to Silver? Your 16 actual flights would suddenly count as maybe 4 segments.
That's what's happening for those of us qualifying on miles earned. (In a way, the long distance flyers are being discriminated as compared to the short distance with a connect flyers.)
I have to say, creber, that your analysis is pretty accurate (). So, what we are then left with is to get TuxTraveller's letter/petition to somehow () convince the FB management that their proposed changes constitute a poor "Business Decision." In these times of economic downturn, one would think that losing any revenue - no matter how (in)significant - is something to be avoided; it's then just a matter of convincing AFKL that they stand to lose more from deserting customers than they would gain from cost-savings in the FB programme. It seems to me that losing several hundred FFs, spending around €15-20K per annum each (lets say €2-4 million?) should be making alarm bells ring somewhere within the management's upper echelons. And, if the petition attracts 1000s of signatures (I'm an optimist sometimes), who knows what may happen - so keep up the good work, TuxTraveller!
But then again, I'm certainly no expert in these matters.
I think creber's analysis is right on the mark. That is why I am against complaints that have our feelings as the main ground. You should demonstrate that this decision will cost them and that these costs are higher than leaving millions of miles on unused accounts at values that are too high. Frankly, if I was a major shareholder I would applaud the decision and that probably means it is a good one.
That does not mean that I cannot individually decide to take my money and run. As a matter of fact I did just that (already in 2008). In that year I bought around €25000 of BA tickets with my FB AMEX . This means that by simply using their credit card to buy travel with other airlines I have earned a return to Dubai in J on KLM without spending a dime on them. Add to that hotels, cars etc. I think next year I might fly to Bali in J on their cost.
Don't get mad. Get even.
__________________ Wherever you go, there you are.
![changes on 4/1/09: Who is leaving and when [merged]](/forum/iconimages/flying-blue-air-france-klm/changes-4-1-09-who-leaving-when-merged_ltr.gif)
In this case they did the same as with the expiry. They changed the rules about the usage ex-post (validity vs. amount needed) and demand on the new rules to be applied at the time of usage. Do you still consider this as a minor issue?
). So, what we are then left with is to get TuxTraveller's 
) convince the FB management that their proposed changes constitute a poor "Business Decision." In these times of economic downturn, one would think that losing any revenue - no matter how (in)significant - is something to be avoided; it's then just a matter of convincing AFKL that they stand to lose more from deserting customers than they would gain from cost-savings in the FB programme. It seems to me that losing several hundred FFs, spending around €15-20K per annum each (lets say €2-4 million?) should be making alarm bells ring somewhere within the management's upper echelons. And, if the petition attracts 1000s of signatures (I'm an optimist sometimes), who knows what may happen - so keep up the good work, TuxTraveller!
