Guy Betsy

You flew MH into China ??

Where from ? KUL ?

Cathay Boy

crap, did I get MU and MH messed up?

Crap

percysmith

One of the current benefits of GO/DM is higher priority of op-up in a oversold flight.

What's the worth of this for Titaniums? Titaniums will more than less likely be travelling in J/F anyway. It's a bit of "we have to destroy it to save it" feeling.

Or in a twist of irony will it mean AA EXP will frequently be on the top of the op-up list?

QRC3288

the value is still high.
a.) you can always get op-upped from J to F when flying on 77H, and
b.) count me as one DM who usually flies J or F long-haul, but usually Y class short-haul. there is a misnomer I think about big spenders on CX. At an MPC dinner, I asked the CX rep specifically what is the profile of a flier who makes DM+, which we know to be CX's absolute highest spenders. He says "there are a few profiles", and one of them is a "lawyer or consultant type" whose client is footing the bill and who "flies in J class, not F" 2x monthly round-trip to JFK from HKG. I presume they're paying full fare J for each ticket since someone else is footing the bill. I'm sure there are types who also do all paid F, but just wanted to point out that some spenders are not always sitting at the absolute nose of the plane.

I know plenty of folks who won't qualify for DM+, but spend $50k+ USD a year on CX, yet still routinely fly economy class for holiday, with family, on short-hauls, etc.

ha that's certainly a possibility...that'd be icing on the cake wouldn't it? although, I really don't think CX would be that stupid, no? I mean, I'd have to imagine CX would still prioritize the theoretically-downgraded DM (and probably GOs too) over partner Emeralds, as they do now? Otherwise, that'd just be silly and would be practically daring future DM and GO-eligible travelers to join AA or BA.

percysmith

OK, fair enough, but value of a Titanium is going to be less than a DM in the sense that those who have it will have lesser (although some) opportunity to use it.

I think it'll also depend on what CX does to its ex-DM customers who don't make the cut to Titanium - give them some form of OWE (Asia Miles Diamond?) or drop them completely.

Sensible, CX should not favour non-CX OWEs more than it favours [AM Diamonds]. But CX doesn't always do the sensible thing in our view.

sscywong

This won't work for DM and GO as this would be in conflict with OWS / OWE lounge access rule... Worse they will go QF lounge (say in HK) and end up CX may even need to pay more (to other OW partners) to entertain their lounge access

JALPak

If elites from other FFP have higher CIV score, then they should be ahead of DM in the food chain.

kawaii

If CIV score is based on spend, how would you track CIV from other FFPs on CX? I had assumed (maybe mistakenly) that CX would track spend if you use your MPC/AM number but if you toss in an AA/BA number, why would they bother tracking that? It would almost be like tracking the spend of everyone who flew, which seems a bit excessive (but maybe likely given the BigData world we live in now).

JALPak

They are tracking it for sure. Haven't you read stories about CX trying to steal elites from partners?

percysmith

I don't see why a BA Gold frequently travelling on CX and entering his BAEC number consistently into his CX bookings can't be tracked...

daniellam

I would not be surprised if they tracked spend with a combination of Other Airline FFP number and the date of birth/sex/country of citizenship/name of the passenger.

They can use the information from the APIS data in the PNR and create "profiles" for each passenger. The pax would then have a "CIV score".

Similar to how credit reporting agencies track people yet at the same time not totally relying on data with key fields such as HKID or US SSN etc. They would then have a "credit score".

Note: Just like how credit reports can be incorrect, CX's "profiles" can sometimes be incorrect too.

Awesom Andy

The CIV score is only relevant for CX/KA, so when a OW elite put in their FF number, I would think that CX would track the portion of travel that is on CX/KA. So an OWE who travel in paid CX F once a year would (probably, at a guess) have a higher CIV than an OWE who only travel in redemption CX Y a few times a year.

daniellam

Or even a statusless flyer who flies paid CX F but never bothers signing up for any frequent flyer programs.

I guess it would be similar to how luxury hotel chains such as Peninsula and Mandarin Oriental track their guests (since these chains don't have formal loyalty programs with membership numbers). However, errors do occur! One time I was staying at the Peninsula Beverly Hills and apparently they had a frequent guest who had the same first/last name as me. They welcomed me back (even thought it was my first stay) and even stitched that other guest's initials (the middle initial was wrong!) onto my pillow case.

Guy Betsy

I know for a fact that CX does this, and they did about 15-16 years ago, when the IFS came round with her manifest greeting passengers, and when she came over to me, she commented that CX is glad to have me as a passenger as I'm flying on this route again in so many months. And that was why I had my AAdvantage on the booking ...

So with technology and time, they would know more information by now.

Gongzuokuang

Maybe OT... but I'm curious now.

This talk of tracking PAX and CIV scores of OWE leads me to wonder how they would track -- and value -- award spend.

For example, how do they view someone who flies 4-6 roundtrips trips per year -- perhaps 75K - 100K miles -- on CX metal using redemption's from another FF program. Maybe OWE that is using AA miles to fly F or J on CX. Or maybe a no-status flyer doing the same thing... using redemption's from a mix of AA, AL, AsiaMiles, etc.

There is a chance this sort of flyer might give CX more revenue than the GO flying longhaul Y, yet have no status. Do they truly fly under CX's radar? Low CIV?