ffs852

Yet another reason not to fly with these jokers.
They have never learned after the AMEX Centurion DM comp debacle.

fakecd

i still fly with them. i just make sure i buy N/Q fares and use their premium resources like locus, or buy ex-XXX I fares most recently cheaper than ex HK econony fare.

but double standard will bite them back

Kachjc

when Cathay does something Good- "management has failed"

when Cathay does something bad - "management has failed"

the CX forum is arguably the most toxic against its own airline....

it is a no win situation for CX

ffs852

Tell that to the shareholders. Do 10 things wrong and 1 thing right and expect for a praise?

ffs852

Many of us were loyal customers in the past and probably spent quite a lot with them too. But sorry the best MPC can do is extend our Green Membership for one year as a courtesy.

watery

Would you still fly N/Q or buy ex-XXX I fares if CX comps you DM as loyalty?
Just thinking if we expect CX to treasure those who spend future money...

ffs852

I tried to spend money with CX in business. Booked in 773 long haul business, and guess what? they pull an EQV and I get the old 772.

watery

I agree that regional business seats are a genuine pain point
although it's so painful that even having DM doesn't help much

(not very relevant, by the time OP flew 2m+ miles the current cirrus J/cradle Y may not have existed most of the time)

TomYoung

OLDCHINAHAND must have been given life time membership no later than 1998. At that time I believe that H G Wells could not have dreamed of the current long haul business class seat. However the business class seat then used was far superior to the fifth rate current regional offering.

triplefives

I second your opinion and I think business conditions are also the motivation behind the soon to be seen changes in Asia Miles. Increased award availability remains to be seen but the biggest "devaluation" came on redemptions with partner airlines which makes sense as the airline is able to sell more expensive tickets as the plane reaches capacity. Perhaps this is also a way to appease those who are going to suffer in 3-4-3 seating on the 777.

Kachjc

no one is suffering....
people want 3-4-3

THE market ( aka customers) has forced CX on to 3-4-3

SLOSAR/TYLER etc used to all boast about having 3-3-3 but customers punished CX for having the better offering
kinda like this forum- no matter what CX does, apparently couches form the 80's were more comfortable than today's beds in business class....

sxc

Let's not go off-topic. Further posts like this in this thread will be deleted.

sxc
Cathay Pacific Moderator

feh

I like the idea of Lifetime MPC Membership, even though I suspect I'd have some time to go before I got close.

What would be the equivalent requirement on CX if it was benchmarked against BA Lifetime?

Conkers

23 years at minimum threshold for BAEC Gold gives you Lifetime. So Cathay could do 20 years at DM for example.

brunos

FFP are not to reward loyalty in the past but to induce loyalty in the future. And we all agree that CX makes any such move to help their business.

And they know that long-time members reach semi-retirement or retirement but then they have influence on family travel and money to spend on leisure travel.
Many airlines have lifetime status. Making it public gives a double incentive. First fly more with CX while active to reach that lifetime objective. Second, keep flying CX thereafter to enjoy status benefits. Having a selective policy as illustrated above is interesting but of limited scope. I agree with sxc that making it a public policy might offer greater benefits to CX, and maybe that's the way they will go. On the other hand granting lifetime status to someone who is still a very active business pax has drawbacks. Once lifetime, there is no more incentive to fly exclusively CX to reach status. Pax can easily choose other airlines, when attractive, as they don't need to reach status but will still enjoy benefits on cheap CX Y flights.

PS: AFKL do lifetime for consecutive ten years at Plat level.