irishguy28

Those who will be impacted by the "unfairness" of the system are not being treated any differently than how they would have been treated under the rules of Flying Blue up until now. It's hard to state, then, that the system is unfair.

If the system has been changed to offer a new perk to those that qualify, does that automatically mean that those who don't qualify for it are being unfairly singled out? I don't think so.

The new rule will benefit some, but not all. No-one is treated any worse than under the old scheme. So, on the whole, it's a better system.

JOUY31

That's a pretty good summary ^. I fully agree.

Zembla

I remember a survey, a few years ago. I don't remember the exact words, but FB asked if we thought it was fair that cheap fares earned the same miles as expensive fares. Half a year later or so, Aprils fools was a fact. We all remember well the marketing bs that was used: "Our clienst asked for it."

I think we must be very carefull about complaining about unfairness when we are actually talking about benefits...

For me personally, the new rules don't change anything. Re-qualifying for platinum was on schedule, this year it simply happened earlier due to the rollover, and I have no reason to believe it would have been any different in the coming years (under the old rules). But who knows, I can't predict the future and this new rule may actually come in very handy some day!

Therefore I think it is a very nice enhancement to the program. I believe it is also good for AF/KL because it will encourage people who are short of Elite status or who do not focus on one program due to relatively fewer flying (can't recall the number of times people said "I don't make an effort because I don't fly enough"), to focus more on flying under the FB program.

orbitmic

I whole-heartedly agree with that statement and indeed, was amongst the first to laud the new system. We are talking about one of the implementation details, not the concept of rollover miles as a whole, which is great.

@Gajan, actually no, I chose on purpose two examples where soft landing makes no difference. With 60,000 miles you get a gold card regardless of what you had before and regardless of soft landing or not. Similarly, with my second example, 100k, you get a platinum card regardless of soft landing rule and of previous status.

I would personally be much against the abandonment of the soft landing rule even though here again, I am not personally affected either way.

PaxCGN

Why I think it's unfair? I did not use my "soft landing". I earned my gold staus and the points beyond were not rolled over!

GenevaFlyer

All,

I am one of those who got downgraded this year. I understand the logic of only rewarding those who maintain their status, which I think is an acceptable approach.

The unfair part of the deal is the fact that rollover miles did appear in my account, only to be taken away a few days later.

In a similar situation, Marriott made an exception due to unclear communications. Flying Blue does not care about getting the message right, they just take away what they granted by their mistake.

It all goes back to communications .... and Flying Blue has clearly shown that frequent flyers are of no interest to them.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

Zembla

In my case, I feel FB has shown they do care.
However, I do get your point. If I am not mistaken you would have made an extra effort to fly them more if you would have correctly understood the new rules?

orbitmic

Do you mean last year (I doubt it because new rule was not officially announced then) or this year (again, the miscommunication was only very temporary). I fully agree it is an nth communication cock up but I would rank this one much lower than most others. Still, no harm writing and saying how disappointed you are etc etc.

irishguy28

But you did use your soft landing.

The first level mile every status member earns each year activates the soft landing flag (in case it is needed, i.e. you fail to requalify at the same level during that calendar year). The fact that you also "earned" Gold anyway doesn't trump the fact that you failed to earn Platinum again.

There's a minimum threshold for earning rollovers (just like there's a minimum threshold for earning status, with the exception of soft landings of course!), and that's the mileage threshold for retaining your status (or, if you go up a level, the mileage threshold for attaining that new status). When you drop a level, it means you haven't met the required minimum for having the rollover.

brunos

After the poor communication and miles credited/erased, I think that we now understand AF rollover process, so no need to repeat its description so many times.
The fairness question raised is by those who flew a lot (hard to qualify on miles) to qualify GOLD this year with many extra miles and discover that their friends who were already Gold got miles rollover, while they got none because they were Plat last year. Rules are rules (after they get finally communicated), but I understand the unhappy feeling of those.

To be fair the rule should be symmetric. So let me ask a question that might have been answered elsewhere. Assume that you are Silver nonFrench at the start of year t (threshhold 25K). During year t you clock 80K. The logic described above (relevant benchmark for rollover is past FB level) is that 1) you qualify for Plat in t+1 and 2) you roll over 55K (80-25)
Am I correct? But I am probably wrong

Again, don't get me wrong; this is a nice addition ,as long as it can be combined with soft landing, although marginal.

cityflyer369

No you're not correct. The benchmark is not the previous level.
The rule goes: there is a roll-over if and only if you keep your status or improve it. And the relevant threshold for roll-over is the threshold that applies to your new status.

irishguy28

To brunos

Using the figures in your example, and the non-French 70k platinum threshold, the silver member that earned 80k during the calendar year would find themselves promoted first to Gold, then to Platinum, during that calendar year.

At the level check on the last day of the year, they have exceeded the Platinum threshold, so are awarded Platinum for the next year, and will be allowed to carry forward (80k - 70k) = 10k level miles for the next year.

In the following year they are platinum. At the end of that following year, the decision made during the level check will be:

If the level mile balance is < 70k, no rollover, no Platinum status going forward*
If the level mile balance is > 70k, rollover the amount in excess of 70k, and add another year of platinum

*what has not been clarified is how the soft landing would occur in this case. It has always been "at least one level mileage earning flight during the year" - and this was easily checked in the pre-rollover system - a non-zero balance would enable the soft landing. But if, instead, they insist on one level mile flight taken during the year, this can not be automatically assumed by looking at the level mile balance at the end of the year (you could take no flights this year, but still have a level mile balance thanks to a rollover from the previous year). I presume they would give you the soft landing in this case, but they may be more rigorous and insist on the presence of "new" level miles earned during that year to enable the soft landing.

I know this "corner case" could also potentially have existed in the previous platinum rollover scenario, though it's unlikely we will ever hear from anyone who had the personal experience of flying over 115k level miles in one year, followed by 0 level miles the next.
Because they are Platinum in the next year, they will be assured of a soft landing to Gold in the year after that (so long as they earn at least 1 level mile, and as long as the end-of-year balance is less than 70,000

cityflyer369

Maybe the soft-landing rule goes: at least one level flight earned per year. Then there is no problem.

In any case, it should be easy to look up whether someboday earned a level mile or not. I cannot see why this could lead to a problem. In the worst case they had to change some algorithms when they set up the roll-over mechanism.

irishguy28

Yeah, agreed, it's not a problem.

I'm just wondering how they will operate that system. Perhaps they already look for at number of level segments, rather than looking at (the presence of) level miles. Which would mean rollover level miles on their own wouldn't be enough to guarantee a soft landing.

brunos

Thanks, very clear.
I assume that this information has a reliable source.