).Makes perfect sense to me and Bundling is the big buzz thing in the industry anyway. I'd say JQ has it right in this instance (words hardly ever written I know
Suggests also that if the "cost" of fees was higher for xASA's (I don't recall myself) that QF had, in fact, bundled that in though honestly I'd always figured it as the same as your classic award rate which was the whole point.
Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?
Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.
Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.
Toasters.
Sorry.. you know I had to !!
More seriously though I think QFF sorry QF Loyalty are factoring in, as someone posted earlier the general apathy of the oz public to change (it's all too hard) - as you point out, and that the small numbers (relatively) of affected people here (or rather, affected who notice and give a damn). I reckon even if it's in the tens of thousands, it's still small % of the overall QFF membership. And QF Loyalty, I reckon, make most of their dosh on the back of the casual flyers/toaster buying types who blow their points on poor value choices (like my own bloody sister, but that's a whole other story!! LOL). We joke about toasters and vouchers and the like, but I bet the numbers of people who think "Well my hard earned points can't take the family to bali/OOL/Disneyland but I can get a mixmaster and a couple of woolies vouchers" are probably higher than one suspects.
I've related before about a friend of mine who, 18 months ago when she thought "the sky is falling at QF" and thought the airline would go bust and her FF points were going to go away went and cashed in 192k (so she claimed to me) points on woolies vouchers...... I rolled all 4 of my eyes.
Fair points here
I would argue that MASA has a lower yield to QF compared with pure classic awards (out of the same inventory, as you point out, be it X,U or P) because, as you do state, there is a cost to QF to allocate points and SC on those MASA's vs the none for the Classic Award, which thius to me suggests the "cost" of the points/SC's earned is a (small) reduction in yield of the MASA compared to the Classic Award.
For those that used the points to pay for the taxes in a MASA (IIRC that became an option at some point to "pay" the whole thing in points) then the value of the taxes, which QF of course does not keep, ups the yield on the points paid to QF (unless I have my math inside out which is always possible
I'm not sure who has suggested points+pay ("p+p") equals the "new" ASA - certainly not me. I was comparing the "pay for flight with points"(and only points) pricing for seats (as opposed to awards) as the comparision as those seats paid for with points would get you the SC and FF points as with the "old" ASA's (these always existed of course, except for the what we call the MASA's suggesting those purchased where award inventory existed and one could thus get the same seat at a lower "price" for the ASA).
I know one AFF poster who would possibly use p+p over a classic award, but I digress
re "There are numerous threads that provide testimony to the lack of business and first awards. If they are prepared to sell a given seat for the price of a classic award then they should be prepared to sell the same seat at a higher price that compensates for the cost of the points and SC." - Some would argue that they do this already with the "new" ASA, but of course that's not at all what you mean. I could certainly see a situation where QF may be smart to offer a "bundled" approach, much like your JQ "Max" bundles - eg:
eg:
ABC-XYZ:
Y classic award 10k points
Y classic award+earn points/SC 15k points
J classic award 20k points
J classic award+earn points/SC 30k points
F classic award 30k points
F classic award+earn points/SC 40k points
(or whatever, obviously these numbers are just randomly picked out by me). It could potentially even be dynamic pricing based on factors such as the product involved (eg: QF J trans tasman on the 737 vs "QF" J on the EK A380 same route).
As you wrote it could be a win/win to price these "bundles" out to see how much we will value it to buy. I wouldn't have an issue with that at all. It would be smart too I think. I think QF just got jack of essentially "giving away" points/SC for the same points price as your classic awards but weren't innovative enough to think "well fine, if they want this, pay a bit extra..." (or possibly they are, but there's a limitation in Amadeus or whatever GDS they are using these days that makes this difficult, I don't know)
re "Those people will most likely go back to the classic awards, thereby decreasing yield on redeemed seats. As a business decision, it seems dubious." - I disagree. Remember the classic awards are offered on flights where QF thinks it will get zero yield from that seat in the first place by offering it up as an award seat (ie: will go unsold according to yield/revenue management projections) thus "selling" it for a classic award price is still all positive yield revenue to QF as far as I can tell. They'd rather get something rather than nothing as it were.
I certainly agree that in the vast majority of cases, p+p is a poor value propisition for most savvy flyers (such as the membership here) but QF is clearly pushing this as an option. I'm thinking mostly to reduce their liability of points.
Probably should read nearly always.
The point your trying to make is still valid however you look at it. High horse morals aside.
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
