Qantas + Frequent Flyer + Status adjustment = Does not compute

[thewinchester]

Well, it looks like I've just found a 'bug' in the QFF system arising from status adjustments.

A recent P+P flight booking zeroed my points balance out - or so I thought. It turns out I'd sent my balance negative to the tune of 608pts, and it was because of the way the system has managed the way things are credited and calculated.

I only discovered the problem after four recent flights credited to the account, all made after another P+P booking which supposedly sent my balance back to zero. Let me explain.

Firstly, I'd called QFF/QP Corp SC Tuesday last week, where the agent promised to resolve the issue and return my call. Sadly, this didn't happen and I called again to day to find out what was going on. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised when <redacted> told me there were no notes on the file about my call - so I had to explain it all over again. Annoying if you ask me, but let me continue.

Thanks to Cathay Pacific's slow crediting of points during my Asia 2010 trip, my status didn't change correctly in time for a SIN-PER segment. A quick call ensured the status bonus owing on count back (which was 25% for a PS at the time) was applied to the account.

However, while on the website we see the adjustment as a separate line item in the statement, the adjustment in the QFF backend is applied directly to the original flight. From the looks of things, the QFF website was adding the adjusted balance of this flight per the backend with the adjustment amount applied (3037+608) leading to the discrepancy. This is despite the website transaction history showing the balance of the flight as credited plus the adjustment (2429+608).

Further, the P+P bookings I made used only the available points balances listed on the website at the time the bookings were made, not a point more or less.

Yes, this has left me scratching my head as well. I can't understand how, specially in this day and age, that you can still have IT systems where simple mathematical problems like this creep through - albeit being experienced in this field I shouldn't be surprised. The women in the QFF/QP Corp. SC who took and returned my call <Redacted identification> also didn't leave me confident that this issue would end up with the right IT people to get such a simple bug knocked of the system. To say I had trouble getting a word in with this service agent was an understatement, and her tone of voice didn't leave me feeling at all positive.

So, the issue has been identified and closed - however you'd think there'd be processes and systems in place to catch such a simple discrepancy in calculation. Just another one of those moments where you'd left scratching your head

 

[samiam]

I've just had half a glass of NZ sparkling- could you please put all of the above in a table - lol

 

[DeKa]

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to be naming someone, and giving their extension or ID in a public forum?
I would remove that from your post if I was you.

Yes it's a pity the system seems to have failed you, but I'm glad to hear it's sorted.

 

[medhead]

I've just had half a glass of NZ sparkling- could you please put all of the above in a table - lol

Oh, is that why I didn't understand a word of it? I need some brain lubricant.

Seriously I have no idea what the issue was and I'm not sure how the workings of the back end are known. But I doubt it was a widespread problem as I had 10000 point and 1500 point adjustments earlier this year. The total in my spreadsheet tracked through properly and correctly and match the website. There was no magical extra 11500 points on my balance. Otherwise, I would still be working that off

 

[harvyk]

I think I got the jist of this post,

Long and short of it is that bugs in systems happen. It's impossible to test every possible permutation of data combinations and inputs which could exist in a large system, especially when some of that data is coming from a 3rd party system. (I seriously wish it was possible, it'd make my life a hell of a lot easier).

There is also every chance that this is a known bug but not considered a priority for a fix, or has been listed as a fix for the next version as it only happens every 1 in every 10 million transactions and there is an easy workaround for it.

Of course Jacqueline may have been completely unsure whom to send the bug report to or is in the same position as you and I in that all she can do is submit a bug report to a generic inbox and then it's out of her hands with no possible hope of advice from IT (seen that many times).