The PPS Population

[SMK77]

if the majority of PPS members are S'pore based business travellers and hence "captive" customers, it makes sense to cut costs...

No, it does not. Out of your home market, you charge the highest fares and you rarely discount. SQ in J FRA-SIN return was available for 3.600 SGD two months ago on the 77W, SIN-FRA never saw that offer.

I have booked tickets in J this year twice on TG (1x FRA, 1xBKK) and once on NH (1x JFK) where I could have booked SQ instead and would have maintained PPS. If you really value your status, you put your business on SQ. At the moment, being PPS is not getting me anything, so I won't put any business on SQ to maintain PPS.

You do the maths how much SQ has saved on reduced benefits (100 SGD) and how much they lost in revenue (10.000 SGD) with me. That's a total loss of 9.900 SGD. Not a convincing strategy.

[LionCity]

No, it does not. Out of your home market, you charge the highest fares and you rarely discount. SQ in J FRA-SIN return was available for 3.600 SGD two months ago on the 77W, SIN-FRA never saw that offer.

I have booked tickets in J this year twice on TG (1x FRA, 1xBKK) and once on NH (1x JFK) where I could have booked SQ instead and would have maintained PPS. If you really value your status, you put your business on SQ. At the moment, being PPS is not getting me anything, so I won't put any business on SQ to maintain PPS.

You do the maths how much SQ has saved on reduced benefits (100 SGD) and how much they lost in revenue (10.000 SGD) with me. That's a total loss of 9.900 SGD. Not a convincing strategy.

Unfortunately, corporate figures always can figure out savings in cost but not loss in revenue. Loss in revenue can be blamed on recession, H1N1 and the likes.

[ginkoka]

No, it does not. Out of your home market, you charge the highest fares and you rarely discount. SQ in J FRA-SIN return was available for 3.600 SGD two months ago on the 77W, SIN-FRA never saw that offer.

I have booked tickets in J this year twice on TG (1x FRA, 1xBKK) and once on NH (1x JFK) where I could have booked SQ instead and would have maintained PPS. If you really value your status, you put your business on SQ. At the moment, being PPS is not getting me anything, so I won't put any business on SQ to maintain PPS.

You do the maths how much SQ has saved on reduced benefits (100 SGD) and how much they lost in revenue (10.000 SGD) with me. That's a total loss of 9.900 SGD. Not a convincing strategy.

OK I know it's a sore topic here and there's been numerous rants about it.

I don't know about your corporate travel policy, but the default airline for my company is SQ, even if other airlines are cheaper (and they usually are). I could switch to a cheaper airline if I so choose, but there's nothing in it for me other than the cheap thrill of snubbing SQ.

*IF* the majority of business travellers are like me, then it makes sense to cut costs because we're not likely to switch.

[SMK77]

OK I know it's a sore topic here and there's been numerous rants about it.

I don't know about your corporate travel policy, but the default airline for my company is SQ, even if other airlines are cheaper (and they usually are). I could switch to a cheaper airline if I so choose, but there's nothing in it for me other than the cheap thrill of snubbing SQ.

*IF* the majority of business travellers are like me, then it makes sense to cut costs because we're not likely to switch.

Disagree. Corporate travel policies are changing and will be changing - at the moment there are so many low ticket prices available that you can beat the SQ negotiated deals.

My company is a very good customer of SQ and we get very nice discounts. Still we have instructed our travel agent to book employees on other carriers if cheaper. And this is now getting enforced.

I can still pick SQ but have to pay the fare difference myself. And those differences can be quite significant.

[ginkoka]

Well, SQ remains my company's default airline and that is highly unlikely to change. Since both of us only have anecdotal evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I just trust that the planning/strategy division at SQ should've had considered the size of the captive market and its price sensitivity.

[milehighj]

Well, SQ remains my company's default airline and that is highly unlikely to change. Since both of us only have anecdotal evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree.

What you say may be true for some Singapore-based companies, but I imagine that SQ is also losing a lot of corporate business from non-Singapore-based companies where they may still be "preferred" by the travelling execs, but are not the dominant airline in that market and are hence not the "default" airline of choice.

[ginkoka]

What you say may be true for some Singapore-based companies, but I imagine that SQ is also losing a lot of corporate business from non-Singapore-based companies where they may still be "preferred" by the travelling execs, but are not the dominant airline in that market and are hence not the "default" airline of choice.

Hence its lower prices outside of S'pore, eg. the FRA-SIN biz offer mentioned earlier in this thread?

I know SQ is suffering (like most other airlines), and not all of its policies are sound (eg. "Beyond First"), but I think maintaining high prices and cutting costs in its home market where it likely has many captive customers makes business sense.

[milehighj]

Hence its lower prices outside of S'pore, eg. the FRA-SIN biz offer mentioned earlier in this thread?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Fares are nearly always cheaper outside an airline's home market, so one example of a cheap FRA-SIN fare is nothing new.

I was responding to your comments that "it makes sense to cut costs because we're not likely to switch" and "SQ remains my company's default airline and that is highly unlikely to change".

[ginkoka]

i'm not sure what you're trying to say either. my comment on cutting costs follows the several earlier comments on the loss of the PPS Service Centre, beverages limited to water, etc. i said it's logical to cut costs in a captive market ie. Singapore.

not sure why you brought up non-Singapore based companies because they were never part of my argument. but since you did, i bought up the fact (yes, it's a painfully obvious one and i wasn't expecting to shock anybody) that the strategy for those markets would be to cut prices and not costs.

[Kiwi]

I don't know about your corporate travel policy, but the default airline for my company is SQ, even if other airlines are cheaper (and they usually are). I could switch to a cheaper airline if I so choose, but there's nothing in it for me other than the cheap thrill of snubbing SQ.

I wouldn't call saving my company money "nothing in it for me".

[ginkoka]

I wouldn't call saving my company money "nothing in it for me".

I don't know how many people would voluntarily fly, say, TG instead of SQ to save money for their employers.

[eddyooi]

So can anyone verify how many QPP, TPP and LPP are there now? Better still, how many are based in SG?

Has the number dropped significantly since they downgraded our benefits?

There was so much talk and angst about leaving the SQ programme either involuntarily or by choice when perks were cut. But I seriously wonder if many frequent fliers [particularly those who continue to occupy the front cabins] really migrated to other programmes...

[LionCity]

So can anyone verify how many QPP, TPP and LPP are there now? Better still, how many are based in SG?

Has the number dropped significantly since they downgraded our benefits?

There was so much talk and angst about leaving the SQ programme either involuntarily or by choice when perks were cut. But I seriously wonder if many frequent fliers [particularly those who continue to occupy the front cabins] really migrated to other programmes...

From my experiences, it seems to be more QPPS migrating out rather than the TPPS. Noted from a few reliable inside sources that PPS number have dropped significantly. How many I do not know. But it is certainly accelerated by the downturn. It probably does not take a frequent flyer maths genius to figure that out from more spaces in lounges, less load in premium cabins, easier upgrading for myself in a full flight, enhanced requalification requirements etc.

The SQ Krisflyer program I found it to be significantly weaker than other programs and lack the major incentives found in TG, LH or other StarAlliance members particularly after the major changes of 2007.

At least for me, if ever I drop out of PPS, I will definitely switch alliance be it TG, LH or CX. I can see the practical benefits of switching to CX with the number of flights I take to China in J or F and their more frequent upgrades as compared to SQ. Unfortunately, PPS as what Manflyer mentioned is now a "Pointless Passenger Service" in many practical senses. From a purely logical angle, SQ Krisflyer position has worsen from a benefit point of view.

[acey]

I don't know how many people would voluntarily fly, say, TG instead of SQ to save money for their employers.

Agree. Or to stretch it further..voluntarily fly in Y when they are entitled to fly in J/F by their company.
Unless part of the savings goes to the employee.

[Kiwi]

I don't know how many people would voluntarily fly, say, TG instead of SQ to save money for their employers.

Many people do every day, for all sorts of reasons.

Agree. Or to stretch it further..voluntarily fly in Y when they are entitled to fly in J/F by their company.
Unless part of the savings goes to the employee.

Choosing to downgrade is slightly different. In many cases the reason an employer may pay for J/F on longer flights is specifically to have the employee fresh for meetings once they arrive. If the employee chooses to downgrade and as a result is not as productive on arrival that may be a false economy, in some situations.