Question about Life Time status with Qantas?

[Downwind]

Hi everyone,

Having LTS and being 2000 SC short of LTG, it got me thinking......Should the SC's required for a given tier be reduced by the lifetime status amount?

ie: With LTS:

• 450 SC to reach SG and 350 SC to retain it
• 1150 SC to reach WP and 950 SC to retain it
• 3350 SC with a minimum of 2450 SC on QF to reach or retain P1.

With LTG:

• 800 SC to reach WP and 600 SC to retain it
• 3000 SC with a minimum of 2100 SC on QF to reach or retain P1.

Discuss.

 

[moa999]

Umm. There was a thread very recently.

Personally I think no.

 

[Downwind]

Personally I think no.

Why?

I dont want to start an argument, im just interested in your reasoning........

My reasoning for it is that lifetime status is for all intents and purposes, no different to earned status, so why should a lifetime status holder be discriminated against and have to "re-earn" the lower status? IMHO, they should only have to earn the difference between their lifetime status and the higher status, exactly like someone who earned the lower status.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Why?

I dont want to start an argument, im just interested in your reasoning........

My reasoning for it is that lifetime status is for all intents and purposes, no different to earned status, so why should a lifetime status holder be discriminated against and have to "re-earn" the lower status? IMHO, they should only have to earn the difference between their lifetime status and the higher status, exactly like someone who earned the lower status.

Because you don't deserve an advantage over other members obtaining or retaining status. LTG, IMO, is just a safety net, so you will never fall below, and always have benefits (until QF 'enhance' it)

 

[oz_mark]

Why?

I dont want to start an argument, im just interested in your reasoning........

My reasoning for it is that lifetime status is for all intents and purposes, no different to earned status, so why should a lifetime status holder be discriminated against and have to "re-earn" the lower status? IMHO, they should only have to earn the difference between their lifetime status and the higher status, exactly like someone who earned the lower status.

I don't think that a lifetime status holder is being discriminated against at all. All the lifetime status does is put a floor under how far you can fall.

Consider someone that has achieved Lifetime Gold, but they have always been Gold (ok, this will take a few years). Under your proposal they would then be able to achieve Platinum each year, yet they have never flown the required amount to get there.

 

[Downwind]

Because you don't deserve an advantage over other members obtaining or retaining status. LTG, IMO, is just a safety net, so you will never fall below, and always have benefits (until QF 'enhance' it)

By "advantage" you mean starting from a base of the lifetime status requalifictaion level rather than zero? The lifetime status is not free, but earned as per the T&C's.

I do however, see your point about it being a safety net but maintain that a lifetime status should have some benefit over earned status and this would be one way of making that happen.


One thing I will say, and this does not necessarily apply to all threads or posters, but IMHO,the one thing this forum lacks, is objectivity and that is why I'm trying to understand the logic behind the answer/opinion......

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

By "advantage" you mean starting from a base of the lifetime status requalifictaion level rather than zero? The lifetime status is not free, but earned as per the T&C's.

I do however, see your point about it being a safety net but maintain that a lifetime status should have some benefit over earned status and this would be one way of making that happen.


One thing I will say, and this does not necessarily apply to all threads or posters, but IMHO,the one thing this forum lacks, is objectivity and that is why I'm trying to understand the logic behind the answer/opinion......

Your question is answered in the same T&Cs that you refer.

The benefit of lifetime status is you can have zero SCs and still enjoy SG benefits for the remainder of your lifetime*.
*lifetime may be enhanced by QF to mean a different period of time at any stage.

There isn't, and should never be, a 'shortcut' to top tier status. I too am approaching LTG, but don't expect to retain WP unless I earn it. You are asking for a shortcut. This devalues it for everyone else.

What there should be is LTP for those of us who really show loyalty over time.

You may also be confusing objectivity with dreaming.

 

[Downwind]

I don't think that a lifetime status holder is being discriminated against at all. All the lifetime status does is put a floor under how far you can fall.

Consider someone that has achieved Lifetime Gold, but they have always been Gold (ok, this will take a few years). Under your proposal they would then be able to achieve Platinum each year, yet they have never flown the required amount to get there.

The floor concept is interesting, but again, shouldn't the lifetime holder have the ability to rise from their "floor" of SG rather than from zero?

Lifetime SG, at the minimum SC earn would take just over 23 years but I see your point about earning WP when it's never been earned before......

 

[Downwind]

Your question is answered in the same T&Cs that you refer.

You may also be confusing objectivity with dreaming.

Has it?
Care to explain?

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Has it?
Care to explain?

The qualification levels are clearly published. LTG, once achieved, has no relationship to SCs.

I'm not sure what your end-game is, or what you are trying to achieve other that a free lunch for yourself. I will leave it to other members to decide if they agree with what you propose, but imagine a few do, that won't change the program, and nor should it.

Many of us travel a lot and earn WP. I personally would feel aggrieved if a LTG got a soft start to SC earn towards WP or WP1 as it is completely unfair and inequitable.

 

[sjd]

You may also be confusing objectivity with dreaming.

We can all dream about objectivity, unless someone has an objective objection to the object of our dreams.

 

[Downwind]

The qualification levels are clearly published. LTG, once achieved, has no relationship to SCs.

I'm not sure what your end-game is, or what you are trying to achieve other that a free lunch for yourself. I will leave it to other members to decide if they agree with what you propose, but imagine a few do, that won't change the program, and nor should it.

Many of us travel a lot and earn WP. I personally would feel aggrieved if a LTG got a soft start to SC earn towards WP or WP1 as it is completely unfair and inequitable.

The qualification levels are published and understood, but the fact remains that LTS/G does not explicitly deal with the relationship to SC or the 4 annual QF segments.
I cant see how it is unreasonable to ask the question whether LTS/G and their requalification levels should form the new "floor" for SC earning.

There is no endgame, im not trying to achieve anything (other than asking the question and being interested in peoples reasoning) and am most certainly NOT after a free lunch. As you rightly point out, some members will agree, others, such as yourself, vehemently disagree, and that is fine. I agree that our opinions will not change the program but must disagree with your assertion that it shouldnt. I do however know why it wont, but that is not for this thread.

I cant fathom why you would feel aggrieved about someone else having a certain benefit, nor can I see how it is "completely unfair and inequitable", other than perhaps a hint of envy and jealousy, which makes no sense given your WP status.

What you consider to be "completely unfair and inequitable", others, myself included, dont. I think its "completely unfair and inequitable" to require a LTS/G member to re-earn status that they have already earned for the rest of their or QF's life.

slightly OT, but are you equally aggrieved by the "completely unfair and inequitable" soft landing from WP to SG? Using your logic, why should a person who is WP one year and then doesnt take a single flight, drop to SG, given that a PS and NB would drop/keep NB.

The lack of objectivity I referred to earlier rears its ugly head.......

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The qualification levels are published and understood, but the fact remains that LTS/G does not explicitly deal with the relationship to SC or the 4 annual QF segments.
I cant see how it is unreasonable to ask the question whether LTS/G and their requalification levels should form the new "floor" for SC earning.

There is no endgame, im not trying to achieve anything (other than asking the question and being interested in peoples reasoning) and am most certainly NOT after a free lunch. As you rightly point out, some members will agree, others, such as yourself, vehemently disagree, and that is fine. I agree that our opinions will not change the program but must disagree with your assertion that it shouldnt. I do however know why it wont, but that is not for this thread.

I cant fathom why you would feel aggrieved about someone else having a certain benefit, nor can I see how it is "completely unfair and inequitable", other than perhaps a hint of envy and jealousy, which makes no sense given your WP status.

What you consider to be "completely unfair and inequitable", others, myself included, dont. I think its "completely unfair and inequitable" to require a LTS/G member to re-earn status that they have already earned for the rest of their or QF's life.

slightly OT, but are you equally aggrieved by the "completely unfair and inequitable" soft landing from WP to SG? Using your logic, why should a person who is WP one year and then doesnt take a single flight, drop to SG, given that a PS and NB would drop/keep NB.

The lack of objectivity I referred to earlier rears its ugly head.......

Soft landings are common in most FF programs and there are many reasons. One is that a WP for example might change work or home situation (new baby comes to mind) meaning their travel is temporarily stalled, after many years of being WP. Giving a soft landing to SG ensures that they still retain some benefit for occasional travel. They still have to qualify for the full SC requirement to remain there or return to WP, contrary to what you are suggesting.

It sounds to me like you are falling short of your WP re-qual and wish to whine about the fact that you will only be an SG or lower in the future, hence looking for a shortcut. Good luck with that.

The lifetime benefits have been fairly static for some time (probably since your join date), and I'd suggest that if you aren't happy with them, you find a programme that better suits your needs.

 

[oz_mark]

The qualification levels are published and understood, but the fact remains that LTS/G does not explicitly deal with the relationship to SC or the 4 annual QF segments.

I think the reason that it doesn't deal with the relationship is because there is none.

One should just be happy that there is a lifetime level...

 

[Robert K]

there's nothing fair or not fair about this. There's no financial reason for QF to lower the qualification levels so they will not do it.

Having life time gold means one will feel the need to fly a oneworld airline until they die. so why would they bother lowering the qualification when they've already got you by the bollocks.

 

[medhead]

The more important question is why should a non-lifetime status holder be discriminated against?

The OP is also missing the whole qualify/retain system. Any silver status person (lifetime or other) requires the same number of status credits to move to a higher level. Already holding silver doesn't not provide a base for qualification at a higher level for the next year. The same is true for gold

There is no base level for going up. Everyone has to attain the SC required for the higher level. Those SC are also required to get that higher level regardless of current status. All lifetime status means is they waive the requirement for you to retain. It is illogical to think they should also waive the qualification requirement for a higher level.

 

[trooper]

What he said.... so well.

I'm sorry... but the OP seems to equate disagreement with "lack of objectivity".

The previous poster has submitted a clear, logical rationale for why EVERYONE must earn status each year from the SAME base, and neatly covered the difference between obtain and retain!

 

[pleffer]

To the original question, my response would be a resounding no.

IMHO it is too easy to reach WP and P1, I would prefer it to be harder to reach, not only for LTG but for all.

i would think that for WP QF should reserve this for their top 1 or 2 %

the top tier of P1 should be for the top 400 - 600 hundreds of frequent flyers.

First on the list would be no more double SC's

 

[Downwind]

Soft landings are common in most FF programs and there are many reasons. One is that a WP for example might change work or home situation (new baby comes to mind) meaning their travel is temporarily stalled, after many years of being WP. Giving a soft landing to SG ensures that they still retain some benefit for occasional travel. They still have to qualify for the full SC requirement to remain there or return to WP, contrary to what you are suggesting.


It sounds to me like you are falling short of your WP re-qual and wish to whine about the fact that you will only be an SG or lower in the future, hence looking for a shortcut. Good luck with that.


The lifetime benefits have been fairly static for some time (probably since your join date), and I'd suggest that if you aren't happy with them, you find a programme that better suits your needs.

You seem to misunderstand.......


I'm fully aware of there being reasons for why FF program's are they way they are, but in your example above, the WP who falls back to SG, irrespective of why, gets the same benefit as someone who earned the 700/600 SC in that particular year. Is that fair? I don't really have an opinion either way, but I'd suggest it is no more or less fair than a lifetime member starting each subsequent year at 250/600 SC. I'm not passing judgement on the merits of either, just highlighting what is in my opinion, an inconsistency.


It can "sound" to you like whatever you want, but you couldn't be further from the truth. FWIW, I was SG for 10 years straight and have been WP for the last 2. My membership year ends at the end of this month and I will have earned 2480SC. I also have 1200 SC worth of travel booked in June and a further 1240 in late July/early August, so will re qualify with DOUBLE the SC required (not to mention the 50k bonus) in a mere 2.5 months. At the end of August, I'll reach LTG. In the opening post, I clearly stated that I was 2000 or so SC away from LTG, so I really don't understand how I would possibly be SG or lower, but I suppose you missed or ignored that bit.


It seems to me like your being purposefully argumentative just because someone is asking you to have a think about why you think/feel the way you do. There is no need to respond with rudeness and sarcasm. The lack of objectivity I referred to is your apparent failure to consider the program as a whole rather than your own selfish needs and wants. You are quite happy to defend and justify a benefit that is inherently unfair, because you personally benefit from it, but can't apply the same logic when it doesn't affect you. But it's ok.... You're not the only one.


This thread is not about who is right or wrong, or any attempt to change the program. The only right is the terms and conditions as they currently stand (which you seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of) and QF will NEVER make a change that is remotely beneficial for the customer but that is to their detriment. This I fully understand.

 

[medhead]

What he said.... so well.

I'm sorry... but the OP seems to equate disagreement with "lack of objectivity".

The previous poster has submitted a clear, logical rationale for why EVERYONE must earn status each year from the SAME base, and neatly covered the difference between obtain and retain!

Thanks. I've fixed the spelling mistakes now as well. Hopefully making my thoughts more understandable.