Comped QF Status with very low SC balance.

[serfty]

Weren't there a lot of comps to Gold just a few months ago for people living in the Gold Coast who had very few status credits?

Yeah, but where does "averaging" come in to that one?

 

[Pushka]

Yeah, but where does "averaging" come in to that one?

It doesn't. JohnK said he can't see where averaging comes into play and you replied his comment didn't make sense.

ein confusen.

 

[Pushka]

It doesn't. JohnK said he can't see where averaging comes into play and you replied his comment didn't make sense.

ein confusen.

As per above.

 

[JohnK]

That statement is illogical!

I have only ever came across two situations of anyone being granted status by QFF they did not hold - and they was for specific compensatory / fiduciary / locality reasons.

Certainly nothing to do with averaging - that one is specifically in relation to granting a status level currently held.

SCs averaging is not the only mechanism used for comping status.

We know that for a fact because there are situations where SCs averaging obviously did not come into play. And each one was not service recovery or compensation.

It is all guess work. We dont know the rules behind it. You can earn 2,600 SCs this year and earn nothing next year and there is no guarantee you will be comped.

My situation was classic. Made exactly 1,400 SCs and comped ~8 weeks early the year after with obviously insufficient SCs.

Let's not pretend we know how everything works. Some things are random that do not fit logical patterns.

 

[Lonely Flyer]

Weren't there a lot of comps to Gold just a few months ago for people living in the Gold Coast who had very few status credits?

Not for this Teddy Bear. I am 5 scs short of gold and my year ends on 31/08.

 

[serfty]

It doesn't. JohnK said he can't see where averaging comes into play and you replied his comment didn't make sense.

ein confusen.

No - he had averaging and the granting of a higher status in the one sentence trying to relate the two.

I don't believe the SCs averaging theory when I read stories on AFF of people being gifted Gold and Platinum status when they have never held that status or gotten close to earning that status.

...

In the context of this thread, "Averaging" relates to the retaining of an status a person holds.

"Averaging" does not relate to people being "gifted ... [higher] ...status when they have never held that status ...".

So it is illogical to use such gifting of higher status to discredit "Averaging" when it had no relationship with it in the first place.

 

[JohnK]

"Averaging" does not relate to people being "gifted ... [higher] ...status when they have never held that status ...".

So it is illogical to use such gifting of higher status to discredit "Averaging" when it had no relationship with it in the first place.

As soon as 1 person has a different experience the theory of "Averaging" is discredited.

 

[serfty]

As soon as 1 person has a different experience the theory of "Averaging" is discredited.

"Averaging" is not a myth. It was cited in person by a Qantas employee as a method they use in relation to 'comping' a member to remain at a status level they did garner enough SC's to ordinarily retain.

There are likely other methods used - but that does not discredit "Averaging".

On the other issue - "Averaging" does not relate to people being "gifted status when they have never held that status ...".

 

[basso]

SCs averaging is not the only mechanism used for comping status.

This. There appear to multiple paths through the process of determining status from year to year. One appears to be averaging. There appear to be others. Thus you can find examples to demonstrate it, and you can find examples that don't demonstrate it.

 

[JohnK]

"Averaging" is not a myth. It was cited in person by a Qantas employee as a method they use in relation to 'comping' a member to remain at a status level they did garner enough SC's to ordinarily retain.

There are likely other methods used - but that does not discredit "Averaging".

Yes one of the methods they use which implies there are other methods. Other criteria?

It does not mean though that if your average SCs over 3 years > SCs required for a status in that period that you will get that status level for another year.

 

[serfty]

...

It does not mean though that if your average SCs over 3 years > SCs required for a status in that period that you will get that status level for another year.

Yes it does!

Qualify WP with 1900 SC in one year. Re-qualify with 1300 the next. Fail to qualify having only 1100 the next year and you would be comped with an average of over 1400.

 

[ketsuzei]

Qualify WP with 1900 SC in one year. Re-qualify with 1300 the next. Fail to qualify having only 1100 the next year and you would be comped with an average of over 1400.

I hope it stays that way. I think I'm going to go from something like 4,000 to 1,200 to maybe the odd hundred.

 

[JohnK]

Yes it does!

Qualify WP with 1900 SC in one year. Re-qualify with 1300 the next. Fail to qualify having only 1100 the next year and you would be comped with an average of over 1400.

That is not always the case as per posts on AFF.

 

[serfty]

That is not always the case as per posts on AFF.

Point one out in the last three years ...

 

[JohnK]

Point one out in the last three years ...

We would have to go back through some of the threads. I shall do that when I get some time