Originally Posted by
fakecd
CX is definitely over-complicating itself. Best yield management doesn't come just by making 54 fare options for mere cattle class from Australia to Japan.
example below for AUS based traveller credit to QF. the Econ LITE defaulting to "V" class and if I want "L" to earn QF points it has 18% premium to cheapest. I don't think it's worth it. As the OP somewhere said above, the 57% premium one pays for FLEX fare vs LITE in the "V" class, still earns no credits for QF, something one would be pretty annoyed at. CX should just standardize fare code and fare basis instead of introducing this 3 tier fare classes.
How does CX's fare family structure affect which class you need to book to earn QF miles on CX flights? You will still need to book L class instead of V class to get the miles, no? Assuming same fare family, L class will still be 1300/1100-1=18% more expensive, so you will still find it not worth it.
Now, if V class is always ECONLITE and L class always ECONESSENT on CX, CX will sell V class at 1100AUD and L class at 1595AUD (LR31AUKR). The price difference will be 1595/1100-1=45% instead, as CX needs to account for the free seat selection and lower penalties associated with ECONESSENT whenever you book L class. You don't find 18% worth it, but some may do (or need it for status or whatever), but those who find 18% worth it might have a hard time swallowing a 45% fare increase just to earn QF miles. How does it help them?
Originally Posted by
fakecd
I must suspect it's yet another dumb use of McKinsey Graduates who's never been a frequent flyer that came up with complex 3-Dimensional Matrix of fare basis+booking class like they were doing University Assignment. Real world works differently.
The matrix consists of fare family (x) and booking class (y), where's the 3rd dimension (z)? Of course, the fares are the actual numbers in the matrix, not the 3rd dimension.