Should airlines prioritise free seats for their own frequent flyers?

The article also states that a Senior Manager from Qantas Loyalty has been drafted in from Australia to spearhead the proposed changes to Marco Polo Club/Asia Miles. So if anything, the result of the revamp of the two schemes could be like the current structure of the Qantas Frequent Flyer programme.

As much as I don't like the restraints on where I spend my points, I totally agree that the airline's own loyalists should take priority. Imagine if you went to cash in some points on a Qantas reward flight some 10 months out and all those seats were booked by members of another airline.... oh wait!

I tend to agree on the premium seats.

For Y seats though (at least), perhaps some leniency on that redemption to partner airlines.

If there were last minute unsold or unredeemed seats, perhaps open to partner redemptions is a viable option rather than flying empty.

The title of your article is completely misleading - there is no such thing as a free seat - whether people other than direct flyers on that airline use a seat (either by buying points or acruing points on partner airlines) they have always paid - so that seat is never "free" and therefore the whole argument about this issue is flawed....

"[Qantas] was clearly intended to reward loyalty to Qantas first and other airlines second."

This is nowhere what I feel. It is almost impossible to secure QF business seat for long-haul overseas flight (forget first!) - all I can see is Emirates and JQ.

From customer prospective of view whole scheme truly sux - it is loyalty scheme, yet it is almost impossible to utilize those loyalty point and truly impossible to do so on QF flights! All Qantas does is pushing QFF member to rid off points in store and hotels. Number of seats unknown and never disclosed while I believe it should be knows and fixed. All upgrades are rubbish - it should be known at stage of ticket purchasing and left over seats should be available for upgrade at the gate at discount rate.

Well all this no more then dreams that some may call paranoid delusion.

I can appreciate the reactive instinct for Marco Polo redemptions to be a closed shop. There is much appeal for limiting rewards at the pointy end to your own members. It might even play to a domestic audience to tout those changes to the programme, even if in reality it does not pan out.

However I believe no matter what changes takes place, there will always be people who will identify and exploit the system to their own benefit. 

Notwithstanding that, I find the arguments quite amusing. Much like the arguments for asylum seekers versus illegal economic migrants, the issue at heart has been convoluted; perhaps by the media or by the airline themselves. For example take the following statement:

"The sources say Cathay believes it is time to stop allowing external redemptions when the airline is capable of filling aircraft with paid passengers, boosting long-term profitability"

Assuming internal redemption means redemption by Marco Polo members and external redemption means redemption by non-Marco Polo members, the statement above is a misnomer.

1. If the airline is in fact capable of filling seats with paid passengers, they should not be releasing award inventory. There is nothing stopping an airline from not releasing award inventory. If an airline finds that they are releasing too many award inventory, then I suggest that they have poor revenue management practices. Ergo, the rules do not need to change; instead better management under existing rules should be considered.
2. It is insidious to convolute the opportunity cost of revenue seats with external redemption. Once a decision has been made to release award inventory, it should not matter if it's for external or internal redemption. Yes the argument can be had that allowing internal redemptions reduces the airline's FF points/mileage liability. But it is another matter to suggest somehow that external redemption robs the airline of potential revenue.

It has been argued that alliances diminishes competition. I would say however that internal competition within an alliance benefits the end consumer. One method of building competitive advantage is through an airline's frequent flyer programme. Rather than shirking away from competition, airlines should embrace the challenge to make their frequent flyer programmes as enticing and rewarding to customers as the next. No good will come to an alliance, when artificial barriers are built in. Will this result in a tit for tat? Can an alliance even function when every alliance member wants a veto to "protect" their own interest?

Airlines that seek to establish a closed shop mentality is in effect running away from competition. And we all know what happens when organisations and countries do not embrace or try to snub out competition.

Qantas Loyalty ???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I don't understand why the airlines, (be it CX or any other,) disapprove of consumers who use churn credit cards to earn points? The airline makes money from selling the points to the bank, the bank earns something from me and I get a free/cheap flight or upgrade.

Sure if the airline was being taken for a ride, I could understand. But once they sell the points to the bank and get their money, why do they care?

I can also see this from Cathay’s point of view as when the changes to QFF came through, I remember thinking, ‘I get most of my points from credit cards and when I do fly QF and it’s on the cheapest fare. What loyalty of mine are they rewarding’?