Is Qantas diluting the benefits of status?

[simongr]

If you're flying international F though, check-in process would be just about the same if you are a FF member or not though.

There are benefits to checking in in paid F above OWE in that they meet you at the door and your immi papers are prefilled...

[AnonymousCoward]

There are benefits to checking in in paid F above OWE in that they meet you at the door and your immi papers are prefilled...

In SFO? Never had that happen to me :-)

But back to the previous point - I suspect that there are various celebs and VIPs (probably politicians CEO-type people) that don't join every FF scheme. The type that might fly on private jets, but also have to fly F. Paying extra for baggage probably never figures into the equation - it's all taken care of by their PAs. Or they might be industry people (do BA flight captains etc in F?)

[straitman]

The reason why people who have lots and lots of money and fly F on full fare tickets have FF membership is so that they can get quaranteed seats, unlimited luggage allowance and all sorts of perks like Chairman's Lounge membership (or equivalent).
mel-t

I would think that most of the above would come with buying a 'F' ticket in any case.

[anat0l]

OK this is getting confusing, but my point is.....BA gives away seats when they have them and fill up the business cabin that way at the last minute. Qantas tells you there are no seats available and fly half empty cabins.

All of this is true. (Well, I can't verify if BA "gives away seats" etc.) So as a plain observation, you're right.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

From a customer's point of view, some people think this is a bad thing, i.e. a plane goes with premium seats begging that some pax have been unable to get, whether it be through attempting to sweet-talk the check-in/lounge/gate agent(s), or through an attempted points upgrade that was declined.

When QF tells you that there are "no seats available", they really mean "no seats available for you", not that the cabin is completely full. It's easier to say the first one since it is less direct and avoids having to give every customer a lecture on yield management. (Of course, then the customer believes that a corporation is putting profits ahead of customer service, since many believe it's their God-given right to receive an upgrade, especially if they have all the "resources" (e.g. points, cash) to obtain one "by the rules".)

On the other hand, because of QF's astute yield management (amongst other things), this is mainly why QF is weathering the whole GFC a bit better than some of its colleagues. It so turns out that it may be more profitable to fly a cabin less than full rather than one that is full of pax who are simply there on the cheap. Is this a good thing? Well, in some cases yes, since shareholders still need to be appeased, plus the last thing we want (unless you travel DJ or the like) is another Ansett story (replacing 'Qantas' for 'Ansett'). Mainly as well (and this has been said many times), the value of the premium cabins are preserved since there isn't an expectation that if I can purchase a cash Y ticket for a lot less than a J ticket, then I can use my points simply to upgrade to J. If it was that easy, why would anyone ever pay for J in cash unless you had money to burn (literally)?

Customers hardly ever see the good in a profitable airline, or any profitable business for that matter. All they care about is getting what they want as cheap as they are ready to tolerate it. Often it's a case of, "why should I care how much it costs you? I'm the customer, I paid for it (with cash, points, whatever), I'm entitled to it, you are able to do it, make it happen and read my lips - I don't care". Balancing profits and customer value is a precarious and delicate art (not a science), but for all their faults (at least according to our reliable mainstream media ), I think Qantas are doing a fairly decent job.

I'd imagine that BA is in financial trouble not just due to "giving away seats" (so to speak).

[straitman]

anat0l,

Very well put.

[drron]

anat0l,

Very well put.

+1 from me.

[oz_mark]

+1 from me.

+2 from me.

Also there is no guarantee that there is catering for the spare seats, and "catering not assured" does not placate some folk (IME). They expect the full bit if they have used points for an ODU.

[yo yo ma]

When QF tells you that there are "no seats available", they really mean "no seats available for you", not that the cabin is completely full. It's easier to say the first one since it is less direct and avoids having to give every customer a lecture on yield management. (Of course, then the customer believes that a corporation is putting profits ahead of customer service, since many believe it's their God-given right to receive an upgrade, especially if they have all the "resources" (e.g. points, cash) to obtain one "by the rules".)

+3 for me... very well written

[JohnK]

Customers hardly ever see the good in a profitable airline, or any profitable business for that matter. All they care about is getting what they want as cheap as they are ready to tolerate it. Often it's a case of, "why should I care how much it costs you? I'm the customer, I paid for it (with cash, points, whatever), I'm entitled to it, you are able to do it, make it happen and read my lips - I don't care". Balancing profits and customer value is a precarious and delicate art (not a science), but for all their faults (at least according to our reliable mainstream media ), I think Qantas are doing a fairly decent job.

I will go against the trend here and say that I think Qantas is off the mark by alienating customers and it's hardcore frequent flyers with what appears to be poor decisions lately.

I agree that an airline is in the business of trying to make money but Qantas, and most mainstream airlines, also try to entice business and profit by promoting a frequent flyer program and partnerships to earn FF points that can be used for awards flights and upgrades. When you then try to protect your premium cabins by not releasing enough award seats or upgrade seats in premium cabins then you start to disillusion and alienate customers.

We have had many reports on AFF over the years of people trying to use hard earned points for upgrades and simply not able to get a seat when premium cabins have been empty. Is this right? Some people would say "Yes" as Qantas is making a profit but I say "No" as the airline, in this case Qantas, is being deceptive in trying to entice people to earn FF points but then dictating how they want people to spend those FF points.

In my opinion Qantas, and most mainstream airlines, can't have everything it's own way. There will come a time when people will be totally fed up and then the airlines will need to face the consequences....

[oz_mark]

We have had many reports on AFF over the years of people trying to use hard earned points for upgrades and simply not able to get a seat when premium cabins have been empty. Is this right? Some people would say "Yes" as Qantas is making a profit but I say "No" as the airline, in this case Qantas, is being deceptive in trying to entice people to earn FF points but then dictating how they want people to spend those FF points.

As I alluded to in a previous post, there is more to providing "business class" travel than just having an empty seat. For example, if you are going to be doing ODU's then you will be wanting to ensure that approprite catering is available. In some cases, I would think that the available catering would allow for some upgrades, but might not be sufficient to completely fill the cabin with ODU's.

In my opinion Qantas, and most mainstream airlines, can't have everything it's own way. There will come a time when people will be totally fed up and then the airlines will need to face the consequences....

Most people are all talk and bluster. When it comes to putting there money where there mouth is, there is much evidence to suggest they will stick with Qantas anyway.