Would you like the choice to earn airline status based on flights OR spend?

[Mattg]

There's been lots of debate on this forum about the merits of awarding status credits based on spend (as Virgin Australia now does), versus based on flights taken and distance flown (as Qantas still does).

While many people on here prefer the Qantas method, there are a few people (particularly those flying on more expensive fares such as Flex fares or to regional destinations, who earn SCs at a relatively low rate under the current Qantas system) who might actually prefer to earn status credits based on spend.

It got me thinking: would you be happy with the option to earn status credits based on flights/distance flown or spend?

Some overseas airlines already offer the option to earn based on segments or miles, for example. And many hotel loyalty programs do the same - upgrading your status once you earn enough of either nights, stays or status points - whichever comes first.

Alaska Airlines is introducing something similar as well with the 2026 changes to Atmos Rewards status. Its members can choose to earn status based on spend, miles flown or segments. In this case, though, Atmos Rewards members have to select which metric they want to use up-front and can't change it mid-year.

With all of this in mind... how would you feel if Qantas decided to introduce a second option that lets you earn status if you spend $X on Qantas flights (as an additional option to the current status credit system)?

 

[levelnine]

Qantas have been flirting with this idea with the 100SC for PCP and now the SC on the ground promotion, so it's not unreasonable to think they might move this way.

It's worth noting that Alaska's choice is heavily tilted. When they introduced spend-based status earn, they removed a lot of incentives to earn status from segments/distance flown (eg class of service bonuses). In short, it's now harder to earn Alaska status via the traditional method.

The trick that VA missed, in my opinion, is that they largely removed the gameability and thus disincentivised a cohort of customers that can be lucrative if properly managed (though the very best gamers will be losses).

The US carriers have done spend-based status far better. They actually increased the gameability by linking status to credit card earn (plenty of games there) and shopping portal/etc earn (even more there).

 

[Seat0B]

I’d just like it to be simpler and fairer - in the dictionary sense of those words. It’s so complex as it is to work out how to earn and maintain status for various airlines, and making changes just makes it worse. I know, dream on. But honestly, wouldn’t you think airlines would want passengers to know how they could become higher status (and thus potentially more loyal to the airline)?

 

[SYD]

Why not both?

Most hotels have nights or points (spend). Yes, some cap out one or other eg Accor.

Some airlines have 2 or more (from miles, segments and spend) - which is more inclusive and engaging for FFs.

 

[aikman]

Anyone who chooses status credits based on spend is basically telling the world that they (or their employer) have plenty of .

 

[DejaBrew]

Why not both?

Ah yes, the "Old El Paso" option

Personally, I like the current QF system. With the obvious exception of LTP, status is realistically attainable/achievable and the benefits are such that there is (reasonable) incentive to aim for it. Perhaps they haven't quite struck the right balance with it yet, but I'd prefer the current setup to a spend-based criteria. Unless you're flying J all the time, the costs for earning status would likely be astronomical (i.e. the recent AFF article being a good indicator), and if you were flying J all the time, then the relative added benefits of status would be minimal (unless travelling on other OW carriers).

 

[justinbrett]

The problem is how you deal with oneworld partners. I think the upper tiers of elites are flying other airlines as well as QF - so either the spend route is QF only or it ends up a hybrid model.

Even airlines such as BA who have moved to revenue based spend have to maintain systems for traditional methods when the ticket is from a different airline, even if it includes BA flights. So even BA is not totally a revenue based program.

Say the target is A$20K for WP, that’s at least 114 SYD/MEL trips at $175 each. That would get you 1140 SCs, which is almost enough under the current system. If flex, that’s 46 trips at $433, which still gets you close at 920 SCs. I guess regional routes that are much more expensive would be easier, but surely this is quite a small group.

The other consideration is spend would exclude taxes and fees, which can make up a sizeable chunk of a Y fare. I would think QF would like to use profit rather than spend but that’s almost impossible to do.

 

[jase05]

The problem is how you deal with oneworld partners. I think the upper tiers of elites are flying other airlines as well as QF - so either the spend route is QF only or it ends up a hybrid model.

Even airlines such as BA who have moved to revenue based spend have to maintain systems for traditional methods when the ticket is from a different airline, even if it includes BA flights. So even BA is not totally a revenue based program.

Say the target is A$20K for WP, that’s at least 114 SYD/MEL trips at $175 each. That would get you 1140 SCs, which is almost enough under the current system. If flex, that’s 46 trips at $433, which still gets you close at 920 SCs. I guess regional routes that are much more expensive would be easier, but surely this is quite a small group.

The other consideration is spend would exclude taxes and fees, which can make up a sizeable chunk of a Y fare. I would think QF would like to use profit rather than spend but that’s almost impossible to do.

Yeah, the BA system is a bit of a hybrid mess.
As someone who does fly J only domestically and often spur of the moment I don’t mind a revenue system as I do feel as though we “miss out” a bit on earn but I also understand it’s the way it is so have learnt to grin and bear it