Fingers crossed this means we're done with a MPC overhaul and we aren't expecting more changes in the near future

I appreciate that the changes might spark discussion on potential changes in the near future. I must emphasise that speculating is fundamentally different to a wrong statement of fact, which could misguide many readers. There is nothing against the community guidelines regarding hoping for changes. On the contrary, posting inaccurate information, such as the photoshopped Aerolopa seating plans in the past, would create a lot of trouble for the moderation team. I did not, do not, and will not intend to discourage anyone from participating in the discussion.

On a personal note, the survey, which had many different versions, asked questions beyond status point-earning adjustments. Whether those proposals would bear fruit, I have no idea, nor have I been asked in person to give feedback. I am certain that there are more knowledgeable posters here who could contribute to the discussion. I only want the unlimited ticketing deadline back and save me the trouble of calling CS every week.

CWB

Thanks for the suggestions. My comments refer to my preference that they do a large/larger revamp rather than trickling down smaller changes every few months. Perhaps that is risk-management on the part of CX. FWIW, according to Bain studies, majority of the spending in the global luxury market (I've seen numbers ranging from 55% to 75%) comes from middle- and lower-income consumers. Many have to do pre-purchase planning to mitigate uncertainties. With insufficient information, some tend to conduct even more thorough researches before deciding while some might temporarily withhold purchases. This may not necessarily always be good for the business. CX might not like dealing with these "planning" consumers but if there is significant drop-off from them, the slack will have to be picked up by some other parties within the ecosystem.

I fully understand, as in most facets of life, we will always face with uncertainty and that we may not get what we prefer or want. I do not find that unbearable.

(It may be arguable how representative the airline travel market is of the global luxury market or vice-versa but there are similarities in consumers' dynamics between the two).

Just made this table myself. Hope I didn't make any mistake, but please help proofread if someone can.

Personally, as someone who primarily buys ECONLIGHT tickets, this is going to make it even harder for me to renew GO. I can buy all my tickets for the rest of the year by 20AUG, but I don't know what status I can realistically retain moving into 2027.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...41ff8da1fd.png

Deleted

Thanks for the work. I helped proofread it. The figures are correct.

Thanks a bunch!

Still doesn't change the fact that you only get 16 (8 X 2) status points when you spend HKD$5.5k+ to buy HKG-HND return in economy light. ;)

Does this apply also to UO codeshares on CX flight numbers?

Exactly! I couldn't agree more!

This is really appreciated! Thanks! I was thinking about making one. Apparently, I am not as motivated as you:)

Wish there are more changes to the current Status (diamond/gold/silver) system.

It is a pain to everyone that the "leftover" status points dont carry over to the next tier.
Pax have to plan and remove/add ff numbers, cx rep have to add/remove etc
Then u get those bad CX actors stealing flight miles using fake ff numbers

Also Silver shouldnt get unlimited lounge visits, CX lounges in HKG are crazy crowded
Saying this as a Silver member

That's your opinion, which of course you're free to voice. But many others will totally disagree. I guess no matter what CX does on this (whether to continue with unlimited access or curtail/eliminate it), there will always be people complaining about whatever the policy is.

I think CX management also sees it as an issue, and tried relieving pressure on lounges as one of the outcomes of this change. With reduced status points earning on econ light, it would be harder to attain status for frequent low-Y flyers who would have been paying quite some more visits to lounges than general pax.

And that's how you lose a lot of the HK based leisure travellers who fly on CX.
If any reduction of perks takes place, OWE and OWS (flying on CX Y/PY) should be the first to have such "restrictions" imposed on them (for example, access to 1 lounge only). Similar to what QR does to that set of passengers at DOH.