77W_12A

There are already restrictions on redemption among oneworld partners. Nothing unusual. Give you an example. If I wanted to redeem PEY from HKG to HND on JL using Asia Miles, it's not allowed.

percysmith

Not just CX flouting the rule http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other...d-seat-oz.html

Guava

The Oneworld spokesperson at the time of this WSJ article was Michael Blunt. There is a few ways I can think of to approach this.

1) I would reach out to the WSJ reporter in question, Scott McCartney (whose contact information is included in the article and implying he wants to be contacted) and let him know that Oneworld appears to be deviating from the stated policy and see if he wishes to check with his sources again on this and possibly write an update given that it's been almost 5 years since he wrote this piece and a lot has changed.

2) Alternatively, one can also do some search and track down the current who's who within the Oneworld administration and ask them about this. You'd be surprised, they sometimes appreciate that you bring an issue like this to their attention or they will simply tell you, the policy has changed or whatever and thank you for your business. It may not be the person you wrote to who will reply but it could be delegated to someone else.

Either way, it's not hard to get Oneworld to clarify this. Once you get a firm response from Oneworld, obviously it has to be in writing, then it would seem logical to then ask Cathay about this assuming Oneworld states that individual airlines may not allocate more seats to their own members unless based on x,y,z criteria (e.g. elite status being a noted exception).

I honestly don't care enough about this change for me to put my time into this but it can be worthwhile to look into this for those who feel slighted by what CX is doing.

If one just assumes as customers we can only react to changes and nothing else can be done, even at face of obvious rule violation, then it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy - nothing will change. On the other hand, let's use the recent example of Qantas First Class lounge access fiasco at LAX which was just opened earlier this year - QF were turning away passengers flying AA by claiming that Oneworld website access policy is wrong. It didn't take long for complaints to pile up either complaining to AA that QF is incorrectly denying them access or through some other channels, I don't know. At the end, they eventually reached the ears of the right persons and now, no one is having issue anymore. Similar to the mini-fiasco where CX is turning away other OW Premium pax at the SFO lounge, it appears to be a direct contradiction of even CX's own website in terms of the access policy but if no one ever says anything, nothing will change. I think most people just don't care enough and airlines know that and feel they can get away with these not-so-important rule violation. But like I said before, one thing I value the most about Oneworld is its consistency. You take that way, it really hurts the very good brand that Oneworld has built over the other two inferior alliances.

By calling CX on this may also stop them from doing drastic changes to MPC because it would signal to them they are being watched carefully and they must comply with the existing rules of Oneworld as opposed to trying to pull off an arrogant SQ style : "We are so superior, nobody else in Star deserves to use our facilities or fly our premium cabin unless they pay with cash."

percysmith

Or they'll reduce award availability even further...

Too much travel

Agreed - an outright bar is the wrong (and illegal) tool in trying to resolve this issue. Perhaps just differential pricing for the overly-generous OneworldFF programmes such as AA will be enough of a mechanism to reduce excess demand.

The benefits of Oneworld and its reciprocity far outweigh the drawbacks, and it is important that the former are preserved.

FlyPointyEnd

Perhaps a way to go around the reciprocity principle for OW carriers, CX can reduce award availability but put back the ability to covert revenue seats for MPC members.

percysmith

Also guava I think it will not be in your interest to resolve this given you're long Asia Miles as you say you are.

Nor my best interest for the matter.

QRC3288

exactly. there are simple workarounds for the issue.

bottom line, which I think CX has realized, is CX's own mileage program is at a disadvantage.

So if it's against OW rules to bar other OW members - ie, decreasing the value of their partner program - then CX has levers to pull to increase the value of MPC/AM. Adjusting either side of the equation can alleviate the issue.

The most direct way related to this award ticket issue is return to allowing MPC members (previously it was DM only) to get cash ticket availability converted into award inventory. I think it was bagold who mentioned in another thread what he preferred about SQ was how SQ released suite inventory to him often when it wasn't available. That's a nice gesture. OW rules shouldn't restrict CX's ability to have a mileage program that is generous towards its high value pax.

Awesom Andy

QF elites already have the published benefit of preferential redemption access to reward seats, so it shouldn't be too hard to implement such a system.

alphaod

I needed a flight PVG-SFO-PVG and I was looking at doing CX as usual. I was thinking of buying and upgrading to either F or J depending on availability, but for the dates I wanted there was no award availability. Being not a fan of CA J, I decided I wanted to try their F, so call their line up and asked about availability. No award seats available, but they told they would send a request for me. Thinking this would mean uncertainly, I went to look at other options, but in less than ten minutes I got a text telling me they opened award space for me and to call them to ticket it!

Now that's what we need on CX. I was looking at my CA benefits and now they clearly list this:


I don't care if they increase DM requirements or have to deal with AA award redeemers, but they really need to give us proper benefits like these.

kaka

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 7_0_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/537.51.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0 Mobile/11A501 Safari/9537.53)

5 years ago it was possible

QRC3288

yea, but big reason we can't get F awards is the way the system is currently structured, and inevitably the partner awards are significant part of that. For example, our waitlist is a partially bogus "benefit". Here's an example similar to one I've faced before:

Say:
1.) CX DM flying to LAX in F on August 30. Wants companion to fly with him. Flight is 2 months in advance and plan is to use a full F award for the companion seat (not upgrade award).
2.) F award isn't available on any flight that day, even though seats are available for cash sale on every flight that same day.
3.) J award is available. DM books J for the companion, but doesn't ticket the J seat, and waitlists for F hoping to sit together.
4.) 1 month out, F award still not available. CX forces the DM to ticket the J seat. DM's companion is now removed from F waitlist, because the J seat is already ticketed and the refund isn't allowed. Even if #5 happens, below.
5.) F award opens up a few days before flight, but now because the waitlist is cleared (due to forced ticketing of the DM's companion J ticket), anyone - usually partner awards - grabs the seat.

In essence by forcing CX members to ticket their award seats well in advance, and not allowing refunds even if a higher class opens up (or charging change fees within the same class), CX is actually mooting its own waitlist "benefit" for MPCs and creating a waitlist of sorts for AA members. Provided AA members religiously call to check seat availability, which from reading this forum appears to be exactly what they do.

The other extenuating factor is that AA EXPs it sounds like can create heaps of F/J award bookings on CX, many of which they don't intend to fly on. These are basically placeholders until the flights they want open up. Since those AA members have no consequences for this - cancellations are free, by my understanding - they are highly incentivized to behave this way. I'd do it myself if I were in their shoes. The knock-on effect of this situation is using my example above, it's possible I can't get the F flight for my companion on August 30 because an AA member is using that as a placeholder, and it's unlikely he/she will even end up using that inventory! Then, weeks after we are culled off the waitlist because we're forced to book the companion into J, that F seat is released back into inventory when the AA member cancels, only to be grabbed by another AA member at the last minute.

Mind you, I only discovered this phenomenon in 2015...had I known about it before, I probably would've earned mileage on AA after hitting DM. The main thing stopping me now is reading rumors in here that a.) AA is going to change their program, and b.) sometime in the coming year it seems likely CX will cut off or restrict partner redemptions.

Cathay Boy

I think CX is thinking they have so many DMs if they offer guaranteed awards/upgrades it will be a nightmare (for them). I am always amazed how a whole family of Taiwanese businessman are DM because they travel back and forth so much, and pretty much rack up major sectors.

Maxxis

If its such a nightmare for CX to have thousands of Taiwan DMs, then they should go ahead and do away earning status by sectors.

AC340-541

Agree.

Or have a sector + minimum mileage threshold.