Whoa nelly!
First of all, I have nothing against
VB. On the contrary, their antics have allowed many more people to fly that would have otherwise taken the train or bus due to their low fare operation. Kudos to them - not knocking them for one moment.
Even with core mainline ops, AN didn't contract anywhere near as many staff as
VB does. Nothing wrong with that...certainly, it does provide for more efficiency. However, AN's approach was such that each area was it's own business unit (eg. Engineering, with contracted work for Vietnam Airlines, etc).
Something else we need to consider (thanks in part to the old Impulse, which started before
VB), is that more people are flying because it's now more affordable to! When AN and QF existed, the duopoly was such that lower yield pax had to accommodate the airlines fares, not the other way around.
AN didn't grasp the efficiencies that
VB did with internet fares (yes they had them, but their system was very clunky, unlike Impulses' and
VB's, whose systems are very user friendly). That, combined with the fact that
VB have a set of steady leaders at the helm, means good management the whole time.
AN had a set of lunatics running the ship for years before she ran aground. And that was AFTER at least...ooh...10 restructures?
Dr Phil - I think Southwest takes the crown for most successful airline in the world (after all, it is the model that spawned many a copy cat...easyjet, virgin express and virgin blue, ryanair, etc)...
Like I said, credit where it's due!
ACB - the Board need a good kick up the khyber! But what do you expect from an airline that is as bureaucratic as QF...one of the many advantages
VB has over QF is it's lean management operation, none of this 'Deputy to the Assistant to the Secretary' nonsense. Open door policy? Which door kids??
I still maintain my apples and oranges stance. Yes they're both fruit, just so happens that one of these fruits is far more efficient, profitable and better looked after than the other ever was!