Class Upgrade Bidding Initiative - your feedback sought
May 28, 2014, 3:07 am
#76
Suspended
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,952
Is there a new Oneworld rule that one can only accumulate miles on the same airline that runs that frequent flyer programme?!
No-one is asking you to stop flying CX. We're just advocating that people stop racking up miles on Marco Polo if the op-up benefit is de facto taken away, as will be the case if /when CX moves to this system.
No-one is asking you to stop flying CX. We're just advocating that people stop racking up miles on Marco Polo if the op-up benefit is de facto taken away, as will be the case if /when CX moves to this system.
i guess its ok if you guys still thinks DM forcing award seats to open isnt worth anything. CX wouldnt mind either...
May 28, 2014, 4:08 am
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,568
I will try to answer the questions posed by the OP.
1. I have used the bidding system a few times on EY (for upgrades from paid J to F). The time frame is approx the one described. EY sets a reservation price, but it seems that they would even accept a bid below that. I found the price quite attractive. The OP specifically refers to a bidding process and such "gambling" might be attractive to Chinese. The other airlines that I know proceed differently. For example BA and AF (now) sometimes offer you online to upgrade for a set price. That price varies and Probably depends on the fare you used, and of course the routing and availability. This is a confirmed upgrade, not a bidding process. TG offer upgrades at the airport for a fixed price (independent of what you paid).
2. The process could be of interest to CX and to some pax. This is especially the case of those traveling on tickets paid by the company with a strict travel-class policy.
3. We are talking here about cash not upgrade with miles. Hence, it should be open to any paid pax, like on other airlines. I understand that the general public of this forum is biased towards MPC members, but I believe that the cash bidding process should be available to any pax. I do understand that a process of upgrade for cash is reducing the number of free opups and that would be a disadvantage for MPC elites, but that's life. CX is charging the same ticket price for MPCs and non-MPCs, it would seem odd to distinguish for paid upgrades.
4. Timing seems reasonable.
1. I have used the bidding system a few times on EY (for upgrades from paid J to F). The time frame is approx the one described. EY sets a reservation price, but it seems that they would even accept a bid below that. I found the price quite attractive. The OP specifically refers to a bidding process and such "gambling" might be attractive to Chinese. The other airlines that I know proceed differently. For example BA and AF (now) sometimes offer you online to upgrade for a set price. That price varies and Probably depends on the fare you used, and of course the routing and availability. This is a confirmed upgrade, not a bidding process. TG offer upgrades at the airport for a fixed price (independent of what you paid).
2. The process could be of interest to CX and to some pax. This is especially the case of those traveling on tickets paid by the company with a strict travel-class policy.
3. We are talking here about cash not upgrade with miles. Hence, it should be open to any paid pax, like on other airlines. I understand that the general public of this forum is biased towards MPC members, but I believe that the cash bidding process should be available to any pax. I do understand that a process of upgrade for cash is reducing the number of free opups and that would be a disadvantage for MPC elites, but that's life. CX is charging the same ticket price for MPCs and non-MPCs, it would seem odd to distinguish for paid upgrades.
4. Timing seems reasonable.
May 28, 2014, 4:45 am
#78
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: LON
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 172
It's somewhat ironic that airlines have a financial disincentive to have their fliers bank miles to their mileage program while using the same tool to encourage loyalty.
I know Asia Miles is a separate entity but its wholly owned by CX which ultimately has to bear all the miles it gives out as a contingent liability on their books.
May 28, 2014, 4:56 am
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,568
When a pax on CX "banks" miles to another OW FFP, CX "pays" the other FFP. When the other FFP buys an award ticket on CX, it "pays" CX.
May 28, 2014, 11:18 am
#80
formerly ssw207
Join Date: Apr 2000
Programs: BAGld, JLJGC, TK*G, EK-G, HH Dia,IHG Amb-PE, Bonvoy Gd, Shangrila DM
Posts: 657
These are my reasons to say NO to the bidding process:
1) CX is a mainline airline, not a LCC. MPC is a more formal loyalty program for the frequent customers on CX, versus Asia Miles is a mainstream consumer rewards program. The best example of this is the AirMiles program in Canada.
2) CXAM, given its consumer/commercial nature, they can partner with whoever is out there and run these bids, lucky draws or whatever marketing schemes to win/redeem miles for the masses. Meanwhile, as a MPC member, I would prefer traditional methods of attaining status and certain benefits (such as Involuntary upgrades).
3) Asking for bids for upgrade cheapens the overall experience of CX as such marketing activities are often associated with mainstream consumer marketing targeting the lower ends of customers. Fanfares is a hugely successful marketing campaign because people know for sure they can secure a ticket from Point A to Point B at Price $X, despite of its limited inventory. This encourages people to check frequently for the next round of Fanfares. On the contrary, like other members who posted, a bidding process usually disappoints most people and only a few people will win their bid, so you are generating negative goodwill. Also it can be deduced easily the "reserve price" of CX through repeated bidding attempts.
4) The attempts of further segregating CXAM and CXMPC from CX itself will turn it into what was Air Canada's Aeroplan product - a mass market consumer program with no prestige for the frequent fliers. I was an AC Elite *G for 5 years until its spin-off turned the program into a circus and I totally stopped flying AC and Star Alliance. CXAM is clearly following this path to spinoff and even an IPO.
5) Therefore I think CX can attempt the bidding marketing strategy but stick with CXAM and do it in relation to mileage upgrades (MPC members can also participate if they like). Also, why not offer paid discounted upgrades like BA on the spot? That way the customer knows he will get the upgraded seat and pay immediately, and CX cashes in.
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
May 28, 2014, 7:29 pm
#81
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Inverness FL
Programs: American, United, Alaska, IHG Gold, Amtrak
Posts: 58
While retired and not a frequent flyer anymore I prefer quality over frequency. I would rather buy into a more exclusive product than to have an E-bay style bidding war for seats and service.
May 28, 2014, 9:38 pm
#82
Suspended
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,952
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
and if it's for J, mmmh......
May 28, 2014, 10:52 pm
#83
formerly ssw207
Join Date: Apr 2000
Programs: BAGld, JLJGC, TK*G, EK-G, HH Dia,IHG Amb-PE, Bonvoy Gd, Shangrila DM
Posts: 657
You don't need an executive chef from Tosca to figure out such simple things.
May 28, 2014, 11:40 pm
#85
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,172
I am one of those who defected from MPC to other OW FFPs. I clock around 60-120K elite qualifying miles on oneWorld annually therefore I could make CX GO or DM. My trips are usually paid J.
These are my reasons to say NO to the bidding process:
1) CX is a mainline airline, not a LCC. MPC is a more formal loyalty program for the frequent customers on CX, versus Asia Miles is a mainstream consumer rewards program. The best example of this is the AirMiles program in Canada.
2) CXAM, given its consumer/commercial nature, they can partner with whoever is out there and run these bids, lucky draws or whatever marketing schemes to win/redeem miles for the masses. Meanwhile, as a MPC member, I would prefer traditional methods of attaining status and certain benefits (such as Involuntary upgrades).
3) Asking for bids for upgrade cheapens the overall experience of CX as such marketing activities are often associated with mainstream consumer marketing targeting the lower ends of customers. Fanfares is a hugely successful marketing campaign because people know for sure they can secure a ticket from Point A to Point B at Price $X, despite of its limited inventory. This encourages people to check frequently for the next round of Fanfares. On the contrary, like other members who posted, a bidding process usually disappoints most people and only a few people will win their bid, so you are generating negative goodwill. Also it can be deduced easily the "reserve price" of CX through repeated bidding attempts.
4) The attempts of further segregating CXAM and CXMPC from CX itself will turn it into what was Air Canada's Aeroplan product - a mass market consumer program with no prestige for the frequent fliers. I was an AC Elite *G for 5 years until its spin-off turned the program into a circus and I totally stopped flying AC and Star Alliance. CXAM is clearly following this path to spinoff and even an IPO.
5) Therefore I think CX can attempt the bidding marketing strategy but stick with CXAM and do it in relation to mileage upgrades (MPC members can also participate if they like). Also, why not offer paid discounted upgrades like BA on the spot? That way the customer knows he will get the upgraded seat and pay immediately, and CX cashes in.
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
These are my reasons to say NO to the bidding process:
1) CX is a mainline airline, not a LCC. MPC is a more formal loyalty program for the frequent customers on CX, versus Asia Miles is a mainstream consumer rewards program. The best example of this is the AirMiles program in Canada.
2) CXAM, given its consumer/commercial nature, they can partner with whoever is out there and run these bids, lucky draws or whatever marketing schemes to win/redeem miles for the masses. Meanwhile, as a MPC member, I would prefer traditional methods of attaining status and certain benefits (such as Involuntary upgrades).
3) Asking for bids for upgrade cheapens the overall experience of CX as such marketing activities are often associated with mainstream consumer marketing targeting the lower ends of customers. Fanfares is a hugely successful marketing campaign because people know for sure they can secure a ticket from Point A to Point B at Price $X, despite of its limited inventory. This encourages people to check frequently for the next round of Fanfares. On the contrary, like other members who posted, a bidding process usually disappoints most people and only a few people will win their bid, so you are generating negative goodwill. Also it can be deduced easily the "reserve price" of CX through repeated bidding attempts.
4) The attempts of further segregating CXAM and CXMPC from CX itself will turn it into what was Air Canada's Aeroplan product - a mass market consumer program with no prestige for the frequent fliers. I was an AC Elite *G for 5 years until its spin-off turned the program into a circus and I totally stopped flying AC and Star Alliance. CXAM is clearly following this path to spinoff and even an IPO.
5) Therefore I think CX can attempt the bidding marketing strategy but stick with CXAM and do it in relation to mileage upgrades (MPC members can also participate if they like). Also, why not offer paid discounted upgrades like BA on the spot? That way the customer knows he will get the upgraded seat and pay immediately, and CX cashes in.
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
Such a bidding for upgrades program will quickly cheapen the airline and ultimately kill it. It will be worse than AC or UA doing this because CX is perceived to be a much better airline with premium classes worthy of their price-tags. There is a good reason why there aren't jumbo sales for top designer brands such as Chanel and Hermes such as full-page ads plastered on the media and shop windows (like Wellcome and Park N Shop or Wing On). They pitch different markets. It is not that the top boutiques do not wish to sell remaining stock but that cheapening their image will do more harm than good.
May 29, 2014, 1:07 am
#86
Suspended
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,952
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)
I agree.
Such a bidding for upgrades program will quickly cheapen the airline and ultimately kill it. It will be worse than AC or UA doing this because CX is perceived to be a much better airline with premium classes worthy of their price-tags. There is a good reason why there aren't jumbo sales for top designer brands such as Chanel and Hermes such as full-page ads plastered on the media and shop windows (like Wellcome and Park N Shop or Wing On). They pitch different markets. It is not that the top boutiques do not wish to sell remaining stock but that cheapening their image will do more harm than good.
They do sell them, they just dont sell it out loud. Just the same as why cx should sell their upgrades out loud. Also this is why i suggested using miles as a token not cash - people needs to slap on a value of miles before thei can compare... And to many ppl (especially low fare class fanfarers) such value simply does not exist. I dont disagree that cx shouldnt sell these upgrades- just certainly not to anyone who simply has access to cash. AM holders and OW elites would be a good indicator (disclaimer, im a ow elite n cx gr holder based in hk)
Originally Posted by IncyWincy
I am one of those who defected from MPC to other OW FFPs. I clock around 60-120K elite qualifying miles on oneWorld annually therefore I could make CX GO or DM. My trips are usually paid J.
These are my reasons to say NO to the bidding process:
1) CX is a mainline airline, not a LCC. MPC is a more formal loyalty program for the frequent customers on CX, versus Asia Miles is a mainstream consumer rewards program. The best example of this is the AirMiles program in Canada.
2) CXAM, given its consumer/commercial nature, they can partner with whoever is out there and run these bids, lucky draws or whatever marketing schemes to win/redeem miles for the masses. Meanwhile, as a MPC member, I would prefer traditional methods of attaining status and certain benefits (such as Involuntary upgrades).
3) Asking for bids for upgrade cheapens the overall experience of CX as such marketing activities are often associated with mainstream consumer marketing targeting the lower ends of customers. Fanfares is a hugely successful marketing campaign because people know for sure they can secure a ticket from Point A to Point B at Price $X, despite of its limited inventory. This encourages people to check frequently for the next round of Fanfares. On the contrary, like other members who posted, a bidding process usually disappoints most people and only a few people will win their bid, so you are generating negative goodwill. Also it can be deduced easily the "reserve price" of CX through repeated bidding attempts.
4) The attempts of further segregating CXAM and CXMPC from CX itself will turn it into what was Air Canada's Aeroplan product - a mass market consumer program with no prestige for the frequent fliers. I was an AC Elite *G for 5 years until its spin-off turned the program into a circus and I totally stopped flying AC and Star Alliance. CXAM is clearly following this path to spinoff and even an IPO.
5) Therefore I think CX can attempt the bidding marketing strategy but stick with CXAM and do it in relation to mileage upgrades (MPC members can also participate if they like). Also, why not offer paid discounted upgrades like BA on the spot? That way the customer knows he will get the upgraded seat and pay immediately, and CX cashes in.
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
These are my reasons to say NO to the bidding process:
1) CX is a mainline airline, not a LCC. MPC is a more formal loyalty program for the frequent customers on CX, versus Asia Miles is a mainstream consumer rewards program. The best example of this is the AirMiles program in Canada.
2) CXAM, given its consumer/commercial nature, they can partner with whoever is out there and run these bids, lucky draws or whatever marketing schemes to win/redeem miles for the masses. Meanwhile, as a MPC member, I would prefer traditional methods of attaining status and certain benefits (such as Involuntary upgrades).
3) Asking for bids for upgrade cheapens the overall experience of CX as such marketing activities are often associated with mainstream consumer marketing targeting the lower ends of customers. Fanfares is a hugely successful marketing campaign because people know for sure they can secure a ticket from Point A to Point B at Price $X, despite of its limited inventory. This encourages people to check frequently for the next round of Fanfares. On the contrary, like other members who posted, a bidding process usually disappoints most people and only a few people will win their bid, so you are generating negative goodwill. Also it can be deduced easily the "reserve price" of CX through repeated bidding attempts.
4) The attempts of further segregating CXAM and CXMPC from CX itself will turn it into what was Air Canada's Aeroplan product - a mass market consumer program with no prestige for the frequent fliers. I was an AC Elite *G for 5 years until its spin-off turned the program into a circus and I totally stopped flying AC and Star Alliance. CXAM is clearly following this path to spinoff and even an IPO.
5) Therefore I think CX can attempt the bidding marketing strategy but stick with CXAM and do it in relation to mileage upgrades (MPC members can also participate if they like). Also, why not offer paid discounted upgrades like BA on the spot? That way the customer knows he will get the upgraded seat and pay immediately, and CX cashes in.
6) Your client's marketing team aren't exactly the sharpest pencils around. I was invited to a CX focus group discussion. They bought us takeout from Tsui Wah Restaurant since it was 8pm, and asked us about the quality of inflight meals. All of us said, why don't CX have Tsui Wah do the catering?
Such a bidding for upgrades program will quickly cheapen the airline and ultimately kill it. It will be worse than AC or UA doing this because CX is perceived to be a much better airline with premium classes worthy of their price-tags. There is a good reason why there aren't jumbo sales for top designer brands such as Chanel and Hermes such as full-page ads plastered on the media and shop windows (like Wellcome and Park N Shop or Wing On). They pitch different markets. It is not that the top boutiques do not wish to sell remaining stock but that cheapening their image will do more harm than good.
May 29, 2014, 1:21 am
#87
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SIN
Programs: TK-G | Accor P | SQ-G | Marriott T
Posts: 3,831
Just to summarize good ideas, I now amend my proposal:
1) One class upgrade opportunity. Y only to Y+, Y+ only to J, J to F if available.
2) There should be a limit of fare purchased to be eligible to upgrade. Similar to only Y, B, H, K fare can use miles to upgrade. Maybe Y to Y+ last-minute upgrade only available to Y, B, H, K, M fares. Only W, R fares can upgrade to J. J, I fare can go after last minute upgrade to F.
3) The bidding should be based on a range of price not a fixed price. For example, 48 hours prior to flight an email sent to all Y flyers saying:"Upgrade yourself in the last minute, bid between $500 to $1000 for a chance to fly Y+!" So you have many solicitors bidding $500 to someone bidding $1000 and numbers in between, and the highest few wins.
4) Should the same amount of money be bidden, the tie-breaker is based on tier. If a DM and a SL both bid $1000, the winner goes to the DM.
5) Higher tier gets "bonus percentage" in their bid. For example a DM gets 30% boost, GO 20%, SL 10%, GR and AM none. So a DM bidding $800 the system will treat it as bidding $1040. A GO bidding $900 the system will treat it as bidding $1080
1) One class upgrade opportunity. Y only to Y+, Y+ only to J, J to F if available.
2) There should be a limit of fare purchased to be eligible to upgrade. Similar to only Y, B, H, K fare can use miles to upgrade. Maybe Y to Y+ last-minute upgrade only available to Y, B, H, K, M fares. Only W, R fares can upgrade to J. J, I fare can go after last minute upgrade to F.
3) The bidding should be based on a range of price not a fixed price. For example, 48 hours prior to flight an email sent to all Y flyers saying:"Upgrade yourself in the last minute, bid between $500 to $1000 for a chance to fly Y+!" So you have many solicitors bidding $500 to someone bidding $1000 and numbers in between, and the highest few wins.
4) Should the same amount of money be bidden, the tie-breaker is based on tier. If a DM and a SL both bid $1000, the winner goes to the DM.
5) Higher tier gets "bonus percentage" in their bid. For example a DM gets 30% boost, GO 20%, SL 10%, GR and AM none. So a DM bidding $800 the system will treat it as bidding $1040. A GO bidding $900 the system will treat it as bidding $1080
- For Y class include all the sub class that can earn sector or full miles, this means V class and above.
- the bidding should be closed 12 (or 24) hours before the so you will know the result before hands. -- this will also allow CX to still do ops up if still no bidders.
- I think there should be a floor or the bidding as you mentioned. Perhaps it should be at least 50% of the difference between the cheapest original class to the next class, so from Y to Y+ should be from V to W?
But I think the more important thing is for CX to first offer the product consistently. I will not bid from Y to C if I do not know if it will be new C or old C in SIN-HKG flight. Or what happen if I win the bidding to upgrade from Y to Y+ on SIN-HKG and for last minute they swap the plane with no Y+?
May 29, 2014, 1:53 am
#88
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: OneWorld Emerald (BA GGL), *A Silver (Miles & Less), Skyteam Pleb (KLM FlyingBlue), Mucci Platinum
Posts: 907
Such a bidding for upgrades program will quickly cheapen the airline and ultimately kill it. It will be worse than AC or UA doing this because CX is perceived to be a much better airline with premium classes worthy of their price-tags. There is a good reason why there aren't jumbo sales for top designer brands such as Chanel and Hermes such as full-page ads plastered on the media and shop windows (like Wellcome and Park N Shop or Wing On). They pitch different markets. It is not that the top boutiques do not wish to sell remaining stock but that cheapening their image will do more harm than good.
It really is pathetic: CX is meant to be a premium airline. It's not frigging Mongkok market. All those years of positive brand-building is being so needlessly spoilt by poor executive decision-making.
May 29, 2014, 5:34 pm
#89
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Don't know....
Programs: BA LTG, SQ TPPS, CX DMP, AA EXP, Bonvoy LTT, ALL PLT, Hilton DM
Posts: 4,010
If CX starts offering bids into F class I will completely stop flying CX! It is already bad enough that they overbook the back and consistently move people up to F even though it has gotten better lately.
I fly 40 paid F segments a year... about 25 of those on CX... all CX segments will be gone to somewhere else if they start bidding for F or significantly overbook J because of bidding.
I fly 40 paid F segments a year... about 25 of those on CX... all CX segments will be gone to somewhere else if they start bidding for F or significantly overbook J because of bidding.
May 29, 2014, 5:50 pm
#90
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX Diamond (OW Emerald), former SQ Krisflyer Gold
Posts: 2,527