re JQ. It used to, and as far as I know still runs on the Navitaire platform(happy to be corrected, I can't find an easy reference via google) which is a dedicated low cost airline booking platform and management system. It was designed for carriers to run their ops and systems independently without all the legacy rubbish of the Amadeus and SABRE type GDS platforms - and do it cheaper and also allow for enhanced functionaly to support many common LCC functions like bundling of products and all the rest.
The key point being it was(is?) relatively standalone - integration to other systems was bolted on later.
Why can AA and other partners credit faster to QF? AA uses SABRE for example, which is a different legacy system to amadeus, but given they all use the same central clearing house system that has been in use for decades, many of these intra airline links were long established (so, for example, interlining of bags, through check in etc is possible even across differing reservations platforms).. old and slow, but things like interchange of data has been very common so things like FF info is, in theory, easier to integrate, and also these systems are set up to allow for easier integration.
I think it's even part of oneworld joining requirements to have specific standards in place for such things.
None of that applies to JQ.
It's not surprising that these things are far less seamless and let's face it QF has little real incentive to make it go any better reallly.
I agree this should have been solved yonks ago and it should be very quick but it obviously isn't. We already know how well QF manage such things from endless examples of poor IT integration and management.
not an excuse or defending anyone but knowing where JQ came from technology wise I think I have some understanding as to why there have been various issues.
imho