Question about Life Time status with Qantas?

[medhead]

You seem to misunderstand.......


I'm fully aware of there being reasons for why FF program's are they way they are, but in your example above, the WP who falls back to SG, irrespective of why, gets the same benefit as someone who earned the 700/600 SC in that particular year. Is that fair? I don't really have an opinion either way, but I'd suggest it is no more or less fair than a lifetime member starting each subsequent year at 250/600 SC. I'm not passing judgement on the merits of either, just highlighting what is in my opinion, an inconsistency.

Then to be consistent all silver and gold members should start the next year on 250/600. Also platinum members should start in 1200.

Basically you're being illogical. You are given a status level for a fixed term - the current 12 months. Not for the following 12 months. Having silver this year based on what I earned last year, does not make it easier to get gold for next year. Everyone is still required to get the requirements to move to the next level. In the case of platinum that requirement is 1400/1200 SC. Not gold + 800/600 SC. Similarly for silvers moving up.

 

[Downwind]

I'm sorry... but the OP seems to equate disagreement with "lack of objectivity".

Not so fast......

I have no issue with disagreement. What I have an issue with is someone defend and justify one inequality because they personally benefit from it, and not apply the same logic or reason to another hypothetical inequality. ComeFlyWithMe is quite happy to expose the legitimacy of soft landings despite there being no rational or logical explanation for them. They see no issue with a former WP getting the same benefits as an SG that flew the required SC, despite having potentially not flown for 23 months. Yet they'd be horrified if a LTS/G got to start their yearly SC earn at 250/600. My argument is that both are equally unfair, but why is one ok and the other not? IMHO, the only logical explanation is that ComeFlyWithMe benefits from one but not the other and that is the lack of objectivity to which I refer........

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

You seem to misunderstand.......


I'm fully aware of there being reasons for why FF program's are they way they are, but in your example above, the WP who falls back to SG, irrespective of why, gets the same benefit as someone who earned the 700/600 SC in that particular year. Is that fair? I don't really have an opinion either way, but I'd suggest it is no more or less fair than a lifetime member starting each subsequent year at 250/600 SC. I'm not passing judgement on the merits of either, just highlighting what is in my opinion, an inconsistency.


It can "sound" to you like whatever you want, but you couldn't be further from the truth. FWIW, I was SG for 10 years straight and have been WP for the last 2. My membership year ends at the end of this month and I will have earned 2480SC. I also have 1200 SC worth of travel booked in June and a further 1240 in late July/early August, so will re qualify with DOUBLE the SC required (not to mention the 50k bonus) in a mere 2.5 months. At the end of August, I'll reach LTG. In the opening post, I clearly stated that I was 2000 or so SC away from LTG, so I really don't understand how I would possibly be SG or lower, but I suppose you missed or ignored that bit.


It seems to me like your being purposefully argumentative just because someone is asking you to have a think about why you think/feel the way you do. There is no need to respond with rudeness and sarcasm. The lack of objectivity I referred to is your apparent failure to consider the program as a whole rather than your own selfish needs and wants. You are quite happy to defend and justify a benefit that is inherently unfair, because you personally benefit from it, but can't apply the same logic when it doesn't affect you. But it's ok.... You're not the only one.


This thread is not about who is right or wrong, or any attempt to change the program. The only right is the terms and conditions as they currently stand (which you seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of) and QF will NEVER make a change that is remotely beneficial for the customer but that is to their detriment. This I fully understand.

This will be my last post (hopefully) as beating a head against a brick wall is not particularly pleasurable.

1. The difference in a earned status soft landing is the benefit applies to one year only, you want to start to qualify for WP at a higher starting point than everyone else in the program for your lifetime, which is inherently inequitable.

2. I'm not particularly interested in your personal circumstances. I too will be in a similar position to you eventually, and guarantee my position won't change from now.

3. All of my posts are in relation to the program as a whole. The only thing on display here are your personal 'needs and wants'. The devaluing of WP by your method is a smack in the face to thousands of members in the program who have earned WP level or above. If I were SG, my opinion would be the same.

4. As nobody agrees with you, you seem to be the only argumentative one in this thread, considering you asked us to 'discuss'.

Medhead has also clearly and concisely stated exactly what I have, albeit in a more succinct manner

 

[Downwind]

I'm sorry... but the OP seems to equate disagreement with "lack of objectivity".

Not so fast......

I have no issue with disagreement. What I have an issue with is someone defend and justify one inequality because they personally benefit from it, and not apply the same logic or reason to another hypothetical inequality. ComeFlyWithMe is quite happy to expose the legitimacy of soft landings despite there being no rational or logical explanation for them. They see no issue with a former WP getting the same benefits as an SG that flew the required SC, despite having potentially not flown for 23 months. Yet they'd be horrified if a LTS/G got to start their yearly SC earn at 250/600. My argument is that both are equally unfair, but why is one ok and the other not? IMHO, the only logical explanation is that ComeFlyWithMe benefits from one but not the other and that is the lack of objectivity to which I refer........

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Not so fast......

I have no issue with disagreement. What I have an issue with is someone defend and justify one inequality because they personally benefit from it, and not apply the same logic or reason to another hypothetical inequality. ComeFlyWithMe is quite happy to expose the legitimacy of soft landings despite there being no rational or logical explanation for them. They see no issue with a former WP getting the same benefits as an SG that flew the required SC, despite having potentially not flown for 23 months. Yet they'd be horrified if a LTS/G got to start their yearly SC earn at 250/600. My argument is that both are equally unfair, but why is one ok and the other not? IMHO, the only logical explanation is that ComeFlyWithMe benefits from one but not the other and that is the lack of objectivity to which I refer........

Not so fast... It's déjà-vu! I could swear I read that in post 22.

 

[Downwind]

This will be my last post (hopefully) as beating a head against a brick wall is not particularly pleasurable.

1. The difference in a earned status soft landing is the benefit applies to one year only, you want to start to qualify for WP at a higher starting point than everyone else in the program for your lifetime, which is inherently inequitable.

2. I'm not particularly interested in your personal circumstances. I too will be in a similar position to you eventually, and guarantee my position won't change from now.

3. All of my posts are in relation to the program as a whole. The only thing on display here are your personal 'needs and wants'. The devaluing of WP by your method is a smack in the face to thousands of members in the program who have earned WP level or above. If I were SG, my opinion would be the same.

4. As nobody agrees with you, you seem to be the only argumentative one in this thread, considering you asked us to 'discuss'.

Medhead has also clearly and concisely stated exactly what I have, albeit in a more succinct manner

It will also be mine......

But to address your 4 points:

1. I appreciate that the soft landing is for 1 year, but does it matter if its unfair for 1 year or many? Both situations are inequitable.
2. If you weren't interested, why make the point of suggesting that I would fail to re qualify and was trying to scam my way to maintain WP. Your comment/observation was offensive, sarcastic and antagonistic and made in come across as a bit of a bully.
3. I have never said that this is what I need or want..... I'm just trying to justify the pros and cons of my suggestion versus the way things currently are. I see your point about devaluing WP, but TBH, I'd prefer it be devalued for someone who has flown enough to get LTG, rather than some one who does a status run during a DSC promo, or flies a few YUPPS. They've done the hard yards, unlike the people who retain WP by somewhat unethical/immoral (but perfectly legal) means.
4. See point 2. I'm not being argumentative, I'm just trying to understand people's logic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but it seems you don't give the same courtesy.

I did not intend to start an argument, but it seems some folk can't engage in robust discussion without resorting to attacking people they disagree with, so like you, I'm out.

As my mother always said, you can't argue with stupid as they will always beat you with their experience......

 

[Downwind]

Not so fast... It's déjà-vu! I could swear I read that in post 22.

Clearly it double posted..... But that's ok, make yourself feel better by calling it out........

Its this sort of behaviour that makes me wonder why I even bother.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

It will also be mine......

But to address your 4 points:

1. I appreciate that the soft landing is for 1 year, but does it matter if its unfair for 1 year or many? Both situations are inequitable.
2. If you weren't interested, why make the point of suggesting that I would fail to re qualify and was trying to scam my way to maintain WP. Your comment/observation was offensive, sarcastic and antagonistic and made in come across as a bit of a bully.
3. I have never said that this is what I need or want..... I'm just trying to justify the pros and cons of my suggestion versus the way things currently are. I see your point about devaluing WP, but TBH, I'd prefer it be devalued for someone who has flown enough to get LTG, rather than some one who does a status run during a DSC promo, or flies a few YUPPS. They've done the hard yards, unlike the people who retain WP by somewhat unethical/immoral (but perfectly legal) means.
4. See point 2. I'm not being argumentative, I'm just trying to understand people's logic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is perfectly fine, but it seems you don't give the same courtesy.

I did not intend to start an argument, but it seems some folk can't engage in robust discussion without resorting to attacking people they disagree with, so like you, I'm out.

As my mother always said, you can't argue with stupid as they will always beat you with their experience......

Looking at your previous posts in other threads, it appears you have personally taken advantage of DSCs and status runs (you now label this as unethical/immoral), in addition to being quite critical of the terms and conditions of a program that you gladly accepted upon joining, and have taken an overall argumentative tone in almost all of your 41 posts. You ask for robust debate, you get it, then accuse me of attacking you.

Now you call me stupid.

Hypocritical is a word that springs to mind.

 

[oz_mark]

They've done the hard yards, unlike the people who retain WP by somewhat unethical/immoral (but perfectly legal) means...

I am not sure I get this. I can see cheap versus expensive ways, but I am not sure that I see an unethical or immoral way of achieving WP.

 

[Downwind]

Looking at your previous posts in other threads, it appears you have personally taken advantage of DSCs and status runs (you now label this as unethical/immoral), in addition to being quite critical of the terms and conditions of a program that you gladly accepted upon joining, and have taken an overall argumentative tone in almost all of your 41 posts. You ask for robust debate, you get it, then accuse me of attacking you.

Now you call me stupid.

Hypocritical is a word that springs to mind.

Not that i need to justify myself to you, but my DSC amount to a few hundred and do not affect my status. The status run to which you refer, was on a spare day I had in Townsville, and is only because it is effectively for free. If you've read the post and aren't stupid, you would clearly see the logic and justification behind it. But again, to each their own. You are clearly quite passionate about being a WP, but my life does not revolve around it and I wouldn't be going out of my way to make it happen, like I suspect you might. I maintain that dsc and YUPPS are unethical immoral and I do not back down from it. And if I were to be as puerile as you, I'd highlight the several members that agree with me.......

why should I not be critical of T&c's when they arent being followed in their entirety? I personally have NO interest in whether someone who lost 400k points due to inactivity gets them back, as it has nothing to do with me. But I'm allowed to disagree with it, despite this being contrary to the T&C's. I equally have every right to voice my displeasure at not receiving each and every published benefit in contradiction of the same T&C's that are used against others.

Robust debate does not have to be personal. You have your opinion, I have mine, we can agree to disagree and move on, but you seem intent on ramming your opinion down my throat and when that doesn't work, you resort to sarcastic personal attacks, which are simply not necessary. Attack the ball, not the player.

I did not call you stupid, but that was my inference and given the circumstances, I think it's justified.

You also agreed to the T&C's, but would you be happy if QF terminated the program and you lost all your points and status? The T&C's allow them to do it, but I bet my house, you'd be unimpressed.

If all of this makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. Surely you're not stupid enough to think I value your opinion of me.........

 

[Sprucegoose]

I don't understand this post

 

[Downwind]

I am not sure I get this. I can see cheap versus expensive ways, but I am not sure that I see an unethical or immoral way of achieving WP.

See above. I said I'd rather a LTG earn another 600/800 to retain/earn WP than someone else get it by genuinely earning 600/700 with a DSC offer or spending $1500 on YUPPS. I know this is an extreme example but it is entirely plausible. I also made the point that it is perfectly legitimate, but I doubt QF envisioned that it would be used in such a way making it IMHO unethical/immoral. But to each their own.

 

[Jobu]

This is such a weird thread... I feel so... immoral and unethical for reading it.

 

[medhead]

This is such a weird thread... I feel so... immoral and unethical for reading it.

You're wrong you should feel unethical and immoral.

 

[EmilyHoward]

........... got you by the bollocks.[/QUOTE]

or by the cough I guess. LOL

EH

 

[EmilyHoward]

Not so fast......

I have no issue with disagreement. What I have an issue with is someone defend and justify one inequality because they personally benefit from it, and not apply the same logic or reason to another hypothetical inequality. ComeFlyWithMe is quite happy to expose the legitimacy of soft landings despite there being no rational or logical explanation for them. They see no issue with a former WP getting the same benefits as an SG that flew the required SC, despite having potentially not flown for 23 months. Yet they'd be horrified if a LTS/G got to start their yearly SC earn at 250/600. My argument is that both are equally unfair, but why is one ok and the other not? IMHO, the only logical explanation is that ComeFlyWithMe benefits from one but not the other and that is the lack of objectivity to which I refer........

A Lifetime level surely is "a line in the sand" which you can never fall below, whereas the Annual Qualification is just that... you have to do it every year.

I just don't see why just because you have reached a Lifetime Level either Silver or Gold you should have an easier start. The reward for that much flying to achieve that Lifetime Level is surely that Lifetime Level which can't be taken away.

As for soft landings Qantas would do that because, as has been said, people sometimes have a year or so of 'low flying' LOL. Having a soft landing will draw them back in at the end of that time.

EH

 

[Jack_OC]

Consider someone that has achieved Lifetime Gold, but they have always been Gold (ok, this will take a few years). Under your proposal they would then be able to achieve Platinum each year, yet they have never flown the required amount to get there.

This whole topic really doesn't bother me either way, but just an observation: by the same token, it is already possible to achieve LTS without ever having been Silver before, or to achieve LTG without ever having been Gold before!

Btw, with regard to the comments that the OP is suggesting a shortcut to WP: I'm unlikely to even get near LTG in the next decade, but I would be WP now if any OW airline had been a viable option for a work trip to the EU last November. And WP status could well be mine this year, depending on where work takes me and with which airlines.* So I certainly wouldn't view LTG plus a reduced number of SCs in a given year as a shortcut to WP status! Anyone who has LTG has clearly given QF/OW a lot of business over a sustained period of time, so I wouldn't begrudge them whatever benefits QF want to give them.


* But because I have little control over this, I could just as easily find myself with a soft landing back to Silver!

 

[medhead]

This whole topic really doesn't bother me either way, but just an observation: by the same token, it is already possible to achieve LTS without ever having been Silver before, or to achieve LTG without ever having been Gold before!

Btw, with regard to the comments that the OP is suggesting a shortcut to WP: I'm unlikely to even get near LTG in the next decade, but I would be WP now if any OW airline had been a viable option for a work trip to the EU last November. And WP status could well be mine this year, depending on where work takes me and with which airlines.* So I certainly wouldn't view LTG plus a reduced number of SCs in a given year as a shortcut to WP status! Anyone who has LTG has clearly given QF/OW a lot of business over a sustained period of time, so I wouldn't begrudge them whatever benefits QF want to give them.


* But because I have little control over this, I could just as easily find myself with a soft landing back to Silver!

LTS and LTG both have different qualification requirements to Silver and gold. The point is where someone should achieve gold or platinum without actually getting the required number of status credits as a standard practice across the board. (So not exceptions made by qantas to comp status to individuals.

It is also worth remembering that the lifetime status is the benefit given to recognise sustained support for Qantas/OW. Platinum is given to recognise support in the current year. I see no need to confuse the 2 types of recognition.

 

[Jack_OC]

LTS and LTG both have different qualification requirements to Silver and gold. The point is where someone should achieve gold or platinum without actually getting the required number of status credits as a standard practice across the board. (So not exceptions made by qantas to comp status to individuals.

I’m well aware of that. I'm not sure if you read the quote from oz_mark that I was replying to? His concern is that someone could eventually attain LTG without ever being Platinum (true). Therefore, if the OP’s suggestion was adopted, an LTG could in theory then get to Platinum without ever having earned 1400 SCs in a year (again true). My point was simply that an even bigger anomaly already exists. Currently, if someone gets just under 700 credits every year, they would never get to Gold, until eventually they reach the LTG threshold. Then they would have lifetime Gold, despite never having flown enough to attain Gold for a single year!

This situation obviously couldn’t have arisen in practice yet, as they only count credits earned since 1998. However, if the rules stay as they are, then in about 5-6 years time, it will start to happen, and in about 10-15 years time there will be people getting LTG who never got anywhere near Gold in any given year!

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I don’t really care one way or the other if they change the rules on this (and even if I did care, I'm sure they won't change) – but I just thought it was worth pointing out that there are already bigger quirks within the rules than the one oz_mark is worried about.

 

[oz_mark]

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I don’t really care one way or the other if they change the rules on this (and even if I did care, I'm sure they won't change) – but I just thought it was worth pointing out that there are already bigger quirks within the rules than the one oz_mark is worried about.

Worried? Not worried at all. Just pointing out an anomoly in the system.

As to your anomoly - heck why not. If someone has been silver for 20+ years, I am happy for them to get LTG (but not get a free kick to get further to platinum )