Jorgen

Globaliser Excellent table. Well, looks like it's good news for frequent travellers on those 3501 to 3600 mile routes! ^^

Flyerholic

I probably would not have as big of an issue with this provided Qantas offered the same level of seat confort as some of their Oneworld partners. an example would be Cathay Buisness to HKG out of Melbourne, or British Airways out of Sydney to SIN. Flat beds on CX and BA are a no brainer for me. AKL is another regular trip for me and I like the EK schedule as it works well for me but I'm unsure as to what happens with my Business class status credits on this flight even booked under a QF**** flight number which is what i always do via the QF website post July2014. I realise Qantas are going to begin a refit to the A330 fleet with what looks like a great Business Product, so why not wait until that is in place before making these changes then at least the product will be equal or better than the competition and therefore would encourage me back on QF for those HKG and SIN flights.

Also I don't post here often but I do appreciate all the infomation and thoughts shared by you all
Thanks

mad_atta

Ah, the race to the bottom continues. As Blackcloud pointed out, this seems remarkably like the system AirNZ introduced a while ago, of massively penalising all partner airline travel on routes where the 'home' airline has a presence, plus some other fairly random ones besides. AirNZ has gone one better and is making it even more complicated, effective next month, so perhaps that's what QF frequent flyers can look forward to in the future.

It's irritating enough that QF is following the lead of NZ, which is clearly the worst major FFP in the region (if not the world). Even more maddeningly, they seem to be following the exact same PR/communications mantra: brazenly claim that this is a simplification when in fact it's making everything significantly more complex. The byzantine complexity of NZ's new system has to be seen to be believed.

In NZ's case, it's understandable how they can get away with it: the vast majority of their international routes are monopolies, domestically they have minimal competition, and most of their cheap fares don't accrue at all to partner FFPs. It amazes me that QF thinks it can get away with a similar strategy when it has a strong domestic competitor and much, much more competition on international routes.

What's the next step, I wonder: Virgin Australia doing some very public offer of status matches or fast-tracks? It's the perfect time for them to be doing that...

RichardMEL

Clearly this is yet another way QF is working to maximize revenue to itself over partners - using the assumption, of course, that flyers will blindly choose loyalty over things like schedule, price, comfort/service(as above) or whatever. Some will of course, but those of us who care actually will do our best to maximize benefit to us (as we should be).

From a fiscal perspective this makes perfect sense. Why drive your customer to another business when you can have them yourself. Of course this falls flat when the "simpler" earn for partners is based on all flights, not just flights on routes also operated by QF (which would make some sense). This does fit the idea that QF will be looking to leave OW.. but to what end?

If QF leaves a major alliance, where does its feed come from or go to? EK? That's great for one part of the world.. but think about Asia and the US... it will make carriers like VA/DL/UA much better for feed and connectivity to beyond points. Perhaps QF will try and maintain certain partners outside of an alliance, which is fine to a certain extent, but half the point of these mega alliances (supposedly) is to provide extended network coverage and acccess to many global points.

Anyway as others have said.. right now BA or AA or whatever looks greener, but this too will change in time.

It probably will result in 5+ years that ALL FFP's become fairly irrelevant to most poeple in terms of benefit. You get what you pay for.

Me? I'm close enough to LTG to continue to that goal (probably in 12 months time I can be there) and then look elsewhere. I've always wanted to try DL and VA/VS service.....

RichardMEL

Great table there.

Someone should send this to the media to point out, in very simple terms, just how much simpler the program is.....

Jorgen

Though perhaps not a surprising move given that NZ is also the only profitable airline in the region.

Please no, the Virgin lounges are crowded enough already, and I like the fact that there's hardly anyone in the priority boarding lane

geminidreams

In a couple of years QANTAS will only exist as the local feeder for Emirates so may as well just join Skywards now.

Awesom Andy

There's nothing wrong with going to the F lounges while building up status with another airline.

redslert

Completely agree.
If QF has equivalent product then they can do this with less fuss, but they don't and I'm more inclined to rethink keeping status with QF as it will take some effort to retain Platinum.

RichardMEL

Ah, but as someone posted recently here from experiences at the CBR lounge where the earn FF# had to match the status FF used, or at least QF to get entry.

Someone will put this much better than me but I hope most know what I'm referring to

lowjhg

i was already doubting myself giving more business to QF with the withdrawal of B744 services to SIN, which signals the withdrawal of PE. This is just the nail in the coffin.

harryhv

If you still have any of those vouchers from the Xmas sale, hang on to them until July as their ultimate ticketing will be dated to when you bought the voucher...
... and you should get the old points and SCs.

RadioGirl

I love detail. My boss is always shushing me in meetings for going into "too much detail."

But I really hate that new table. Exactly the opposite of "simpler."
So for domestic status credits they've gone from a set of zones based on distance to a set of zones based on distance; someone is still going to have to look up the distance from Brisbane to Townsville. But for international, they've got a complex set of descriptive options for origin and destination, with no (obvious) relationship to distance. Yuck.

It looks like the rates for USING points (classic award tickets or upgrades) are still based on the old zones. Funny, that.

JClasstraveller

By devaluing the program significantly by making it harder for the infrequent flyers to gain much (if anything) from being part of the program, I think QF are devaluing their most profitable asset.

Be prepared for larger headline losses. It will also become a far less valuable asset that could be sold if financial performance does not improve.

Be interesting to see what VA does. They could devalue it like QF or they could offer status matching, better earn rates etc in order to capture the corporate travel market. I suspect it will be the latter.

RichardMEL

I really wish someone with some common sense in QF PR would just come out and say "It's not simpler. we're sorry." but I also hope to win lotto tomorrow...

but I digress....

I am thinking the "distance based zones" in oz is (dare I say it....) simpler due to the many O&D markets in oz. Are you really going to publish a table for SYD-Armidate/Newcastle/Orange/Dubbo/Coffs/etc etc which would all be the same? with all kinds of regional and connecting services I think it would be unworkable.

On the int side, I think there are some very specific reasons for picking specific point pairs to suit their own means, and probably cut out a few "advantageous"(to us) city pairs. i can't think of any specific examples, but I see no other reason to do it unless they are also targetting specific partners (eg: flights within asia). It's similar with the changes in the USA. The SIMPLER (yes!) system was to keep the old zoning model as they had, but guess what, things like LAX-DFW or LAS-DFW just popped you over the 1200 mile level.. now at 1500 all those hub to hub points don't make it (ORD-LAX though....). I think someone's sat down, examined the top kinds of routes that are being claimed and decided this needs to be looked at.

Of course now having a distance table for domestic US which is different to the oz one is only "Simplified" if you're in the Bizarro universe, but apparently that's where some in QFF PR/marketing seem to have gone to live.

I have no issue with the concept of the revenue model. The writing has been on the wall for legacy carriers' schemes for some years. Look at DL, look at NZ.. even stodgy old UA has applied a dollar minimum spend for elite levels to drive revenue to them. They are all doing it in one way or another. Again, I have no issue with the idea, but the way this has been put out there.. I think my mobile phone plan makes more sense than this new "simpler" and "fairer" system (remind you of Fox News being "fair and balanced"?). I object to that.

Instead of doing this why not just peg the damn thing to $ fare paid and be done with it. no bloody zones, or routing tables a page long of what you earn on this or that leg. Much like the NZ airdollars or whatever they're called, at least it is simple to understand.

Prior to July 1 I could sit on a flight and work out in my head SC's I'd get for a particular routing, say in the US, now.. I'd need a table and caculator to figure it out.....

I think the way this has been rolled out is going to cause more damage and customer unrest than they need. This is a time you'd expect the company to almost bend over to retain loyalty to try and ensure revenue and yield. Instead, they're putting in changes that seem, on the surface and to we flyers, ill-conceived or at least badly delivered and to announce it as "Simpler" has to be the biggest joke since.. well i don't know when.

QF in effort to cut costs and liability (I have no doubt the muchly reduced earn rate but unchanged burn rate reduces QFF point liability on the books over the short-medium term as well as probably thinning out the ranks of the lower/middle tiers of elites - I think the mostly business types who earn WP and beyond will still get there and not care too much specially if the company is paying).. probably looks good on the books, but gee... it's a big gamble, at a time this airline surely shouldn't be gambling.

All IMHO