Qantas unveils the biggest changes to status in program history

[Jacques Vert]

I guess the point though is they're working under the assumption your behaviour would be the same with Lifetime Platinum; hit the milestone then just milk the bennies, much more exclusive benefits, and not really generate revenue.

But if LTP (or some other carrot) was a realistic option, they would generate revenue from me while I worked my way towards it. As it is, reaching LTP or banking a year of WP is so unrealistic that there is no incentive for me.

If keeping LTGs engaged was the goal (or one of the goals) of these enhancements, then it is a fail as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Flyerwin]

But if LTP (or some other carrot) was a realistic option, they would generate revenue from me while I worked my way towards it.

True for me too. I'm LTG - foot off the pedal once I requalify for WP, I redirect efforts to another FF program.

 

[dairyfloss]

But if LTP (or some other carrot) was a realistic option, they would generate revenue from me while I worked my way towards it. As it is, reaching LTP or banking a year of WP is so unrealistic that there is no incentive for me.

If keeping LTGs engaged was the goal (or one of the goals) of these enhancements, then it is a fail as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed - I'm still working on retaining WP for now, but unless business travel comes back for me, I don't think I'll be able to maintain the literal status quo after this year's renewal, let alone even consider the impossible highs of LTP.

What I would have gone for - and it's been called out a number of times as a 'want' from LTG members - was a reduced target for LTG to retain WP each year. That type of change would pretty much have guaranteed my ongoing investment with QF, maybe into perpetuity (until I can no longer travel anyway). Instead, once I slip back to LTG I'll just give them my domestic dollars, and look to BFOD J for any International.

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[Laptop Jockey]

But if LTP (or some other carrot) was a realistic option, they would generate revenue from me while I worked my way towards it. As it is, reaching LTP or banking a year of WP is so unrealistic that there is no incentive for me.

If keeping LTGs engaged was the goal (or one of the goals) of these enhancements, then it is a fail as far as I'm concerned.

If you're a good loyal little Qantas flyer hitting P1 every year, you'll get there in two decades of travel, if not it's a kind of product that isn't meant to be attainable; the 'if you have to ask the price you can't afford it' product.
And honestly, it's attitudes of "I've got LTG, I'm switching airlines" that are going to eventually see the whole concept of lifetime status be "enhanced" away, or at least the bar raised to borderline unattainable, ironically just like LTP is.

 

[dairyfloss]

it's attitudes of "I've got LTG, I'm switching airlines" that are going to eventually see the whole concept of lifetime status be "enhanced" away, or at least the bar raised to borderline unattainable, ironically just like LTP is.

Doesn't bother me - I've already got LTG

 

[justinbrett]

And honestly, it's attitudes of "I've got LTG, I'm switching airlines" that are going to eventually see the whole concept of lifetime status be "enhanced" away, or at least the bar raised to borderline unattainable, ironically just like LTP is.

Why? Someone who does the hard slog to get lifetime status only to walk away once achieved - win/win for QF. If you then go on to use other oneworld carriers with your QF status it’s the marketing carrier that pays so no loss to QF.

It’s people who get lifetime status and then bleed QF dry on cheap Y fares that they’d like to cut loose.

 

[JustSlash]

Why? Someone who does the hard slog to get lifetime status only to walk away once achieved - win/win for QF. If you then go on to use other oneworld carriers with your QF status it’s the marketing carrier that pays so no loss to QF.

It’s people who get lifetime status and then bleed QF dry on cheap Y fares that they’d like to cut loose.

I’d think its the way around. Once you reach LT status, most ppl would start accruing on other airline, QF isn’t really able to generate much more revenue from you, which is probably one of the reason why the Lifetime Platinum target is set so high. By the time you get there, you might start flying more with other oneworld carriers anyway, so in a sense, it almost feels like they’re letting you drift elsewhere once you’ve achieved it.

 

[justinbrett]

I’d think its the way around. Once you reach LT status, most ppl would start accruing on other airline, QF isn’t really able to generate much more revenue from you, which is probably one of the reason why the Lifetime Platinum target is set so high. By the time you get there, you might start flying more with other oneworld carriers anyway, so in a sense, it almost feels like they’re letting you drift elsewhere once you’ve achieved it.

I think there’s a fork in the road, one way is switch programs, the other is go for WP (not necessity lifetime, just year by year).

That’s what I did, and now I’m P1 (bouncing between WP and P1 every second year).

Either way QF can’t lose.

 

[RooFlyer]

Why? Someone who does the hard slog to get lifetime status only to walk away once achieved - win/win for QF.

I reckon QF would much rather the punters didn't walk away after LTG. No shareholder return from someone not flying the airline.

 

[mviy]

I’m keen to get to LTG before they move the goalposts, but not at any price.

Keeping up WP indefinitely is not sustainable for me. So if I can get to LTG before I would have dropped back to LTS that will be a big plus.

 

[justinbrett]

I reckon QF would much rather the punters didn't walk away after LTG. No shareholder return from someone not flying the airline.

The oneworld model is the marketing carrier pays for status - so if someone spent lots of money to get QF status and then use that status on other airlines, doesn’t cost them a cent, and they had a good run for the 14,000 SCs or whatever. Preferable to someone booking cheap Y fares and filling up on champagne and squid. Not as preferable as someone sticking around to book J fares sure, but they have to be pragmatic.

Status is not an investment by the airline in the pax, is very much the reverse. (Questionable at that).

 

[Johnxx]

Points Club will be axed and Green Tier gets the chop too​

Je m'en fiche.
For the monoglots, I don't give a cough.
These subprograms were always distractions.

​

Yes, but card churning points whales is an FU to people whose work pays for the majority of their travel/status

 

[esseeeayeenn]

They will no way change the LTP thresholds. Agree it’s massive but they must have done the sums. I would not be surprised if they released a LTP1 tier to be honest. Unsure how many gazillion SC that would be but I know personally P1s who are LTP and well in excess of the LTP threshold.

The LTP threshold and benefits mean it is already lifetime P1 in reality.
Labels are meaningless and, in this case, misleading.

 

[clifford]

That’s what I did, and now I’m P1 (bouncing between WP and P1 every second year).

I imagine it wasn't self funded.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

[justinbrett]

I imagine it wasn't self funded.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong.

You’re mostly wrong.

I probably got 200-300 SC a year for work for about 15 years (domestic trips only) until a few years ago, now I’m 100% self funded. I paid for every 3600 SCs myself when I got P1.

 

[RooFlyer]

The oneworld model is the marketing carrier pays for status - so if someone spent lots of money to get QF status and then use that status on other airlines, doesn’t cost them a cent, and they had a good run for the 14,000 SCs or whatever. Preferable to someone booking cheap Y fares and filling up on champagne and squid. Not as preferable as someone sticking around to book J fares sure, but they have to be pragmatic.

Status is not an investment by the airline in the pax, is very much the reverse. (Questionable at that).

Conversation is that people are reaching LTG, then 'walking away' because there isn't any incentive for them to keep flying QF, thus concluding that these recent changes are flawed. Any operational model that puts a win of saving on lounge fees over generating revenue fares I reckon is flawed.

 

[justinbrett]

Conversation is that people are reaching LTG, then 'walking away' because there isn't any incentive for them to keep flying QF, thus concluding that these recent changes are flawed. Any operational model that puts a win of saving on lounge fees over generating revenue fares I reckon is flawed.

Someone with LTG has more incentive to fly QF than anyone, they have status with no further obligations. If after slogging it out for 14K SCs they choose not to fly QF, I’m not sure what you expect QF to do about it.

There will always be the grass is greener crowd (for all airlines) and for every person walking away from QF there’s another coming back - we’re not spoilt for choice when it comes to airlines. Just look at the VA forum after their (much worse) recent changes.

 

[SYD]

Conversation is that people are reaching LTG, then 'walking away' because there isn't any incentive for them to keep flying QF, thus concluding that these recent changes are flawed. Any operational model that puts a win of saving on lounge fees over generating revenue fares I reckon is flawed.

I’d be curious to know how many (of the many here) who say they want or are LTG and do walk away to other OW airlines or BFOD in J who weren’t regulars in WP/P1 land?

I’ve been LTG for over 10 years and I’m still very happy to maintain WP (100% self funded) for the extra perks on QF and obviously OWE benefits.

 

[markis10]

I’ve been LTG for over 10 years and I’m still very happy to maintain WP (100% self funded) for the extra perks on QF and obviously OWE benefits.

I have been LTG since 2012 and have not been WP since 2016, not because of my status but because my work roles changed to purely domestic travel on the odd occasion. Nothing QF could have done to make me aim higher.

I don’t understand the angst some have over funding for flying, self funded tend not to take the red eyes every week or the omg 5AM departures ex QLD for the very long day trip to SYD for 20SC if your lucky. I have not missed WP, the first lounge and other privileges, nor have I missed those red eyes and getting home to a family that’s been asleep for hours.

This year I will have a crack at WP again, as I have some long haul trips that cannot be taken using the aircraft I now have access to for domestic hops, but I don’t lose sleep over it should I not make it. LTG in 2012 looked a lot better than today, heck you have glorious carpark views in Melbourne these days while your eating the QP slop!

 

[RooFlyer]

Someone with LTG has more incentive to fly QF than anyone, they have status with no further obligations. If after slogging it out for 14K SCs they choose not to fly QF, I’m not sure what you expect QF to do about it.

At LTG they have Sapphire status across OW; no material incentive to fly Qantas over other OW carriers just for the benefits of Gold. So they might choose on price, for instance. The question is whether Qantas wants the punter who has reached LTG to then have a reason to keep paying for QF flights or not, or simply let them go to other carriers. You said above that them leaving for others would be a 'win/win' for Qantas. I disagree.

As to what QF might do about it - its been said a number of times by others - make LTP a realistic goal, or put some carrot out in front.

I’ve been LTG for over 10 years and I’m still very happy to maintain WP (100% self funded) for the extra perks on QF and obviously OWE benefits.

I'm in the same boat! Although if I could get a status match to QR Plat for Plat, I'd move over there.