FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Air France, KLM, and Other Partners | Flying Blue (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-klm-other-partners-flying-blue-594/)
-   -   FB Platinum Requalification (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-klm-other-partners-flying-blue/1264213-fb-platinum-requalification.html)

TerryK Sep 29, 11 12:02 am

FB Platinum Requalification
 
Looks like I may end up this year at around 55K level miles, 15K short of requalify for Platinum. I wonder if it is worthwhile to do some MR to requalify? :confused: My rough estimate is that it may cost $2000.:(

Gajan Sep 29, 11 12:47 am

Unless you are planning on going for Life Time Platinum Elite there might not be much worth being Gold compared to Platinum.

If you value the 100% bonus, free Economy Comfort on KLM/DL then it might be worth while.

cityflyer369 Sep 29, 11 2:09 am

Requalification should be less than 1300 bucks for you:

- 1700 bucks for JFK-CDG-TLV in PV inluding proper carbon offsetting (without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)

Minus

- at least 400 bucks for the miles you will earn

KLouis Sep 29, 11 2:47 am


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17191234)
Requalification should be less than 1300 bucks for you:

- 1700 bucks for JFK-CDG-TLV in PV inluding proper carbon offsetting (without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)

Minus

- at least 400 bucks for the miles you will earn

:confused: What is "carbon offsetting"?
:confused: How can a MR be "irresponsible"?
:confused: Minus 400 bucks? Then plus ~250 bucks for taxes, etc?

TerryK Sep 29, 11 2:57 am


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17191234)
Requalification should be less than 1300 bucks for you:

- 1700 bucks for JFK-CDG-TLV in PV inluding proper carbon offsetting (without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)

Minus

- at least 400 bucks for the miles you will earn

JFK-CDG-TLV and back is only 11356 miles.:confused: I am around 15K short. Still not sure if it is worthwhile?:confused:

zerafa Oct 1, 11 8:07 am


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17191234)
(without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)

WOW...

If you believe in carbon offsets, you have not really looked into what is being purchased

if you believe that this person taking an otherwise vacant seat (discounted) for a mileage run, is adding to CO2

If you are a frequent traveller, and are truly concerned about CO2

SOMETHING DOES NOT ADD UP!

Xandrios Oct 1, 11 10:28 am


Originally Posted by zerafa (Post 17202834)
an otherwise vacant seat

This is a non-argument. If you fly, it will be used in the capacity calculations for that route. If everybody thinks that they fly an otherwise vacant seat, there would be no reason to fly any planes at all, wont you agree?

Carbon-offsetting, whichever way you do, is good practice. Flying is polluting, and if you do so just for financial gain (Which a MR is), it is not a bad idea to in some way or another arrange something positive for the environment as well.

Sherwood Hampton Oct 1, 11 12:16 pm


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17191234)
inluding proper carbon offsetting (without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)




Originally Posted by Xandrios (Post 17203357)
Carbon-offsetting, whichever way you do, is good practice. Flying is polluting, and if you do so just for financial gain (Which a MR is), it is not a bad idea to in some way or another arrange something positive for the environment as well.


What a couple of sanctimonious comments. :rolleyes:

The governments set taxes based on policy and try to influence behaviour. The market then finds a balance. It's not upto the general public to start paying for their carbon emissions when they're already paying taxes through the nose!

Example. I drive a highly fuel hungry car. Irresponsible? Er...no. The government charge heavy amounts of tax and duty on the fuel I am buying. I make the choice to continue driving my car.

cityflyer369 Oct 2, 11 11:00 am


Originally Posted by zerafa (Post 17202834)
WOW...

If you believe in carbon offsets, you have not really looked into what is being purchased

if you believe that this person taking an otherwise vacant seat (discounted) for a mileage run, is adding to CO2

If you are a frequent traveller, and are truly concerned about CO2

SOMETHING DOES NOT ADD UP!

1. Regarding the first point: obviously, not all carbon-offsetting schemes make sense. IMHO, complying with the CDM Gold Standard is a good start for a carbon off-setting scheme. While this might not be perfect, it is better than not doing anything about it.

2. Xandrios has already addressed the second point. Moreover, the fuel consumption of a plane depends also on the actual weight of the plane. So even if you are flying in a seat that would have been empty otherwise, you are contributing to burning fuel.

3. Regarding the third point: obviously, not flying at all would be better than flying. But if you cannot get around flying, then carbon offsetting is a resonsible way of dealing with the situation. I fail to see what "does not add up" here. Things would "not add up" if I knew about the environmental problems of my flying and did not do anything about it.

cityflyer369 Oct 2, 11 11:37 am


Originally Posted by Sherwood Hampton (Post 17203777)
The governments set taxes based on policy and try to influence behaviour. The market then finds a balance. It's not upto the general public to start paying for their carbon emissions when they're already paying taxes through the nose!

Example. I drive a highly fuel hungry car. Irresponsible? Er...no. The government charge heavy amounts of tax and duty on the fuel I am buying. I make the choice to continue driving my car.

I would agree with you if the tax and duty on the fuel were high enough to achieve a market balance that resulted in an amount of fuel consumption that the planet could bear. Obviously, this is not the case, at least not at the moment. This is where IMHO individual responsibility has to step in.

[More generally speaking, as a side note, I find it highly questionable an approach to shift your individual resonsibility on to the government here. For two pretty basic reasons:
1. One of the core ideas of a democracy is that governments are never perfect. Government is work in progress and in constant need of criticism and improvement. So when a particular outcome has not been achieved by the government (yet), this does not imply that there is nothing one could or should do as an individual to improve things.
2. Not everything that is legal is also responsible behaviour. (Obviously, it is legal to steal your best mate's girlfriend, but would you consider this a responsible way of acting? Would you blame the government for not having prevented your best mate from stealing your girlfriend?)]

cityflyer369 Oct 2, 11 11:55 am


Originally Posted by TerryK (Post 17191330)
JFK-CDG-TLV and back is only 11356 miles.:confused: I am around 15K short. Still not sure if it is worthwhile?:confused:

Airfrance.com says "At least 15444 Miles for a Flying Blue Member". (You might wish to take a screen shot when booking, in case this is a mistake in the algorithm.)

Sherwood Hampton Oct 2, 11 7:59 pm


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17207611)
I would agree with you if the tax and duty on the fuel were high enough to achieve a market balance that resulted in an amount of fuel consumption that the planet could bear. Obviously, this is not the case, at least not at the moment. This is where IMHO individual responsibility has to step in.

[More generally speaking, as a side note, I find it highly questionable an approach to shift your individual resonsibility on to the government here. For two pretty basic reasons:
1. One of the core ideas of a democracy is that governments are never perfect. Government is work in progress and in constant need of criticism and improvement. So when a particular outcome has not been achieved by the government (yet), this does not imply that there is nothing one could or should do as an individual to improve things.
2. Not everything that is legal is also responsible behaviour. (Obviously, it is legal to steal your best mate's girlfriend, but would you consider this a responsible way of acting? Would you blame the government for not having prevented your best mate from stealing your girlfriend?)]


I would like to know who's decided that global warming is a fact. It's a theory. But governments are using it as an excuse to charge taxes on fuel, emissions etc. I'm not saying it's not happening, but I just don't think humans have as much impact as some people think.

cityflyer369 Oct 3, 11 2:10 am


Originally Posted by Sherwood Hampton (Post 17209481)
I would like to know who's decided that global warming is a fact. It's a theory. But governments are using it as an excuse to charge taxes on fuel, emissions etc. I'm not saying it's not happening, but I just don't think humans have as much impact as some people think.

As the Flying Blue forum is not really the perfect place to discuss climatology, please understand that I am giving a short answer only.

Who has decided that global warming is a fact? Answer: scientists.
For more information you might wish to have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[As a side note: the term "theory" has at least 2 meanings that people tend to confuse.
1. In colloquial language, "theory" means, roughly speaking, some type of idea, speculation, hypothesis or conjecture proposed as an explanation for a particular phenomenon. In this sense, we can say that something is "just a theory".
2. When scientists speak of a theory, they mean a well established, tested and confirmed set of principles that can explain a certain body of evidence. This scientific meaning of theory is pretty close to what, in colloquial language, we often refer to as a "fact". Climatology is interested in producing theories in this 2nd sense, and calling a scientific theory "just a theory" would be highly inappropriate. Scientific theories in this 2nd sense are basically the best type of knowledge human beings are capable of coming up with.]

delanotre Oct 3, 11 2:25 am


Originally Posted by cityflyer369 (Post 17207658)
Airfrance.com says "At least 15444 Miles for a Flying Blue Member". (You might wish to take a screen shot when booking, in case this is a mistake in the algorithm.)

Yes, because TLV is considered by AF as an european airport and "Premium Voyageur in Europe earns 200% EQM in A, S, W booking class.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.