Globaliser

Actually, I think they finally got it right in the last version before the latest changes - but they have gone and introduced new confusion into the current T&C by the descriptions "Economy" and "Discount Economy" in the airline earning table.

The main question is whether they are intended to have any bearing on SC earning, which is unclear. But QF's longstanding practice on SC earning on partners is consistent with the footnotes to the SC earning table - and if the new descriptions in the "airline earning table" were held to prevail over the SC table footnotes, there are acres of partner airlines on which QF would have to give full economy SCs for what are plainly deep discount economy fares.

It would be pretty outrageous for QF to hold a set of T&C which are inconsistent with the published T&C and which prevail over them - nay, it would be unlawful. I suspect that they're really referring to a manual which "clarifies" certain things. I'd love it if someone could take this issue up with them properly to see what the final answer would be - but alas it's an academic exercise for me.

Aisle Seat H

If I can keep Status in both I of course will, but the QF FF changes really have changed my thinking on this.

I agree with all you say and am of course aware of it all, but right now there is simply no comparison - it is vastly easier to get *A/BMI Gold than QF Platinum and yet the benefits are now very similar, indeed often a lot better for the *A Gold. And after the May QF changes the *A miles will be vastly more valuable (certainly for quite a while anyway), espec. if you are flying in Business regularily.

On the benefits, as a BMI Gold I get 4 guarenteed upgrades a year and upgrades on award bookings if a seat is available - and these can be used on the longer flights - yet as a WP I will get absolutely no upgrades whatsoever, just a pathetic 5,000 miles per 450 SCs. The Oneworld lounges are on the whole vastly better that *A but that is the only real WP benefit I can think of right now.

Combined with the fact that I get comp. up-ed on a frequent basis on BMI/*A and almost never on QF, if it is a choice next year I would rather have *A Gold than QF Platinum. And it is simply absurd, and a shocking indictment of the QF FF, that anyone should ever be able to say that !

virtualtroy

Ergo the comparative quality of each product. I was comped into *A membership (like many others on here) and apart from LH and SQ I find it to be a shabby outfit - both on the ground and in the air.

OW is not without its compratively shabby compadre: LA and EI.


Congratulations, I'm sure it's an enjoyable experience, referring back to my earlier comments, so far I've found it to be a thoroughly shabby product, irrespective of class flown

You and 99.9% of the other 60K QF WPs. QF isn't big on op-ups, other OW carriers such as CX are and remain most generous; BA has even been known to extend similar recognition / benevolence on occasion (though I suspect that this was due to the lack of BA Golds and Silvers on each of those flights).

All things considered, the majority of *A schemes do seem to offer better redemption opportunities than QF (or for that matter any other OW program), as well as other *fringe* benefits such as BMI's upgrade vouchers, that you mentioned earlier. But if I had the choice, which you do, my vote wouldn't go to *A, purely on the basis of: 1) existing network vs my own travel pattern; 2) quality of product, as previously discussed

Aisle Seat H

It would be pretty outrageous for QF to hold a set of T&C which are inconsistent with the published T&C and which prevail over them - nay, it would be unlawful. I suspect that they're really referring to a manual which "clarifies" certain things. I'd love it if someone could take this issue up with them properly to see what the final answer would be - but alas it's an academic exercise for me.[/QUOTE]

Back on topic, thanks for that Globaliser, but I raised it cos it is more than academic if someone makes a specific booking on the assumption they are getting miles, or Full Economy SCs, because the 'Airline Earning Table' says they are and then they don't get them.

And on the SC table footnotes thing, the fact of the matter is that by putting a nice and simple table in the new T&Cs it makes the problem I raise even more of an issue ! Cos in this lovely new table it a) has a little 'Excluded' section for each airline where there are restrictions, yet as there is no such section under BA it is only logical that codeshares earn miles (even though they don't), and b) it says, clearer than ever before, that B and H are Full Economy so one would fully expect to receive Full Economy SCs (which of course you won't... though bizarrely you will get ull Miles !)

Aisle Seat H

Quote:

Originally Posted by virtualtroy

Ergo the comparative quality of each product. I was comped into *A membership (like many others on here) and apart from LH and SQ I find it to be a shabby outfit - both on the ground and in the air.

OW is not without its compratively shabby compadre: LA and EI.


Congratulations, I'm sure it's an enjoyable experience, referring back to my earlier comments, so far I've found it to be a thoroughly shabby product, irrespective of class flown

You and 99.9% of the other 60K QF WPs. QF isn't big on op-ups, other OW carriers such as CX are and remain most generous; BA has even been known to extend similar recognition / benevolence on occasion (though I suspect that this was due to the lack of BA Golds and Silvers on each of those flights).

All things considered, the majority of *A schemes do seem to offer better redemption opportunities than QF (or for that matter any other OW program), as well as other *fringe* benefits such as BMI's upgrade vouchers, that you mentioned earlier. But if I had the choice, which you do, my vote wouldn't go to *A, purely on the basis of: 1) existing network vs my own travel pattern; 2) quality of product, as previously discussed

Well, we will agree to differ virtaltroy ! I have no probs at all with BMI, rather like them actually, and some of the *A longhaul member carriers are fab... espec. as you are upgraded when you fly on them ! But yes, it may end up being just six of one and half a dozen of the other as all airlines devalue their programmes.

virtualtroy

Either you enjoy both sartorial flair and a certain panache when it comes to check-in agents or you're just unusually lucky, enjoy it while it lasts.

NM

I think the printed T&C brochure that is entitled "Important changes to your membership" and dated 24 November 2004 is very clear in its definition of earning points and SC's. No confusion on my part.

The table on the last two pages is clearly for FF points earned, not for Status Credits earned. And under BA, it lists all the fare types that earn points and the base rate multiplier (0.25 or 1) and the cabin bonus multipliers. That clearly shows B and H for BA flights to be in the same category as Y for points earning base rate of 100% of miles flown. It makes no reference to earning SC's at any rate different to those listed on page 10 under "Changes to earning Status Credits", where it very clearly states "For international flights, including domestic flights within New Zealand, Discount Economy includes classes B, G, H, K, L, M, N, O, Q, S, V, W".

So my reading of the published T's and C's is that a BA flight on a B fare is considered Discount Economy for the purposes of Status Credit earning, and it is considered Full Economy for the purpose of Base Points earning. If QF has awarded you anything different to that, then you have grounds to complain.

I do agree that the exclusion of BA codeshare flights on non-OneWorld airlines is not referenced in the latest printed or on-line terms and conditions. If a QF agent makes reference to a different set of terms and conditions, I believe you afre withing your rights to request they provide you a copy of the terms and conditions under which they are applying ruling. They should provide you either a printed or electronic copy. Also request the clause number which they are reading to make the ruling. The clause numbers have been consistent for as long as I have been reading their terms and conditions.

However, I do believe it was just an oversight in the creation of the Points Earning Table as most the other OneWorld Airlines entries do make specific mention of how codeshares are to be handled (eg LAN codesahres can only be operated by QF, CX permits only OneWorld codeshrare ops). EI also makes no reference to codeshares. The on-line points earning table is consistent with the latest printed version I have.

Aisle Seat H

Yep, have been comp-uped on BMI *A partners about 75% of the times I have flown them ! Very lucky maybe, but also I think proof of a feature of *A over QF and most other Oneworld carriers (though AA, BA and IB have uped in the past).

If there are quite a few seats in J and F on a flight *A carriers in my experinece will up Golds in to a few of them, while QF will leave WPs at the back even if there is a practically empty cabin up front.

As one QF Manager once told me - "we are highly protective of our Business and First Class products" !

QF WP

The differential in the "amount" of op upp'ing done over at *A versue OW is the biggest disparity, but also what I see to be the biggest danger to the continuity of the *A carriers.

I was never under under any misapprehension from when I started in the QFF program (Feb 89) that I would need to "earn" my J upgrades on QF Intl by using the upgrade credits or points through my past patronage. Yes, I can't think of the last time that QF op up'ed me (either Dom or Intl), certainly it would be a couple of years. However, given the right mix of routes and matching aircraft types to pax numbers, an airline should achieve a high occupancy and not require to op up very often (only for example, when an oversold situation arises, or other similar scenarios). Certainly this has been the case on most of my flights in the past 2 years (high occupancy) and op ups might be expected to go to those premium high tier pax.

However, if other airlines (BA and CX) wish to op up me, then as I remember it's a privilege and not a right of high status membership of the OW alliance, to be afforded a better product. It certainly increases the goodwill component that I think positively about that airline in the future adn would be more likely to purchase seats on that carrier in the future.

Marginalising any premium product, by simply "filling the cabin with premium pax" is, as the QF Manager put it to you above, fraught with peril for the bottom line.

If we are a high tier member and expect to get op up'ed to J every time, why would one buy the J product. We wouldn't (unless we're a fool with ours or somebody else's money) as we're thinking "Why buy J if I expect they are going to op up me???"

The op up has certain higher variable costs to the carrier - more expensive food and beverages, toiletries, etc. This is clearly not a commercial reality for a company trying to make profits for it's shareholders (which is the bottom line for a company IIRC).

Yes, there is a point to which every airline must stroke the ego and maintain/increase the goodwill of the premium high tier clientele, but there is a fine line to tread between the two.

I wonder to what extent this affected the profitability of the *A airlines that went into Chapter 11 or similar prior to 9/11 as well as how the continuity of these "op up benefits" have continued to constrain their growth after 9/11. Doesn't seem to be that way with BA, CX and QF... hmmm - we're profitable.

My 2.5C worth...phew

serfty

Once upon a time Qantas would actually upgrade their Emeralds from WHY to J. This appeared to only happen for Y class fares and about once every three flights.

I (and another Emerald associate, I guess all Emeralds) actually received letters from Qantas FF in the late 90's stating that the complimentary upgrades would no longer occur, but (IIRC) "be assured, if the need for an operational upgrade occurs, you as one of our top tiers will be among the first to be considered"

QF WP

Aisle Seat H, hopefully with your approval, I'm taking a quote of yours from dOOt's thread and inserting here as I think it's very relevant to the discussion in this thread:

Yes, whilst Yield Management control the initial review 3 to 4 days out, depending on load factors at that point in time, the Station Heads of each city (thinking about the BA Board's discussion on exactly this subject some time back) control some of the near-departure (same day, at check-in or later) op up's.

All of my op ups (looking at my spreadsheet) in the past 2 years, have occured at SIN: 2 from BA (one SIN/SYD and the other SIN/LHR) both times it was WT+ to J. Cathay was also from SIN (SIN/HKG Y to J). Nil from QF - all points or UC upgrades have cleared. Coincidence or not, I'm not sure (as statistically, it isn't a large sample). But when using the number of flights I have taken on each carrier, then it's statistically obvious that BA and CX do regard OW Emeralds highly.

Aisle Seat H

of course, thanks QF WP. V. kind of you, espec. as I accused you of being Geoff Dixon before !!!

QF WP

Well I glad to see you have washed your mouth out like I asked and you're contrite now .

Back to the debate....in fact, I'll try it out on Sturday, if Yield Management don't give us our requested Y to J upgrade on QF25 BNE/AKL then perhaps I'll wait for the op up's

Should I hold my breath

Aisle Seat H

just got comp up'ed, contrary to all I had previously said ! They were listening... you ARE Geoff Dixon QF WP !!!

see my posting on other thread at http://web1.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=388409

ozstamps

Huh?