No soft landing to PS in my case, I have flown 1 sector and earned 80 QF SC

[esseeeayeenn]

Which seems to be a nice perk (though not terribly useful if one doesn't fly ) since it violates QF's own polcy on attaining status. Maybe "violate" is not the right word, but it's nice if it's a real soft landing in the sense of no other requirements needed

I don't think it violates it. My understanding is that the four segments are required to earn status - whether to attain or retain.
If you have failed to earn a particular status then there are the two unpublished reasons why you might be permitted to retain some status despite not having earned it (that year).
On reflection it would be silly to apply some of the earning criteria to determine eligibility for an unearned status.

 

[basso]

Which seems to be a nice perk (though not terribly useful if one doesn't fly ) since it violates QF's own polcy on attaining status. Maybe "violate" is not the right word, but it's nice if it's a real soft landing in the sense of no other requirements needed

You could argue that comps violate the stated terms and conditions. You could argue that soft landings violate the stated terms and conditions. Question is, why on earth are you going there?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I've been WP for three years now, a little more if you include the period after qualifying..

Will probably only do about 300 SC's in my current year, but will get the four minimum flights.

I'll be good test of the unwritten rule come December.

 

[medhead]

Thanks anyway?
Perhaps this is a revelation, but people can probably help if they start with something that has a basic outline of the problem. Random meaningless statements are hard to comprehend.

Ah, nothing official.
ADL - MEL was in QF whY classic award. Not P + P.
MEL - WLG was in paid J. 80 QF SC.
WLG - SYD was in whY with NZ. Got 15 VA SC.
SYD - ADL was in QF whY classic award. Not P + P.
Thanks anyway.

 

[eminere]

Thanks anyway?
Perhaps this is a revelation, but people can probably help if they start with something that has a basic outline of the problem. Random meaningless statements are hard to comprehend.

On other forums that are less indulgent I mean tolerant such random posts might be taken as trolling.

 

[medhead]

On other forums that are less indulgent I mean tolerant such random posts might be taken as trolling.

Funny you mention it. I have a theory, but then I'd get in trouble if I voiced it.

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

I have a plan to do 510 this QF year, coming up to Jul 16, so 10 SC short.
80 SC is only the start.
Wait and see if they comp me later on.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have a plan to do 510 this QF year, coming up to Jul 16, so 10 SC short.
80 SC is only the start.
Wait and see if they comp me later on.

If no comp, you will have qualified for silver anyway, so the soft landing issue doesn't affect you.

 

[serfty]

SWMBO qualified SG with over 700 SC's in her own right back in June 2011 with an October "year" end.

October 2012 she soft landed to PS.

October 2013 she was comped PS (near enough to the three year rule I guess [(0+730+230)/3 > 250]).

October 2014 she dropped to NB.

Since qualifying SG in 2011, she has not earned a single QF SC, let alone a ~.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I have a plan to do 510 this QF year, coming up to Jul 16, so 10 SC short.
80 SC is only the start.
Wait and see if they comp me later on.

Then why the hell don't you just do one extra Y flight to reach the 600 SC requirement???!!!!

 

[medhead]

The more important question is why even start this thread with its highly misleading title. There's a whole 9 months before the provision of a soft landing will even be known. The OP has ZERO information to support the claim they've been singled out to be denied a soft landing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The more important question is why even start this thread with its highly misleading title. There's a whole 9 months before the provision of a soft landing will even be known. The OP has ZERO information to support the claim they've been singled out to be denied a soft landing.

From what I can gather, the OP was saying that the 'soft landing' option didn't appear on the account summary page... ie, if you fail to meet the requirements to retain gold, you'll be given silver regardless.

 

[RichardMEL]

You could argue that comps violate the stated terms and conditions. You could argue that soft landings violate the stated terms and conditions. Question is, why on earth are you going there?

Fair question. I guess I was "thinking aloud" (writing aloud? thinking and writing?). I dunno. maybe this thread has twisted me all up into confusion

I guess my thought process was that I see a bit of a difference to the idea of a comp, and the idea of a soft landing.

to me (at least) a comp is being allowed to retain a status level when falling short (by some mark) of the criteria. eg: make 540 SC's but are given Gold for another year) while a soft landing is when you are dropped to the status level below (minimum silver) when you have not even attained the requirements for that level (so you're gold, but earn 0 or maybe 100 SC).

Now sure, in that 100 SC you can absolutely earn those 4~, but it doesn't seem to be manditory. A comp sort of implies you've made the 4~ since bar a omne way in F to the UK or similar on "1" flight (eg: QF1) you'd earn enough for PS, but not have your 4~. I'd imagine this kind of situation to be fairly rare though.

Either way, technically yes both do not meet the statement regarding status on the QF website, but given both cases don't meet the first condition ("meeting the required SC's") then I guess both cases are an exception. One of the few parts of the program that do, in general, benefit the punters (but QFF know this, so it's not like I'm drawing attention to a loophole or other revelation).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Fair question. I guess I was "thinking aloud" (writing aloud? thinking and writing?). I dunno. maybe this thread has twisted me all up into confusion

I guess my thought process was that I see a bit of a difference to the idea of a comp, and the idea of a soft landing.

to me (at least) a comp is being allowed to retain a status level when falling short (by some mark) of the criteria. eg: make 540 SC's but are given Gold for another year) while a soft landing is when you are dropped to the status level below (minimum silver) when you have not even attained the requirements for that level (so you're gold, but earn 0 or maybe 100 SC).

Now sure, in that 100 SC you can absolutely earn those 4~, but it doesn't seem to be manditory. A comp sort of implies you've made the 4~ since bar a omne way in F to the UK or similar on "1" flight (eg: QF1) you'd earn enough for PS, but not have your 4~. I'd imagine this kind of situation to be fairly rare though.

Either way, technically yes both do not meet the statement regarding status on the QF website, but given both cases don't meet the first condition ("meeting the required SC's") then I guess both cases are an exception. One of the few parts of the program that do, in general, benefit the punters (but QFF know this, so it's not like I'm drawing attention to a loophole or other revelation).

all of the above leads to the following:

Problem: members are confused by unpublished benefits
Solution: in response to member concerns, unpublished benefits removed.

 

[RichardMEL]

a ha! Enhancement!

point taken but perhaps the take away from this thread (OP's confusing situation notwithstanding) is that neither comps nor soft landings should be guaranteed upon or expected - far moreso a comp than a soft landing which anecdotal evidence suggests is a fairly set practice. I know UA do it too (for example) so it's not a totally unique thing in the industry.

Anyway the comments on a dedicated forum like this are really going to make a lot of difference tbh. That's just an opinion though.

 

[JohnK]

I am confused even more.

Isn't the 3 year rule in terms of a comp to the current status level (ie: he's Gold, he only gets 480 SC this membership year) type deal. I don't think it's relevant to the soft landing. If all he has for this membership year is 80, and does no more QF SC generating flying, then, in theory, a soft landing to PS should occur post 01AUG next year. Right now, it's not relevant at all to AP.

The "3 year rule" is only a guide and not gospel. And I am not 100% certain but I thought you need to minimum 4 sector requirement to drop a status level otherwise bronze?

 

[RichardMEL]

I am confused even more.

er, apologies

The "3 year rule" is only a guide and not gospel. And I am not 100% certain but I thought you need to minimum 4 sector requirement to drop a status level otherwise bronze?

You're right that the "3 year" thing (not rule ) is not gospel but seems to be used, or has been quoted by posters here as being used (as in, QFF have told them so), for assessing comps when asked.

and the 4 sector requirement (aka "4 ~") is exactly what my question, or thought more was earlier when I suggested that it may violate the rule, yet others have suggested through their experience that having 0 SC earning and thus zero ~ (since all QF ~ eilgible fares earn at least some SC in QFF) has earned a soft landing (as you say "drop a level").

by the wording on the QF website, you'd expect that earning < 4 ~ in a membership year should, in theory, invalidate you from retaining any status levels, but clearly those have shown that this doesn't seem to apply.

and now the circle is complete

 

[serfty]

I am confused even more.


The "3 year rule" is only a guide and not gospel. And I am not 100% certain but I thought you need to minimum 4 sector requirement to drop a status level otherwise bronze?

Why be confused - see post #29 ...

To be specific, soft landed SG-> PS with no ~'s, then comped PS->PS with no ~'s but > 250 SC's 3 year average.

i.e Soft Landings don't require 4 ~'s and the three year rule seems to have applied as well.

 

[elan]

I can vouch forretaining status without accruing the required number of points. Earlier thisweek I noticed that I had retained WP even though I was 30 SC short with myyear ending at the end of the month. I did have a return flight booked with QF fromWLG which would have left me 10 short but have another trip planed later thismonth which would have taken me over the 1200 mark, I haven't yet booked thisflight. I did earn 1400 SC’s last year.

 

[woodborer]

the three year rule

My personal view is that it should be called the three year conjecture, or maybe the three year theorem.