FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Cathay Pacific | Cathay (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay-487/)
-   -   MPC Changes...2 years on? Was it successful? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay/1998748-mpc-changes-2-years-successful.html)

LapuLapu Dec 7, 2019 8:04 am

MPC Changes...2 years on? Was it successful?
 
Were the changes implemented by CX 2-3 years ago effective? Worth it? did they achieve their goals?

It became more restrictive and harder to re-qualify for me so that I moved on after 12 years of blind loyalty to CX (Gold with a couple of diamond years) and on to EVA and Star Alliance. The changes implemented meant I would had to fly 5.5 round trips in Econ to re-qualify for gold yearly and I was averaging only 4 trips per year. From a dollar standpoint, I'm pretty insignificant, but trying to maintain status also meant paying 1100 to 1600 for Econ fares to get full mileage credits.

Here's what I miss not being with CX in comparison to EVA.

1. HKG Airport... TPE is not even close
2. HKG Lounges - enough said
3. OP UP's - I was about at 25% rate of getting op up...flying LAX-MNL-LAX route
4. The friendly service from non-HKG based FA's. They were warmer and friendlier to deal with compared to the brusque approach of the HKG (Chinese) crew. CX was truly a great world airline when they were actively recruiting FA's from all over the region.
5. Frequency of flights between MNL and HKG.
6. HKG the city in general...
7. The old fare guarantee policy within 72 hours. I used this one a lot!

What I like about EVA and Star Alliance
1. Cheaper fares for Premium Econ. Usually 1300usd is the norm vs the 1800-2000 CX charges. (LAX-MNL)
2. Easier re-qualification. 80000 miles within a 2 year period re-qualifies for Gold
3. FA's are friendly but you do have to ask them instead of them offering something.

I do wish Cathay can weather the current storm but i can't help but think, they deserve some of the aches they are suffering now.

HarbourGent Dec 8, 2019 7:18 am

I don't know what their goals were. It may be that a couple of goals were achieved:

- reducing the cost of low yield high status members e.g. stopping access to CX lounges when flying on non-One World carriers, and
- getting a bit of extra loyalty from some higher status passengers, by introducing mid-tier upgrades. I don't know how widespread this is, but one reads at least some stories here on FT and in personal experience of flying CX to make a mid-tier level.
Both seem rather minor to me. The goal of retaining and perhaps growing loyalty (maybe at lower cost to the company) must have been the much bigger one and on this I think the changes have probably been a disaster for CX. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence on FT from heavyweight customers such as QRC3288, and I have seen some in my social group, that:
- the changes were seen as a slap in the face and caused a lot of people to shift from a sense of loyalty to Cathay to regarding Cathay more like a preferred dance partner. You feel you ought to dance with her, but she's not your wife (or even your mistress).
- Spend has shifted in line with perceived programme benefits. Specific examples (contra the above) include people shifting spend to other airlines as soon as status is achieved.
- Most importantly I suspect, passengers have seriously tried other airlines by choice which has caused them to reconsider CX's value proposition for the first time and find it lacking. There are a load of threads here, and I have done the same myself, where high status loyalists have said that the changes more or less directly led them to start putting serious money the way of EK/SQ/BR (like the poster) and so on.
My hunch is that in that sense, by forcing away a lot of profitable business and decision influencers, the changes have been a disaster for CX though the full extent will only be clear over five or ten years.
CX's strategy was to squeeze its loyalists and people it thought of as hub captives as hard as possible, and the MPC changes reflected that but were only one manifestation of it - everything from seat reconfiguration to HK vs. China pricing took the same line. The loyalists turned out to have finite loyalty when put upon, and even passengers previously seen as hub captives have in some cases decided that they aren't hub captives in fact, with a stop on BR or EK etc. not the end of the world.
The strategy reflects the airline's dire management thinking in recent years - this year's events have compounded that as a woe, but it was longstanding in any case. Sadly I think the MPC changes were just one indicative chapter in CX's long-term decline as an independent airline, which is reversible but I think not with the current strategy.

percysmith Dec 8, 2019 8:10 am

I'm just wondering how many MPO Elites have (re-)qualified as a result of personal spending, as opposed to, work paying for their travel?

To me the new MPO is mostly a job perk.

CXFlyerBoy Dec 8, 2019 8:39 am


Originally Posted by percysmith (Post 31818161)
I'm just wondering how many MPO Elites have (re-)qualified as a result of personal spending, as opposed to, work paying for their travel?

To me the new MPO is mostly a job perk.

I do. My 600 ish is usually from E or R class SIN HKG. Company only pays SNQ for SIN SFO

HaikalS Dec 8, 2019 5:51 pm


Originally Posted by percysmith (Post 31818161)
I'm just wondering how many MPO Elites have (re-)qualified as a result of personal spending, as opposed to, work paying for their travel?

To me the new MPO is mostly a job perk.

I do - I mainly use CX for commuting between TPE and CGK. With the MPO changes I actually find myself "optimizing" and spreading spend between CX, BR, CI or SQ once status is achieved. Or if flying CX is unavoidable, crediting to AS

Jane's Addiction Dec 8, 2019 6:40 pm

in my case the changes made it easier (i..e fewer flights) for me to get 1600 CPs each year (my patter is mostly regional flying in J). And since I increasingly feel no reason to be loyal to CX anymore, I now actively manage my flights now to not go much above 1600 CPs. In the past I would activity manage to achieve the threshold. The rest goes mainly to SQ. Good for me. Maybe not ideal for CX. Easily fixable, if they cared.

Chromie25 Dec 8, 2019 6:56 pm


Originally Posted by Jane's Addiction (Post 31819750)
And since I increasingly feel no reason to be loyal to CX anymore, I now actively manage my flights now to not go much above 1600 CPs.

I think that sums it up. I became an active manager and a lot more open to different routings/airlines/programs whenever I fly. Having said that if you are based in HKG CX often remains the best choice taking into account flight times/convenience/cost. They gouge like heck but from my recent TYO trip I can totally see why and I would even commend them for having such a good pricing model (from a business perspective).

FlyPointyEnd Dec 8, 2019 7:29 pm

For me, I actually like the new program more, under the old program I had to add 2-3 miles runs to get to DM, after the change I was able to qualify within the 12months easily but after they awarded more cub points for regional flights I normally hit DM in 9-10 months. Thanks to the error fare last January, I am set to hit in 7 months.

sxc Dec 8, 2019 11:26 pm

There did seem to be some "panic activity" from CX about a year and a half after the new system as they saw people no longer qualifying for status. Not sure if this translated to reduced revenue, but the way they were giving gratis requalifications sounds like it didn't initially go as planned. They also seem to be more generous with requalifying people who are just short on an ongoing basis now.

I've expressed this previously, but the new earning patterns meant earning status from J class has become easier, and Y class is harder. So in all likelihood those who are captured by CX due to their job - not much change in their behaviour. For those who were able to get status flying from their own pocket, if they could see status was no longer attainable, then they were "set free". I know I have been, and my discretionary spending has gone to many other airlines that would have likely stayed with CX. Plus, CX has lost the data that they would have held on me before.

etkuo Dec 9, 2019 12:21 am


Originally Posted by percysmith (Post 31818161)
I'm just wondering how many MPO Elites have (re-)qualified as a result of personal spending, as opposed to, work paying for their travel?

To me the new MPO is mostly a job perk.

I do, although it is definitely harder than before.

My spending pattern is long haul R class plus a few regional in lowest economy, all personal travel.

I redeem AM from my R tickets to U, so I am kinda tied to MPC unfortunately.

jagmeets Dec 9, 2019 1:59 am

Paid discounted biz traveller here..CX gets less of my business now, but making DM and getting the BUDs (the thing that I value) is actually easier under the new scheme of things, so CX lost both ends.. Definitely less loyal, given the overall apathetic vibes ..

boybi Dec 11, 2019 3:33 am

Do we have any data if MPC members have travelled less with CX/KA, switched or credited their miles to other alliance, or stopped any flying with CX? Aside from FT members?

Maybe someone here have inside info on MPC?

GorillaW Dec 11, 2019 4:55 am

Gained 3260 CP this year more than last year (3000) >90% with CXKA
Renewed DM twice this year in February and October at CP 1800
All revenue tickets were for biz and redemption tickets for vacation
Personal expenditure mainly spent on *A/ ST and EK
Redemptions were getting harder and harder
Bookable upgrades were available usually in last two days before departure
I suggested to MPO free CX holiday coupons or free 3D2N vacation when reached CP 2500 to MPO
as there is no motivation to move beyond CP 1800
F lounges service getting worse and overcrowded and sometimes I prefer to grab some quick food at J lounges
Will look for a new OW program coz I found CX perks are getting less interesting

ernestnywang Dec 12, 2019 4:32 am


Originally Posted by GorillaW (Post 31828396)
I suggested to MPO free CX holiday coupons or free 3D2N vacation when reached CP 2500 to MPO

May not be very useful for members who are not HKG-based.

OneWorldLoyalist Dec 12, 2019 10:26 pm


Originally Posted by HarbourGent (Post 31818037)
I don't know what their goals were. It may be that a couple of goals were achieved:

- reducing the cost of low yield high status members e.g. stopping access to CX lounges when flying on non-One World carriers, and
- getting a bit of extra loyalty from some higher status passengers, by introducing mid-tier upgrades. I don't know how widespread this is, but one reads at least some stories here on FT and in personal experience of flying CX to make a mid-tier level.
Both seem rather minor to me. The goal of retaining and perhaps growing loyalty (maybe at lower cost to the company) must have been the much bigger one and on this I think the changes have probably been a disaster for CX. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence on FT from heavyweight customers such as QRC3288, and I have seen some in my social group, that:
- the changes were seen as a slap in the face and caused a lot of people to shift from a sense of loyalty to Cathay to regarding Cathay more like a preferred dance partner. You feel you ought to dance with her, but she's not your wife (or even your mistress).
- Spend has shifted in line with perceived programme benefits. Specific examples (contra the above) include people shifting spend to other airlines as soon as status is achieved.
- Most importantly I suspect, passengers have seriously tried other airlines by choice which has caused them to reconsider CX's value proposition for the first time and find it lacking. There are a load of threads here, and I have done the same myself, where high status loyalists have said that the changes more or less directly led them to start putting serious money the way of EK/SQ/BR (like the poster) and so on.
My hunch is that in that sense, by forcing away a lot of profitable business and decision influencers, the changes have been a disaster for CX though the full extent will only be clear over five or ten years.
CX's strategy was to squeeze its loyalists and people it thought of as hub captives as hard as possible, and the MPC changes reflected that but were only one manifestation of it - everything from seat reconfiguration to HK vs. China pricing took the same line. The loyalists turned out to have finite loyalty when put upon, and even passengers previously seen as hub captives have in some cases decided that they aren't hub captives in fact, with a stop on BR or EK etc. not the end of the world.
The strategy reflects the airline's dire management thinking in recent years - this year's events have compounded that as a woe, but it was longstanding in any case. Sadly I think the MPC changes were just one indicative chapter in CX's long-term decline as an independent airline, which is reversible but I think not with the current strategy.


Welll said!!!

My 2-cents
- I must say i dont use that mid tier upgrade as often as i should. I think iv only gifted 1 lounge pass since the mid tier benefit started and the rest have expired.
- The bookable upgrade was a good though and initially it was easy to utilise/claim but it seems like its getting harder and harder to claim (maybe cause i try to use it to upgrade from J to F.
- Biggest annoyance for me is the HK v CHN pricing. in November pricing for J ex CHN (PEK and SHG) to NYC (JFK/EWR) was around 18,000 RMB (~20,000 HKD) versus ex HKG which was around 70 k. I assume most people wouldnt do what im sure some of us do here (me included) where I redeemed a 1 way PEK flight, turned around on the 3am flight worked all day when i got back to HKG then flew out again on CX890. ended up trashing the last leg of the ticket which was HKG - PEK. HKD 70K is alot for round trip business to NYC


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.