Ditto

Even though everybody gets to keep their status, doesn't mean it is "equal" or "fair" to everyone.
"Best case" scenario - you had no flights at all during your qualification year, you keep your status for another year and do not lose any existing rollover XP, i.e. you get 300XP for free.
"Worst case" scenario - you flew more than the rollover XP you had (example A above), you get nothing extra for your loyalty.
And everything in between, some PAX will only get 10XP missing some might get 200XP missing to keep their status, but at the same time they "lose" the XP they gained by actually flying.

NickB

If that is the case, then it means that there is very little to gain (in terms of savings) in FB excluding these people, so why design a complex system for very litle gain for FB? Moreover, you could make an argument that it is especially dumb to discourage individuals who have recently joined or shifted a gear in their flying with AFKL/ST: I would have thought that they are on the whole more likely to desert the ship if you discourage them as they start.

On the broader issue, IMO, HalconBCN got it exactly right in his post yesterday. It would have been far better and simpler to cancel the XP deduction altogether at renewal between March 20 and Feb 21 and be done with it (without prejudice for specific measures needed for Ultis).

Instead, what FB have decided is that they will ensure that FB elites who have accumulated fewer XPs than their current membership threshold are treated as if they had accumulated XPs to that threshold during the year. So, a Plat who has accumulated less than 300 XPs in the year will be assumed to have earned 300 XPs in that period, a Gold who has accumulated less than 180 XPs will be assumed to have earned 180 XPs and a silver who has accumulated less than 100 XPs in the year will be assumed to have earned 100 XPs, with the consequence that an elite member who has managed to accumulate above the threshold (300/180/100 Xps respectively for Plat/Gold/Silver) will gain nothing from this measure.

Declaration of interest: I am an XP who accumulated approximately 600 XPs in the year (well, in the year until February 2020, as all my later flights were cancelled by AF and KL and I have not set foot in a plane since then) and who will, therefore not benefit from this or indeed any FB covid measure.

maalloc

Oh yes.
But as someone stated before "Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué?" is a cliché for good reasons.

Xandrios

While the way that the rules have now been implemented are far from ideal (and quite complex), I do feel that with this latest change the situation has improved for another large group of elites.

There are still some small(er) subgroups that are not benefitting quite that much, but overall, I'd say that most people will now see some kind of extension or benefit for the year 2020.

The whole thing comes across as rushed. The first rule was announced early but turned out to not be sufficient (everybody requalifies). Then a patch was applied (double XP for 2020) which still didn't quite benefited everybody. Now the rollover xps will help yet another group yet is almost impossible to understand for the layman.

I feel that if they had waited a bit longer to announce an extension scheme they probably would have come up with one simple solution for everybody. But the need to respond quickly caused it to end up with multiple rounds of rules/patches.

irishguy28

I would say instead that the way the rules have been communicated has been complex; the rules themselves are quite simple.

Rule 1 - communicated several months ago: All Flying Blue Elite members with a qualification period ending between March 2020 and February 2021 will at least retain that same status level in their next membership year; they cannot drop a level in status.

Rule 2 - communicated last month - All Flying Blue Elite members with a qualification period ending between July 2020 and February 2021 will start that next membership year with at least the same number of rollover XPs that they started their current membership year with; if under "normal" rules they should start with a greater number of XPs, then they will start with that greater number instead.

I wonder if they will make a gesture to those Elites (Platinums mainly) with a qualification period ending between March 2020 and June 2020; I would almost expect that they would credit these Platinums with 300XP if they are negatively impacted by not having benefitted from Rule 2's earlier implementation.

I doubt there are very many people in this situation though - given that FB changed only in April 2018 there are unlikely to be many "new" Platinums (you would have had to have qualified for Platinum in March-June 2019 to be affected, and to have had a large rollover balance already built up in the meantime) thus affected....

Tonic27

Looks like Rule 2 will apply to me and whilst i can see why they have done it i still feel a little disappointed, im now doing a bit of flying of which im getting double xp etc, but i have still missed out on the larger proportion of the year to get my flights in, not ideal but hey.....

NickB

But why do this? Why hyper-segment minuscule sub-categories (special rule for one-legged divorced Platinum members who do not own a black cat and whose birthday in 2017 was not on a full moon will be credited with 147 XPs) while still leaving out the constituency of Plats who have accrued more than 300 XPs in their covid-affected membership year out in the cold, with the consequence that those who, after ULTIs, have flown the most recently with AFKL are the single sub-constituency of elites not to have received ex-gratia XPs from FB?

irishguy28

Because it's objectively unfair to treat one set of Platinums (qualifying year ending March-June 2020) in a completely different manner to the other set of Platinums (qualifying year ending July 2020- Feb 2021); particularly when the most recent change was brought in to address the challenge that certain Platinums were being treated unfairly in the first place!

The first set only have Rule 1 applied; the latter have both Rules 1 & 2 applied.

That's missing the point - rather than "hyper-sgementing", my proposal is that Rule 2 be applied to ALL platinums, not just those having a qualification date falling in the 8 months specified.

irishguy28

What status level are you?

If Gold or below, the double XPs offer allows you to (at least attempt to) increase your status more easily. Of course, where your qualification year ends has an impact on how achievable this target is.

If already Platinum, the double XPs offer might give you the opportunity to build up a larger XP balance, for (most of) the remainder of this year, but also potentially for the start of your next year [again, it depends where your year end falls]. Given that you can't lose Platinum this year, and will start next year with at least the same rollover as you started the current year, it is actually probably better to have an early qualification date so that you have longer to rack up double XPs that will count in your next membership year, for which there may be no further accomodations made.

hhdl

I think there's a lot of value to viewing the loyalty component and the reward component separately (CX explicitly does), with the former being about enticing people who are expected to fly a lot in the coming 12 months while the latter is about providing rebates for previous flying (and/or prepaying via credit card swipe fees and mile purchases for travel). XP, if properly implemented, should correlate with future paid travel.

The current situation meanwhile basically makes the previously made predictions about future travel at least temporarily invalid (I don't think it's impossible that the median XP flown by Ivory, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Ulti among those who have flown are basically equal since mid-March). Extending status and making good on rollover is basically a call option on something approximately like 2019 coming back in the next 12 months or so. It does primarily benefit those who have stopped flying, especially on OPM (and the rollover tweak is really only a benefit to long-time Platinums), but the cost of extending status for those who don't fly is minimal (see also Hilton giving Diamond with a credit card). We'll have a good read on what AFKL see when they decide whether to repeat these next year: not repeating is either a sign that business travel is back to a level they're happy with or that they've given up hope.

For those who are still flying, that fact is exceptionally predictive and that group is the target of the double XP, regardless of their current/previous status.

Tonic27

I'm currently 7yrs plat, with qualification starting in January, I currently have 560xp with 2 trips booked that net me 60xp each.

NickB

But your rule 2 singles out all Plats who have acquired more than 300 XPs in their covid-affected membership year as the single sub-constituency of elites that should be denied ex-gratia XPs from FB. Why? Why single out that group as the one category to be left out of FB's largesse?

irishguy28

You've really picked up the wrong end of the stick there. It's not "my" rule 2; but FB's rule; and the people that have been "singled out" are those having a qualification date falling in the period March-June 2020.

"My" version of Rule 2 would see it being retrospectively applied also to these members, thereby ensuring that Rules 1 & 2 are applied to ALL members. In other words, I am advocating against differentiating between groups, where instead you instead appear to see me advocating "hyper segmentation" (which I see as an example of hyper hyperbole )

NickB

You don't seem to appreciate that what you describe rule 2 (nor rule 1 for that matter) has nothing to offer to Plats who have accumulated more than 300 XPs in the covid-affected membership year and leave them out in the cold. Just because you make a rule formally applicable to all members does not mean that you are not segmenting. Giving a benefit to all members who are pregnant may be formally a rule that applies to ALL members. Yet, this would not stop it establishing a segmentation on the basis of gender and age.

Your version of rule 2 may eliminate some of this aspects of the current segmentation practised by FB but it keeps others and, in particular, it keeps the segmentation which is inherent to rule 2 and I struggle to find a convincing rationale for it.

irishguy28

I very much appreciate that fact.

However, what you fail to appreciate is that anyone who managed to accumulate over 300XP in their current membership year - and, depending on their anniversary dates, for part of their next membership year - has likely been benefitting more than most from the double XPs rule - so it's not exactly true to say that FB "has nothing to offer" these Plats. You want to single out the Platinums that have been flying over 300XP worth, so they clearly now have "exposure" to double XPs. It's hard to maintain that they are not benefitting from this.

Moreover, you now seem to be chiding me for failing to hyper-segment such that these Platinums get something extra, when only a few posts ago you were chiding me for wishing to hyper-segment - when, in reality, neither of these charges relate in anyway to any of my posts (nor to the various one-legged divorced pregnant Platinums that you conjured up! )