Ozjet Effective Customers [ABC News Online 11 Aug 05]

[Legal_Counsel]

So finally we have a new breed of business traveller in Australia.

Defined by Ozjet itself it seems , the new "Effective Customer" will be a hard one to beat.

So, how does one identify an Effective Customer when one sees one?

Perhaps like this:-

(a) comes in via the car park
(b) goes literally up one set of escalators
(c) turns left through a security point and
(d) straight on board the aircraft

Hey man, who needs a car or a ticket......

"Effective Customer - the way to go

Let's go. :ok:

[ozangel]

Ok, first of all

Why another thread? - Couldnt you post this (not that you really make much of a point anyway?) under one of the many other threads you use to vent your hidden issues about this company?

Second of all

Whats your point..? What are you trying to criticise them for now?

Finally... (and perhaps you can answer this in the other thread - as hopefully this thread will be deleted!)

What happened to the 'talk on pitt street' about some delay?


Do get over yourself - its getting tiresome!
You even gave your own topic a 5 bar rating when you were the only poster?!?!

[gaunty]

Someone at OzJet must have just bought one of them Management 101 textbooks, it's not exactly a new concept and airlones around the world know very well how to look after them.

Google "Effective Cutomer"

Results 1 - 10 of about 43,300,000 for Effective Customer.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Effective Customer? One who makes a difference? Are you an effective customer, Ms Council?

[Legal_Counsel]

Now you see why I studied law. Let me explain.

"Effective Customer" is usually embraced in a relationship e.g. effective customer service, effective customer relationships, effective customer marketing relationships, effective customer management and so on. The terms reflect the existence (or the lack of the opposite), "ineffective". Used in the way it has been by Ozjet management would suggest the existence of "Ineffective Customers". Thus we would seem to have "Effective Customers" and "Ineffective Customers" according to Ozjet.

In fact, what the Ozjet boss was really referring to is "Cost-effective customers". That's a real marketing term.

Cost-effective customers, in the eyes of Ozjet, are those from whom it can make a profit. The co-operatives, so to speak. The co-operatives are as a result of targeted marketing to prospective customers with a particular attribute and a clearly identifiable one at that i.e. No baggage.

You can see how this falls foul of Ozjet's main objective to target the passenger prepared to pay a fully flexible fare because they will not necessarily bring to Ozjet a cost-effective customer and may actually result in proportionately more complaints. It isn't possible to differentiate them so who does it market to? - the customer with no baggage.

So, let's redefine the Effective Customer:

(a) comes in via the car park
(b) goes literally up one set of escalators
(c) turns left through a security point and
(d) straight on board the aircraft
(e) with less than 3 pieces of cabin baggage
(f) on a fully flexible fare or whatever is offered.

We, of course, appreciate that 8 flights a day means 480 car spaces will be required for the day return. For overnights, perhaps a few more. At this point we may see some Customers coming via the concourse and turning right, so perhaps these customers will be delayed a little because they thought the carpark for Ozjet was accessible - oops. Perhaps a Valet Service can fix that at a small extra cost.

In any market, only about 4-7% of customers are considered cost-effective customers. That is only as good as the market can be defined and targeted. So in a nutshell, yes Ozbusdriver, one who makes a difference! :p

[Sunfish]

I'm looking forward to Ozjet and I hope they succeed.

I respectfully suggest that most of you are so immersed in aviation and so close to what is going on, that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

For a start, this bit of "self loading freight" - and I would sack anyone I heard using the term if I was running an airline, is I suspect, pretty typical.

1. Business travel these days is something to be endured. The worst bit is the QF taxi rank at Sydney.

2. Staff attitude matters. Qantas basically doesn't give a flying f$%k about its passengers and it shows from the top down. They have your company account, therefore they have you.Virgin at least tries to make it fun.


3. Even though I've got a FFlyer card I rarely use the lounges. The QF frequent flyer lounges are a pain, I don't want to read endless businessporn magazines or watch stock quotes. I'm not going to review my meeting notes or have a deep and meaningful business conversation in that place because you never know who is listening or watching. The VB blue rooms are better.

If Ozjet can create a situation where I can get in, sit down, be treated as a human being, perhaps even with a name, and gets me off at the other end without any dramas or BS, and preferably out of sync with the QF flights so that I can get a taxi, I would be well pleased.

[Legal_Counsel]

Sunfish, you make a very interesting observation because Qantas, clearly, has a broad range of cost-effective customers "in it's view". The size of the Qantas operation, the size of its Jetstar subsidiary operation, all lend credence to Qantas ability to retain a cost-effective customer "base". Sure, it comes with complaints and you might have been consistently statistically unlucky.

As a frequent flyer, you should probably give Qantas more feedback about your situation and, if you are in the postion to do so, ask your employer (assuming they are on Qantas Account) to raise the issue with Qantas. In many cases, however, these things are out of Qantas' control. As a frequent flyer you would appreciate that if you don't want to use the facilities for which the programme was set up for, you have no basis for complaint. I concur that in some instances the Blue Room provides an alternate venue but its target market is slightly different - as would be Ozjet's (should it head in that direction). Lounges are an expensive overhead if they are not patronised through memberships/frequent travellers and not effective unless they offer something of tangible value, as in your case perhaps. In your case the Qantas lounge is not for you but it's not a basis on which you can enlist the support of the wider readership of PPRUNE just because it's not for you and only because your employer has an account.

Just as your comment about "self loading freight" and your apparent knee- jerk reaction to sacking would suggest your frustration or stubboness to accept the views of others, Ozjet's spontaneous drafting of a definition for an effective customer and a future failure to deliver to your expectations, will see you judging Ozjet in the same way. Let's be reasonable. The Ozjet statement would have you wondering in which category you fall.

However, without getting further side tracked on this issue, how would you see yourself as a cost-effective customer for Ozjet if you have a large suitcase? :sad:

It seems to me if you fall into this category Sunfish, you won't be getting in and sitting down - as you try to work out what to do with your large suitcase, but everyone will know your name believe me - everyone. And you will then appreciate how much of a human being you are and why you are being treated as one. No offence intended. The fact is Ozjet has been busy sidetracking the public from paying attention to the fact that it will not carry baggage in its holds. :}

Without focussing on Ozjet, who do you think the cost-effective customers might be for Jetstar? :E

[Sunfish]

I don't think Jetstar has any cost effective passengers because it is a thinly disguised bit of window dressing to get around predatory pricing legislation and frustrate Virgin Blue by denying it economies of scale.

The trouble with Qantas's marketing is that it is grounded on the unstated assumption of its superiority. It shows in everything they do.

For example, they sent me a statement of my frequent flyer points a month or two ago that brusquely stated that unless I used some or acquired some more, then 90,000 of them would disappear.

Now this was conveyed with all the finesse of a bank manager telling you your mortgage payment is late.

Do you think QF might have done this a little better? Perhaps suggesting a few destinations I could go to use my points? Maybe even suggesting I repeat my last few trips to Cairns to use a few up? After all its just a computer program isn't it? Perhaps - wait for it, they might even offer me a one time deal to some exotic location to get rid of those pesky points?

Nope, brain dead, thumb in bum, mind in neutral. We don;t have to prove anything to anyone. We are Qantas. Australia's flag carrier. Australians should be glad we exist. We are so perfect. You should be pleased we even find a seat for you.


Translation: Qantas's aircraft are full because Australians, as consumers, have an extremely limited, and artificilally limited, range of choices, not because they do anything better than anyone else.

[Legal_Counsel]

I think in that sense you are right Sunfish and it may actually be the basis that Qantas controls the market by pushing prospective flyers into boxes.

;)

[Legal_Counsel]

Well now that Qantas has shown its cards with D class we have a much better idea of the target market for Ozjet. It sounds like its all over for Ozjet then? :ouch: