Is QFF Value Declining?

[Cool Cat Phil]

The grass is always greener it seems.

I personally feel everyone has different circumstances, needs, goals etc. One person's lack of availability is another's "I can always book what I want" deal (whatever it is). In reality though it's never black or white and everyone's experiences will be variable. Sometimes that undefinited benefit of a shadow may or may not appear. Sometimes upgrades may clear, or may not, or you may find F availability to LHR when you want it, or not.

I find blanket statements to be poor generalisations when it comes to this kind of thing.

As an example, I as a solo pax with interest in certain destinations will have, most likely, vastly different experiences to a "standard" family of 4 wanting to redeem points to go to the Gold Coast during school holidays. By the same token, if that same family can redeem seats on JQ they'd likely see value in the product, but if I can't find that F seat to DFW I really want.. then maybe I don't... or maybe that family can't get seats for the hols so have zero value(in their terms) but I can get EK to Paris when I want, and P1 upgrades me mostly when I want it... thus I see value.

this is hypothetical only mostly used to try and make my point.

Just remember, that EVERY loyalty scheme is changing, adapting, and invariably value is declining (see UA's recent revamp which destroys the few sweet spots that were left as from November). They're hardly alone here. VA will change in time, and QF will continue to change as they try to get more of our $$$ for less of their cost.. as all of them seek to do.

Like the Game of Thrones, we must play the Game of Points to extract what we can before the dragons or white(card) walkers finally get us in the end and we meet a grisly death in 28E on a jam packed 737 to PER

happy scheming.

Well said!

As you said loyalty Programs will constantly change and evolve & unfortunately it most instances the sweat spots are slowing becoming obsolete.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Just remember, that EVERY loyalty scheme is changing, adapting, and invariably value is declining (see UA's recent revamp which destroys the few sweet spots that were left as from November). They're hardly alone here. VA will change in time, and QF will continue to change as they try to get more of our $$$ for less of their cost.. as all of them seek to do.

Totally disagree.

In many markets, FFPs are mature by current standards. Loyalty industry events are recycling the same speakers, same content for the past few years. There's very little new talent, very few LMS vendors and even less creative thinking in the industry. All of this amounts to program managers taking the easiest path to new revenue, which unfortunately can be lead by finance teams which are short term numbers driven. They can't account for the 'halo-effect', the sheer time it can take to drive new initiatives (due to internal BS politics, finance, other agendas etc..) and the net result is straight up devaluations, cheapening consumer value propositions and never ending mileage sales. Creating unlimited new miles/points into existence is NOT sustainable and puts programs in the position where it's easier to drive more revenue by cutting redemptions or cutting earn. This fundamentally hurts the user experience.

Programs in mature markets have stopped creating new value for users over the past 10 years. The result is a steady decline in program value, benefits, redemptions and overall intrinsic value for members and partners.
Frequent flyers should NOT expect it as the norm, but if you continue to spend money with the airline and continue to earn CC miles as normal you are fundamentally re-enforcing poor program behavioral change.

I strongly believe a new type of FFP will emerge over the coming years which brings value back to the members while delivering even larger returns to the host airline.

 

[RichardMEL]

TTR - fair points.

I guess my wording was not reflecting what I was trying to say they're not adapting per se or evolving... I simply meant that as the situation (from their perspective) changes they move, roughly in line with the next guy (or follow the leader mostly for the US3 and a bit slower elsewhere but it still happens) to tighten things up to provide the value (as they define it) to them.

I think the last major "innovation" was one of the US3 (Delta) being the first to go full pelt into their revenue based model back a few years ago. That was a huge step in the context of the US3 basically copying each other in just about every single way since the FFP's came into being. And of course, AA and UA, more or less, followed in varying ways to keep on terms (AA was the last to really change).

But, as you write, it's still more of the old thinking.

Nothing new about revenue based FFP's from the original days of Tier Credits and NZ Airdollars(or whatever they are called) which have been around for yonks to the original incarnations of SQ's Krisflyer(remember when anything not full Y got nothing) and the PPS System was/is only for J and F paid pax. IIRC SQ's entry into Star was what, more or less, forced some concessions from them in terms of Y earnings and the like.

We do need a *real* change but what form will it take?

I wonder if there will be more use of complex CRM to make the programs far more specific to each member, based on their own trends and activity.. and offer incremental revenue based on this. For example over the past few years I've flown airline X (not QF) in paid Business Class, yet they keep sending lame emails to offer their Economy product, or Y exit row seats, or Y+ or stuff like that... that stuff is all irrelevant to me and if they took a moment to see my patterns they'd know I don't buy Y so why not offer me something more relevant?

There are hints I see in various programs that they are headed to a more customer focused in an individual way system, but it has a way to go I think.

Or perhaps things will go to more of a bundled approach as we're seeing with the entry of such products in the USA as "Economy Basic" and talk of a "Business Basic" fare group, perhaps this sort of policy can then extend to awards and elsewhere.


(this is more OT to this thread of course but the same old dabates tend to come around every so often ).

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I think the last major "innovation" was one of the US3 (Delta) being the first to go full pelt into their revenue based model back a few years ago. That was a huge step in the context of the US3 basically copying each other in just about every single way since the FFP's came into being. And of course, AA and UA, more or less, followed in varying ways to keep on terms (AA was the last to really change).

But, as you write, it's still more of the old thinking.

Certainly is a bold step to go full blown revenue. US3 are also mega-profitable and as we've seen, have no problem making radical changes to suit their own agendas and financial positions.

For example over the past few years I've flown airline X (not QF) in paid Business Class, yet they keep sending lame emails to offer their Economy product, or Y exit row seats, or Y+ or stuff like that... that stuff is all irrelevant to me and if they took a moment to see my patterns they'd know I don't buy Y so why not offer me something more relevant?

Virgin Australia does the same with me. Admittedly my last flights with them were some years ago, but everything I did was in business or high-yield econ fares and upgraded to biz. Why on earth I want to fly on a $89 SYD-MEL is straight up bad marketing and proof their CRM system isn't up to par.

We do need a *real* change but what form will it take?

Watch

This

Space