Revenue_Melb
You addressed many things in your post.
You failed to provide a fact. You 'guess' you could find a demographic of 50 year old men that may fall into that category...
Where is your data?
Here are some::
- Qantas brand value loss during management escalated dispute $100 million.
- Given your pseudonym "revenue" Qantas total revenue growth, just kept place with inflation at 3.65% that would be called almost 'organic' (economy wide) that is with a fleet reduction and management neglect as JQ was the 'new kid in town' and Alan believed it his creation! (again not supported by fact)
- JQ added nearly 80 aircraft to their fleet from 2009. Their "revenue" contribution is static.Alan and the board were a little pre-occupied
- The new livery painted aircraft is not a 787. That hasn't been assembled yet. It was an A330. JQ was given the first 787, and it hasn't done much with branding given their static 'revenue' since it started flying. Ever wonder what happened to Bruce?
- There will be in excess of 500, 787 flying when Qantas gets its first.
- A few mock ups are not actual product.
The major challenge for Qantas is not in branding, it is having a valid strategic direction.
Given Qantas has at various times in the tenure of the incumbent board and senior management needed $3 billion to compete with Virgin (December 2013) then six weeks later not needed it, been 'terminal' and transformed all within a few years, had Red Q to be set up in Singapore, no Malaysia, err we aren't sure then hastily abandoned. JQ HK was a first mover airline that despite not fitting the PPB (principle place of business) rules was pushed anyway, then abandoned, I would suspect that stopping digging their own holes is probably a good thing.
So please show the data that confirms Qantas is old and stodgy, given its revenue was grew organically during an extended period where the company was shelved in favour of the bright new upstart (JQ)
Where is it you work?
What is your source data, or is it an opinion?