I ask that both sides in this debate insert another word into your discourse . . . CUSTOMER.
Just for fun, and with no offense and the greatest respect, I modified “ditch handle’s” latest post (although I could have picked others) and I ask you all to take a look at yourselves.
I read somewhere else today that BA has taken another step to becoming a LCC . . . no meals (after 1000hrs) on flights less than 2.5 hours. Maybe QF will follow?
Increasingly we ask what is the differential ‘value proposition’ that ‘full service’ airlines like QF says it offers its CUSTOMERS . . . other than paying for generous staff travel benefits, unfunded ‘pensions’ and unused frequent flyer points – all accrued in a previous era.
I assure you it is in my interests to see QF to remain and safe and prosperous airline . . . but these discussions don’t imbibe confidence.
Best to all
Cheers
Pedota
No.
What I'm saying is that I don't think customer seats should be used for anyone other than customers.
I don't think that they should be generally available to anyone whether they be (sic) the family of economy customer, premium customer or Alan Joyce.
My point is that you lot [Qantas employees] wouldn't be supporting the use of those seats for the family of customers if the situation was reversed.
Not because you are priques (sic) by the way but because I'm certain you would identify that from an operational perspective the policy is flawed.
It's my firmly held view that it's supported by customers only because you've lost due to a change in regs any autonomous alternative (or perhaps changing business models?).
Forgive me but you blokes [and girls] are professionals [funbags excluded] and I find this policy operationally flawed and the position of customers who support it, hypocritical.