Fitch

Yes, I topped up my work flying to get over the 5000 TP threshold (though in my case this was also initial qualification for GGL).

orbitmic

I actually fully agree with DYKWIA. I think that the FT lens of mileage runs and what not is a grossly distorted one, and that the vast majority of us with CCR cards just get them because of the flights we need to take and not some odd gimmicks to reach some specific status.

camdentown

JFK, ORD, and SFO, SEA but quite a long time ago.
Also: PHX, LAX , DEN, MIA which are not BA operated.

rapidex

I doubt KARFA would agree with you on that point.

HIDDY

Is the BA F lounge in IAD only accessible to those flying BA?

DYKWIA

Yes, some freaks fine folk on here would do it, but generally getting 5000 by mileage runs is a bit different to getting 1500 for gold. It would take a lot of space time and money for a start!

KARFA

I agree, many of us need to be in San Antonio, Hawaii, and Tallinn several times a year

mikebg

Speaking for myself, when I moved to BA from another carrier almost 3 years ago my calculation was that I would get GGL after two years of 3000 TPs each. I estimated my annual TP earning at just over 3000 TPs. However, BA 'moved the goalposts' and the only way to get GGL was to do mileage runs. So I did some. And got GGL. And then ended that year with over 7000 TPs as I had seriously underestimated how many TPs I would actually earn per year! So in the end the mileage runs were probably unnecessary!

Now I no longer need 5000 TPs a year I have no more need for mileage runs, and I wouldn't bother doing any just to keep the CCR card, unless I was really close (say within 100 TPs). This year I will get a few more than 5000 which will keep my CCR card without any runs at all.

oftenfly

I raised this with a couple of senior staff at the Fortnum & Mason GGL event a few months ago and all agreed the inconsistent use of the Concorde tag was confusing.

Evidently, the view has been taken that sufficient numbers of CCRs travel through IAD and BOS, not in F, and that it would risk their having insufficient seats at the tables if we were all let in. So change the name I said. All agreed that would be better as it would save everyone's blushes.

That may be more likely to happen that an expansion of the eligibility criteria.

TheRealBabushka

Here's the question: Now that CCR dining is no more, would it be worthwhile to consider DCA/JFK/LHR? You get to use the CCR facility at JFK plus it's an extra 40 TP for the AA sector (assuming J).
Personally I'm considering flying from BWI on the 787 in the future (BA stopped using A380 from IAD for both services). Both airports are equidistant from MD, where I'm normally at.

Tobias-UK

I would choose the routing that is most convenient to you, rather than on which offers the best lounge options.

gcuk

To that I'd also add choosing the airline that's most convenient and best value. It's quite liberating not being a slave to BA's (or any other airline's)
'loyalty' scheme. Loyalty sadly is a one way street.

camdentown

There is no F lounge at IAD any more. The last refurbishment a few years ago made a Galleries Club lounge, Club pre-flight dining and the Concorde dining room.
There is no dedicated lounge area for F passengers, Gold Card Holders or one-world Emeralds. These passengers can only use the Club lounge area.

The Concorde dining room is primarily for dining, there's no lounge area, just booths with tables and not very comfortable bench seating. There is a tiny area at the entrance to the dining room with two armchairs and a selection of drinks. I suppose that's intended as a waiting area when the dining room is full (which I've never seen to be the case). Only First class passengers are allowed in the dining room (as per the OP reason for this thread).

I've said it before, but I think the lounge arrangements and quality of food and beverage at IAD are poor for a major outstation.

Tobias-UK

There are plenty on FT, I've met quite a few of them in the CCR.

orbitmic

I'm sure that as with any system, there will be people gaming things to achieve such an odd thing as status, although to be honest, I'll admit to be puzzled as to why on earth they would do that myself (for full disclosure, I've never done a 'mileage run' in my life and would never consider it, and I think that anyone who goes to a place just for the purposes of flying straight back on the same plane having just 'cheaply' increased their miles or avios or TP balance should probably be certified without any further testing, however lovely they may be).

What I am saying is that like DYKWIA, I suspect they are a drop of water in the ocean and that from that point of view, FT attracts an unusual crowd and that even on here it is not actually many people whom we are talking about (can people who have a CCR card without needing to travel enough to get it even be counted on more than the fingers of two hands if that?)

There was the same attitudes towards 'EU cheats' as people used to call them before the end of the differentiation of qualifying thresholds. Because a few FTers would go out of their way to find some fake continental address where they did not live in order to be able to qualify with a lower threshold, people on FT were persuaded that EU addresses were something for London based FT-ers to qualify more easily than the rest for BAEC status. The truth was and still is that 99%+ of BAEC members with a continental address of registration were just people based in continental Europe.

This has actually been proved to me to be correct since, at least in France, because the BA people confirmed to me that the change in threshold did not result in any increase of people requesting changes of address of registration from France to UK. If they were 'schemers', they would, because qualification thresholds are the same and a UK address is actually far more beneficial with Amex, 2-4-1, Tesco points and all the rest of it, none of which is available when you are a French resident. If you are GGL or above, you also get invited to plenty of events if your account is registered in the UK and exactly zilch if it is registered in France.

I make exactly the same argument on ex-ABC, which people here see as a cheaper way to fly from London via somewhere else and again London but which in 99% of cases is just used by people who need to leave from and arrive in ABC.

In short, Flyertalk can attract people with an odd passion for 'status for the sake of it' as one of its constituencies, and those people can get very excited, playful, and vocal about the way they manage to achieve their rather idiosyncratic aims, which is perfectly fine, but in my view, they remain a tiny and uncharacteristic proportion of the greater flying public. The immense majority of people I see in the CCR are people I see a lot (in fact very often the same ones, we may have the same flying patterns!) because they need to fly a lot. Most people I see whenever I fly from A to B are people who need to go from A to B, and most people whose account is based in the same area as me also have a genuine address there and find themselves on the same flights as me! The rest is but a small unusual tree that hides a rather normal forest.