FB Platinum Requalification

Old Sep 29, 11, 12:02 am
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 11,207
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? My rough estimate is that it may cost $2000.
TerryK is online now  
Old Sep 29, 11, 12:47 am
  #2  
Moderator: Flying Blue (Air France & KLM)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Programs: Flying Blue (AF/KL)
Posts: 4,555
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.
Gajan is offline  
Old Sep 29, 11, 2:09 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GLA
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat 4L, VA Vel Silver, BA EC, LH M&M
Posts: 1,825
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
cityflyer369 is offline  
Old Sep 29, 11, 2:47 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Heraklion, Greece
Posts: 6,600
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
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
What is "carbon offsetting"?
How can a MR be "irresponsible"?
Minus 400 bucks? Then plus ~250 bucks for taxes, etc?
KLouis is offline  
Old Sep 29, 11, 2:57 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 11,207
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
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. I am around 15K short. Still not sure if it is worthwhile?
TerryK is online now  
Old Oct 1, 11, 8:07 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
(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!
zerafa is offline  
Old Oct 1, 11, 10:28 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AMS / ATH
Programs: AFKL Gold, A3 Gold
Posts: 4,872
Originally Posted by zerafa View Post
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.
Xandrios is offline  
Old Oct 1, 11, 12:16 pm
  #8  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Keeping an eye on the BA Forum
Programs: Mucci des tres pathetiques
Posts: 674
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
inluding proper carbon offsetting (without which any mileage run would be pretty irresponsible IMHO)


Originally Posted by Xandrios View Post
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.

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.
Sherwood Hampton is offline  
Old Oct 2, 11, 11:00 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GLA
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat 4L, VA Vel Silver, BA EC, LH M&M
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by zerafa View Post
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 is offline  
Old Oct 2, 11, 11:37 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GLA
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat 4L, VA Vel Silver, BA EC, LH M&M
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by Sherwood Hampton View Post
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?)]

Last edited by cityflyer369; Oct 2, 11 at 11:44 am
cityflyer369 is offline  
Old Oct 2, 11, 11:55 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GLA
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat 4L, VA Vel Silver, BA EC, LH M&M
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by TerryK View Post
JFK-CDG-TLV and back is only 11356 miles. I am around 15K short. Still not sure if it is worthwhile?
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.)
cityflyer369 is offline  
Old Oct 2, 11, 7:59 pm
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Keeping an eye on the BA Forum
Programs: Mucci des tres pathetiques
Posts: 674
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
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.
Sherwood Hampton is offline  
Old Oct 3, 11, 2:10 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GLA
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat 4L, VA Vel Silver, BA EC, LH M&M
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by Sherwood Hampton View Post
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.]

Last edited by cityflyer369; Oct 3, 11 at 2:21 am
cityflyer369 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 11, 2:25 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paris, France
Programs: Flying Blue (LTPE) Le Club AccorHotels (Gold)
Posts: 1,454
Originally Posted by cityflyer369 View Post
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.
delanotre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread