Qantas 'worst international airline'

[Ex QF]

On top of other threads such as: Qantas Advertising, Truth About Dixon Son of Kerry...etc. Plus the Fourn Corners program last night, the following is found this morning.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21812457-1702,00.html
Qantas 'worst international airline'
May 29, 2007 07:51am
Article from: AAP
AUSTRALIA'S national carrier Qantas has been voted worst international airline in a consumer survey.
The survey of 4000 subscribers to consumer magazine Choice also found Qantas' low-cost subsidiary Jetstar to be the worst domestic airline.
Singapore Airlines was voted top international airline while minnow Regional Express was the favoured domestic operator.
Choice asked subscribers to rate airlines for value for money, booking processes, convenience, the check-in procedure, inflight service, including food and entertainment, as well as seat comfort, legroom and cleanliness.
Qantas scored 63 per cent compared to Singapore Airline's 78 per cent.
On the domestic front, Qantas fared little better with a 67 per cent rating, with consumers labelling the service "arrogant and aloof", while Jetstar scored just 62 per cent.
One respondent described Jetstar staff as "uniformly surly, unhelpful and most definitely unwelcoming".
Regional Express won a survey-high rating of 79 per cent followed by Virgin Blue with 71 per cent.
"Virgin Blue staff attempt to make what is a reasonably unpleasant experience flying with a no-frills service, light-hearted and enjoyable," one respondent said.
One possible reason Qantas may have fared so poorly is that people may be more critical of their national carrier, the magazine suggested.
Travellers said they continued to fly with Qantas to earn frequent flyer points even though they rated the airline significantly lower than average.

[BuzzBox]

Is anyone really surprised?? 'Arrogant and aloof' pretty much sums up the Qantas style of 'service'. Perhaps it all filters down from the top.

[Tropicalchief]

I don't blame the crews. Perhaps the "aloofness", "arrogance" is a defence mechanism. God knows the service provided by management on long haul services is pathetic. The food is awful, the first fleeters were more comfortable and better fed than anyone exposed to the cramped and crowded conditions in QF economy class. The toilets are designed to accommodate very small people. I could not recommend anyone fly with Qantas today in any class of service and the situation will not improve until management put the welfare of their employees and passengers first.

[apache]

The toilets are designed to accommodate very small people

I think Ralph Fiennes would take offence to that :=

[mrpaxing]

with morale at an all time low. is it because of the failed takeover bid, last three years doom and gloom, continious cost cutting, restructuring, every on is too expensive in QF except senior management (massive bonuses every year), feeding staff no or little information whats going on( usualy read it in the west australian newspaper first) and many more...... it has to show somewhere:ugh:
wait for the qantas spin doctors:(

[DEFCON4]

I would be interested in a breakdown of the demographic of those who completed the survey.
How many times a year do they fly.?
The purpose of their travel?
How many times have they flown Qantas?
How many times have they flown other airlines?
What was their destination.?
How were their expectations determined?
Do they realise that QF is not responsible for Airport security screening nor the immigration/emmigration process?
There are lies,damned lies and statistics
-Benjamin Disraeli
The average air traveller has no idea of what good/bad service is.
The blokes expect a BJ with coffee and the women dont like being served by other females.
The reason Cabin Crew are there in the first place is to save your ass in a drama.
The coffee and tea crap is just to fill in time for everybody.
Air travel is bloody transport for Godsake.
Dont like the food ...take your own.
Bring a bloody bottle of water and a pen.
Dont check your brains in with your luggage.
Qantas does not provide every wine grape variety known to mankind.
The food is a disgrace......No! Children dying every 8 seconds in South Africa is a disgrace.
Surveys like this are just indicative of how far down the toilet our society has gone........me me me me ....Pharque everbody else!!!
End of Rant

[Crosshair]

This thread probably belongs in a passengers' forum, but in any case:

International air travel is a commodity. If you pay for a given class of service, it doesn't really matter which carrier you're using.

Economy blows no matter what. Maybe you have a little extra room on such-and-such aircraft of so-and-so carrier, but you're still essentially cramped.

Business is comfortable but poor value for money.

First is more of the same.

SQ, QF, UA, LH, TG, CX -- all the same thing. I don't know why Singapore keeps winning these things. I suspect the fix is in, as it often is up there.

Again: It's a commodity. All other perceptions are induced by marketing.

[Metro man]

Flew QF BNE - SIN, only because SQ were full three days each side of my intended travel date, and they operate 3x 777 per day vs QF 1x A330.

Two hours into the flight before we got a drink compared with SQ starting service asap after departure. Hot towels as well, even in economy.

Must remember to book earlier next time to be able to fly SQ. One trip with QF made me appreciate SQ all the more. Even if they are a bit more expensive it's worth it.

[funbags]

Seems to be a definite trend here!

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/013554.html?page=fullpage#comments

[prunezeuss]

Waiting for 2 hours for a drink is not QF service.
A bar is usually done off the deck(if scheduled) and hot towels are a signature...even in Y/C.
Drink(s)are provided with a meal.
If no bar is scheduled meals should be ready within 40 minutes of departure
Were you asleep?
Were you in the bathroom?
Was there turbulence?
What time was departure?
Was there a technical problem?
A hot towel and a drink...rethink your priorities.....bring a hankerchief.
"I have been waiting 2 hours for a drink"
...Sir, we have only been airborne for 10 minutes.What would you care for?
Tosser!!!!!

[cokecropduster]

Just a question.... How many crew are on a Singapore Airlines flight? With an extra 2,3,4,5 flight attendants on board, the results are amazing!! QF have reduced the number of FAs over the years were others haven't!

[flightfocus]

I would love to be able to support "my" national airline, but I have to agree that with the results of the survey.

I think the problems run deeper than the poor moral caused by the coporate greed they are exposed to daily by the reign pullers. :{

The product offered by QF is terrible. Regional competitors such as SQ and CX have had a far superior in flight product for years. Friendly service by people younger than your grandmother, modern in-flight entertainment, newish aircraft and generally a more comfortable experience.

On a related topic have you seen the new ads that have been rolled out to make us feel warm and fuzy about the QF brand and its "Australian-ness". :ugh:

Funny that they don't show the Indian call centres, the Asian maintenance workers or any of the other off shore labour that they have on the books :=:=

Now that would be a good ad :}

[Mr Seatback 2]

Good point cokecropduster...it's all about squeezing every last dollar out of the flight...screw passenger comfort!

Back in the days of the 707, 6 crew were carried on board to service 140-odd passengers. These days, it's 4 crew on a 767 with 200-odd in economy.

As for prunezeuss' problem, I've got friends in S/H who have told me all manner of horror stories of lazy Second Seniors (now Team Leaders) who have trimmed back the service to bare-bones..."nah, we're not doing hot towels today...nah, we're not doing a bar service".

Nothing against the S/H crew (far from it in fact), but when your service training consists of a DVD, you can't expect standards to be upheld.

You can bet SQ don't give their crew DVD's on how to do the job properly.

[Cheers5]

"A hot towel and a drink...rethink your priorities.....bring a hankerchief."

I do very little international travel, But I will tell you this, if that is what the passengers want, that's what they want. They don't give a :mad: what picture is on the tail, or how much of a champ the pilot thinks he or she is, If they feel the service they are provided is poor THAT is what matters.

To the average passenger all of the standards in all of the airlines are the same. weather that be the case or not! maybe you should run footage of yourself in the sim for the inflight entertainment, and show the punters why your airline is the best. And don't serve them anything, but give them a warm fuzzy about the "service" (skill and standards of the crew)that they are being provided.

Priorities belong to each individual passenger, they are not for you to decide for them. But im sure the attitude of telling them they are all :mad:heads will work too.

[Mr Seatback 2]

This just from ninemsn.com.au, regarding the Choice survey...priceless:

"Qantas has dismissed an Australian survey that rates it the worst international airline."

From the top down, pure and utter arrogance.

I can just see Senior Management right now ... "No...this isn't happening. We're wonderful. They should be thankful for everything we do...no, SQ is not a threat."

Until there's a change at the top, we won't see a change in the cabin.

[mrpaxing]

continue to point out the skytraks surveys. i agree it's been cut to the bone (incl. food, staff,etc). remember its all about bonuses. :ugh:

[Metro man]

SQ have very high standards for their cabin crew, with mandatory retirement at the age of 35, being able to put SQ cabin crew on your resume is a big plus when looking for another job.

Result is no over paid, under worked unionised 50 - 55 old biddies who view the passengers as a nuisance and spend most of their time in the galley bitching about the company and reminiscing about the good old days of air travel.

Why are QF so scared of SQ flying from Australia to the USA ? With Open Skies QF can start a service from SIN to where ever they like in direct competition to SQ.

Anyway, it's my money I like the service on SQ and I'll pay for it. Looking at the number of SQ flights from Australia I'm far from alone.

[Buster Hyman]

Skytrax rates them as a 4 star airline. SQ, MH & CX are just some of the five, 5 star airlines.

I wonder if they checked first....:confused:

[Mr Seatback 2]

Now now Metro man...

"Result is no over paid, under worked unionised 50 - 55 old biddies who view the passengers as a nuisance and spend most of their time in the galley bitching about the company and reminiscing about the good old days of air travel"

Some of the best crew I've flown with have been in the 40-55 year old bracket. And some of the worst crew have been in their early twenties...so age isn't essentially the issue here.

Attitude, work ethic, service ethos...these are things where the company can lead by example. It's all too easy to blame the frontline troops for the company's problems.

Unionised? That's not the problem either. Again, unionisation isn't the issue. Just because SQ retire their crew at 35 doesn't necessarily mean we all should all retire crew at that age. DJ are as equally unionised as QF.

The problem as many of us have seen is the attitude of QF Senior Management towards the travelling public, and its' own staff who serve them.

[Z Force]

There appears to be a lot of similiarties between Qantas now and Ansett in its last couple of years.

[prunezeuss]

........QF has low gearing and is making a whale of a profit.
SQ has four more crew on a jumbos than QF.
Most SQ crew are not Singaporean.
Saying you worked for SQ is not a big deal on a resume...particularly if you are Filipino,Vietnamese,Cambodian,Thai or Japanese.These Ethnic groups make up the bulk of SQ crew.
Retire them at 35.....takes me back to the 50s in Australia.
Agist ,chauvinist turkey

[skol]

Paxed AKL-LAX-AKL on QF.
Indifferent cabin crew, lousy lounge in LAX, terrible food. Dont have frequent flyer points on any airline so free to choose, but definitely not QF.

[prunezeuss]

Crewed by AKL based crew who are being beaten around the head by QF management.
The AKL is base is growing...things are about to get a whole lot worse.
These people have no loyalty to QF and are poorly trained and paid a pittance.
Most commentators here are either,
1.Misinformed
2.Uninformed.
The Readers Digest is not a definitive source of information folks...Try looking at the big picture.

[Metro man]

If DJ cabin crew are as unionised as QF, it certainly hasn't brought them similar conditions. They are employed more for looks than brains, most of them will have no problem finding husbands and can fly for a few years fun before settling down.

One problem with unions is enables people to be paid more than they are worth on the basis of their ability to cause disruption if they go on strike, rather than their skill. Hence baggage handlers are ahead of turbo prop co pilots and not too far behind the captains.

Pilots have been way underpaid for years as a result of supply and demand, that's starting to change at last.

[prunezeuss]

A baggage handler can negotiate a better deal for himself than an aviator.
Whats wrong with that picture.?
Dixon barely graduated high school and earns 7 figures...he aint worth it.
Menadue earned 200k p.a and was a hell of a lot smarter...times change

[Metro man]

What's wrong is there is only so much cake to go around, more for the baggage handlers means less for everyone else. The conditions of people more skilled, performing tasks with far higher responsibility, are reduced to pay inflated wages for unskilled manual labour.

Geoff Dixon is well paid because of the small base to choose from of people capable of running top companies. If he's worth what he's getting is well open to question.

If you ran Apple, how much would the man who invented the IPOD have been worth to you ?

[Eden99]

Qantas rejects 'flying dog' tag
Email Print Normal font Large font May 29, 2007 - 11:50AM
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Latest related coverage
Your Say: Is Qantas really that bad?
Video: Choice magazine interview
Advertisement
AdvertisementQantas has dismissed an Australian survey that rates it the worst international airline.
The survey of 4000 subscribers to consumer magazine Choice also found Qantas's domestic service was outshone by all rivals except its low-cost subsidiary Jetstar.
However, Qantas has cited a larger, international poll as proof its customers are satisfied.
The national carrier would not comment directly today on its poor marks in the Choice survey, preferring to draw attention to better showings in specialist airline polls.
"Qantas has been named one of the world's top airlines in the Skytrax world airline awards for the last two years," a Qantas spokesman said.
"Skytrax surveys more than 13 million travellers each year and Qantas was ranked second in both 2005 and 2006.
"The Qantas Group flies more than 34 million passengers a year and our customer satisfaction ratings have never been higher."
Choice asked its subscribers to rate airlines for value for money, booking processes, convenience, the check-in procedure, in-flight service (including food and entertainment), seat comfort, legroom and cleanliness.
Subscribers voted Singapore Airlines top international airline and small airline Regional Express the favoured domestic operator.
Qantas scored only 63 per cent, compared with Singapore Airlines' 78 per cent.
On the domestic front, Qantas fared little better, with a 67 per cent rating. Consumers labelled its service "arrogant and aloof".
Jetstar scored just 62 per cent, with one respondent describing Jetstar staff as "uniformly surly, unhelpful and most definitely unwelcoming".
Regional Express won the survey's top rating of 79 per cent, followed by Virgin Blue with 71 per cent.
"Virgin Blue staff attempt to make what is a reasonably unpleasant experience flying with a no-frills service light-hearted and enjoyable," one respondent said.
One possible reason Qantas may have fared so poorly in the survey is that people may be more critical of their national carrier, the magazine suggested.
Some travellers said they continued to fly with Qantas to earn frequent flyer points, even though they rated the airline significantly lower than average.
Redundancies to blame: union
Meanwhile, the flight attendants union says the figures do not reflect the industry.
"The survey, to me, bears no resemblance to demonstrable hard facts. If service was bad, you wouldn't have record numbers of people travelling with Qantas, you wouldn't have the highest levels of profits ever, and the highest share price ever," Michael Mijatov, secretary of the Flight Attendants Association of Australian, International division, said.
"In relation to negative comments regarding cabin crew, we believe this is not due to poor service or poor attitude on behalf of the cabin crew but to inadequate numbers of cabin crew on the aircraft. The service procedures laid down by airlines are not matched by adequate crew numbers on the aircraft."
Mr Mijatov said the number of crew on an international 747 had fallen from 16 to 15 as Qantas launch wave after wave of redundancies while Singapore Airlines retained its staff.
In October last year, 500 Qantas cabin crew were made redundant; a further 150 are expected to be lost in a redundancy round that closed last Friday.
Mr Mijatov said despite stretched numbers, there was a great sense of pride in working for Qantas and this was reflected in the standards of the crew.
"Qantas provides significant resources for training of its cabin crew to insure that its crew are amongst the best in the world," he said. "It's highly competitive - there are vastly more applicants than positions, always. And Qantas has the opportunity to pick out the best individuals."
Mr Mijatov conceded that Qantas's crew was older than other international crews, but said this resulted in better experience rather than a lack of zeal for the job.
AAP and Erik Jensen

[lowerlobe]

You can see by Metro Mans post what he finds as important in cabin crew...

"They are employed more for looks than brains, most of them will have no problem finding husbands and can fly for a few years fun before settling down"....

Is this 2007 or 1907?????

[Mr Seatback 2]

Metro Man

To begin with, you seem to be comparing Apples to Oranges...

For a start, DJ cabin crew currently have quite good conditions of employment for domestic crew. They do not get paid the same as QF L/H crew because they are distinctively different flying jobs (short haul vs. long haul).

Secondly, QF as a legacy airline has absorbed many decades of changing conditions of employment as a result of give and take with it's crew (these days, of course, more take than give!)...compared with DJ who has only existed for 7 years.

With regard to baggage handlers earning more than turbo-prop tech crew...again, I imagine you're talking about QF baggage handlers, rather than comparing like with like. I don't imagine, for a second, that a REX baggage handler would earn more than a REX Turbo Prop F/O or Capt. I am, as always however, ready to be corrected.

Turbo-prop crew (both Tech and Cabin) have always historically earned less than those who work on jet aircraft - both here and in the US, for example. Size determines pay and so on - which is why QantasLink crew at Eastern & Sunnies, for example, earn less than their mainline counterparts. You can be assured that with any turbo-prop operation, there exists very little fat in the system to pay one employee group better than the other, based on your idea of 'skill'.

"One problem with unions is enables people to be paid more than they are worth on the basis of their ability to cause disruption if they go on strike, rather than their skill."

Indeed, you are entitled to your opinion in this regard. However, the days where groups can go on strike repeatedly, at the drop of a hat, don't exist anymore under current IR legislation.

There seems to be an overriding assumption on your part - based on your posts - that cabin crew perform unskilled, manual labour with no real 'right' to earn what they do.

Let's briefly examine the role of Cabin Crew (QF particularly):
* Maintain language skills for use on selected routes - for some crew, their language skills have been developed through University, with the aim of flying in mind, costing thousands of dollars in HECS (their choice, I know, but no different to the budding pilot spending thousands on tuition, or even, endorsement??)
* Sit 6-monthly EP exams. Not essentially difficult for most of us, but there aren't many jobs where your continued employment rests on your successful pass of each exam (practical and theoretical), year in, year out
* Deal with medical situations, drunken passengers, inflight overdoses, etc. - situations most SKILLED people I know can't deal with even theoretically, and;
* Diffuse customer service situations unique to the role of flying...not everyone can do this, in spite of all the training you might provide

And to top it off...most of the crew I fly with hold degrees in one field or another. The idea that Cabin Crew in general do not deserve the money they earn - like those at QF - does not take into consideration the skills many possess, but may not necessarily display to you personally on your flights.

As for the AKL base, I couldn't agree with you more prunezeuss.

In closing, certainly, there are those who do not deserve to be in the job - but you get that in any profession, not just at Qantas, but anywhere. I wonder - is it a question of subservience/cultural differences? Or enough money being spent on product?

I've found that service can only go so far, if you don't have the resources or product to back it up. At 35,000 ft, with no working IFE, and limited catering, what do you do?? Short of becomg magicians, I'd be curious to see the response.

[Howard Hughes]

What a crock, they are probably not the best airline in the world, but they are hardly the worst!:hmm:

I find it amusing how people/companies that tend to appear on 'best' lists, also seem to make it onto the 'worst' also. Personally I don't give these type of reports much credence, all that matters, is that if you enjoy the service/flight that you use them again, and the punters seem to be doing that in droves...:ok:

[bob_bowne]

Qantas and its staff attitude is very similar to most other airline dinosaurs in the world; Air France, United or Delta, just to mention a few.

The Check-in staff and Cabin crew are the people with which passengers have the greatest contact and as such are the airlines greatest ambassadors. In the dinosaurs many of these people have been around a long time. They have great experience but also have been kicked around by endless and often fruitless economy drives by relatively inexperienced and often inept management.

These ambassadors are not what I would call vibrant and interested in their company and do not sell it all that well. The travelling public see this and resent the generally off handed treatment.

So how can this be fixed? It is my opinion, that unfortunately, it can not! In time the dinosaurs will fade away, staff will retire or move on to other operators with a completely new attitude. The industry will be a very different place in just a few short years. :ugh:

[Pinky the pilot]

It certainly would'nt be an accurate poll of any sorts by any means for obvious reasons, but at 1330hrsCST a Ninemsn poll on the subject of this thread the votes were

Yes 9002
No 21269

The 'great unwashed' :} appear to disagree with the argument.

[funbags]

Couldn't agree more re reduced crew numbers as against SQ etc. But alot of the comments/complaints on the SMH website relate to the rudeness of the crew. Unacceptable in a service industry. (And almost 500 comments in just over 4 hours, and growing rapidly, is a sad indictment on a once great airline.)

And re crew having degrees in all different vocations and therefore should command big dollars. I'm sorry, this is not relevant. The degrees are not a prerequisite for the job, therefore can't be considered. They might come in handy, but are not a requirement and such have no bearing on terms and conditions or pay.

[Mr Seatback 2]

You misunderstand my post...with respect to language skills for non-native speakers, degree's for languages play a very important role.

What I was trying to demonstrate to Metro Man was that Cabin Crew - as an example - are not necessarily unskilled, and their skills gained prior to flying in fact assist in their employment in the company - whether it be directly with passengers, or in extended roles such as inflight service development.

[Metro man]

1. Yes, refering to QF mainline baggage handler vs REX/QF Link/Skippers/****** etc pilot.

2. Accepted that turbo props pay less than jets, but turbo prop salaries pay alot less than other jobs. How does a SAAB f/o compare to a forklift driver or even a check out operator for example.

3. Quite aware of the things cabin crew have to put up with, and feel sorry for them eg; scratched by mentally handicapped passenger, cleaning filthy toilets etc

4. We do the same emergency training as the CC and do simulator as well.

5. You hit the nail on the head about cultural differences, in Asia service is not seen as a lowly occupation , hence the crew are proud to give good service.

[DEFCON4]

QF has in place performance reviews for every sector and every crew member.
You dont perform to standard believe me they know about it.
The visitors do something about poor performers...clause 11s.
In 1965 it cost 2 years salary to fly LHR return....now it costs 2 weeks salary.
Everyone still wants all the bells and whistles.
If you go into an automotive showroom looking for a VEE DUB you dont expect to walk away with a BMW for the same price.
The Airline industry in Australia has been overservicing pax for years.
As has been said elsewhere its TRANSPORT...nothing more nothing less.
The name AIR BUS says it all...its a bus service.
No American carrier is ever in the top ten.
The Americans see aviation for what it is.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Totally agree with your analogy - forklift driver vs. Saab F/O...like you said, hopefully the tide will now change to the point where pilots in lower paid airlines get the recognition (and remuneration) they deserve.

"5. You hit the nail on the head about cultural differences, in Asia service is not seen as a lowly occupation , hence the crew are proud to give good service."

In fact, it's the other way around. Service occupations - including FA - are seen as being 'lowly' occupations. The only difference with carriers such as SQ, TG, MH, etc. is that these airlines are recognised as being very prestigious to work for. Not only that, the allowances that crew at these carriers earn is more than what they might reasonably earn elsewhere in Asia.

Competition for positions is very fierce, with SQ crew having to do the 'catwalk' in the final recruitment stages (boys in their speedo's, girls in a one piece, to see if you have any unsightly rolls or lumps :ooh: )

I've met a number of crew from these carriers over the years who've got medical degrees and the like, and the pay they get at Thai, for example, outstrips anything they might earn 'on the street'.

The same can be said for QF - many thousands of people apply for very few jobs each year - not that there's been an Australian intake for long haul crew for years now. Whilst seen as prestigious to work for, and decent terms and conditions, Australian culture is very egalitarian - no recognised class structure, and an unconscious, general sense of equality that's existed for centuries. Not necessarily so for crew at Asian carriers, where minor infractions could easily have you sacked.

If anything, perhaps the key difference between QF and the likes of SQ, is that QF have no fear of alienating their passengers. Half the stunts that QF management have pulled over the years wouldn't even be considered by those in the ivory tower at SQ.

[Mr Seatback 2]

So right DEFCON4...everyone wants First Class, at Happy Hour prices.

Next time I run out of catering, and the IFE is on the blink, I'll just point to the hapless punter and say 'YOU ASKED FOR IT!' :} (only joking)

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

This would have to be the happiest day of the year for Sunfish! :ooh:

[LewC]

DEFCON4 nailed it.This was a survey of Choice Magazine subscribers.Just think of any Choice subscriber you've ever met,they're not hard to find because they like to impress you with what they regard as the superior intellectual status their membership confers upon them,something like membership of MENSA without having to have passed an entrance test.None of the wankers surveyed would have necessarily felt the need to have ever flown with QF to believe that their opinion was valid,that's the joy of being superior and knowing it.

[Ultralights]

where exactly is sunfish? is he banned?

[funbags]

Lew C,

And I suppose the 500+ odd SMH comments (who back the Choice subscribers up overwhelmingly) are all losers too! :rolleyes:

There's got to be some truth in what they're saying. :eek:

[prunezeuss]

QF carries nearly 30million pax annually.
23% of a 4000 person sample malign the airline and the airline is a dog.
What absolute twaddle!!!
I ve got a bridge like to sell. Lets meet to discuss the sale.

[slamer.]

Aussies vote Qantas worst airline, prefer Air NZ

1:15PM Tuesday May 29, 2007


http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/29airlines.jpg
Source: Choice magazine

Qantas has been voted the worst international airline in an Australian consumer survey.
Singapore Airlines was voted top international airline, with Air New Zealand in third place behind Emirates.
The survey of 4000 subscribers to consumer magazine choice also found Qantas's low-cost subsidiary Jetstar to be the worst domestic airline.
Choice asked subscribers to rate airlines for value for money, booking processes, convenience, the check-in procedure, inflight service, including food and entertainment, as well as seat comfort, leg room and cleanliness.
Qantas scored 63 per cent compared to Singapore Airlines's 78 per cent.
On the domestic front, Qantas fared little better with a 67 per cent rating, with consumers labelling the service "arrogant and aloof", while Jetstar scored just 62 per cent.
One respondent described Jetstar staff as "uniformly surly, unhelpful and most definitely unwelcoming".
Minnow Regional Express was the favoured Australian domestic operator. It won a survey-high rating of 79 per cent followed by Virgin Blue with 71 per cent.
"Virgin Blue staff attempt to make what is a reasonably unpleasant experience flying with a no-frills service, light-hearted and enjoyable," one respondent said.
One possible reason Qantas may have fared so poorly is that people may be more critical of their national carrier, the magazine suggested.
Travellers said they continued to fly with Qantas to earn frequent flyer points even though they rated the airline significantly lower than average.
- AAP

[amos2]

So! Qantas is a scumbag airline. So! What's new!
All of us in the trade have known that forever...as in the last thirty years!!!
Only the idiotic pax have ever thought otherwise!!
Strewth!...this ain't no revelation!

And, domestic is just as bad!!

[mach2male]

I have just been down at the local and conducted a survey regarding the worst pax/tourists
The results:
Those interviewed were unanimous ....amos2 was by far the least intelligent and least objective.His personal hygiene was second only to a razorback.The similarities did not end there.Those surveyed were not able to distinguish between the rear end of a razorback and amos2 facial features.
We are still collating the data.Once this is complete the findings will be posted here.
The criteria used for this survey were identical to those used by Choice....and just as relevant

[max1]

I get treated shabbily I take my business elsewhere, sixteen months ago copped a surly Qantas FA and haven't been back. Maybe she was having a bad day, copped her at the wrong time, maybe at other times she is a delight.
I now travel Virgin, if they stuff up, I may come back. They don't look like doing that so far. You can rabbit on all you like about pay, skills and qualifications, if people have a bad experience they will move their business elsewhere.
In most occupations you have to put up with stress you consider you don't deserve, be it from lazy co-workers, inept management,officious bureaucrats or demanding customers. Sometimes to others you are one of these. Build a bridge, get over it, and be nice.
Qantas can either ignore this, deny it or fix it. I don't think they are the worst, but I'll fly on the best I can afford, and at the moment it isn't Qantas.

[DEFCON4]

Shorthaul or Longhaul
What was the destination
What was the departure time
What was said
What did you contribute
Were you being a diquehead

[Twitter n Bisted]

Worst Airline or Worst Equipment (aircraft)
I have recently done a fair bit international travel plus OZ domestic and hopping around the EU. Most of this travel was not staff travel
Unfortunately my travel was in economy but it did give me much to compare as I found most of the service in Y class very similar (except for a QF 5 which was appalling)
What I did find is if you have to be couped up in Y class for up to 14hours give me a Boeing 777 3, 3, 3, config any day over the 747.
777 had same IFE issues as QF 747 and food similar and same lack of beer service, and this included airlines such as BA AF SQ etc etc
I found that if i wasn't elbow wrestling with the person beside me and i was comfortable I didn't give a rats about the service but the exact opposite happened when I wasn't.
The same thing is true when flying SYD - PER in 737 is more than irritating on a longish sector, leg room for legless midgets only. (my apologies to legless midgets reading this) The A330 did not feel as claustrophobic.
If you fly around Asia, Jet* has a tighter seat pitch than Tiger, Jet* advertise the comfort of leather but who wants to feel leather on the front of your shins from the seat in front.
I don't want to sound precious but if people are ****ty they will judge you harshly, the 777 came into service years ago and QF decided not to purchase when ALL of its competitors have.
The 777 is the punters favourite aircraft of choice, Our (QF) upper management may blame QF cabin crew for all the in-flight problems but you can't polish a turd as over half of the QF 744 fleet are only a few years off scrapping IE > 65,000 hours
(no I am not CC )

[stable approach]

Prunezeuss,
You state that most commentators here are either misinformed or uninformed.
For the accuracy of that statement you need look no further than your earlier post, where you said:
"Most SQ crew are not Singaporean.
Saying you worked for SQ is not a big deal on a resume...particularly if you are Filipino,Vietnamese,Cambodian,Thai or Japanese.These Ethnic groups make up the bulk of SQ crew."

[prunezeuss]

MOST SQ CC are NOT Singaporean
The purser and his/her offsider ARE Singaporean
Stating you are EX CC on any Resume anywhere means squat.
Prove me wrong with some facts.
While we are at it....MOST CX drivers are NOT Chinese...do you have a problem with that as well?
Who qualifies as a Singaporean....a resident?
Someone who was born there?
Who is an indigenous Singaporean?
Answer me that and we may be able to have a discussion.

[YesTAM]

Ultra, Sunfish is on his Biennial migration deep into the Pacific to breed with other Sunfish and feed on junior lawyers.:}

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

And I think he may have taken young aircraft with him.:hmm:

[speedbirdhouse]

No, his words of wisdom have just appeared on another thread.

[faheel]

Prunezeuss
Well I do work for SIA and I can tell you on ALL of the GD'S that I get the majority of cabin crew are Singaporean.

[max1]

Defcon4,
S/H,BN-PH about 11am, I was also to blame.. F/A was doing safety briefing during push back. I was mimicking her. No-one else was paying any attention to her. She stormed up to me at the end and asked me if I wanted the aircraft taken back to the gate and to get off. Okay , I was being a bit of a goose, but the reaction was over the top. It was aggressive and those around me were quite taken aback by her attitude. Maybe I'm not the only one who decided to change airlines that day?
Okay Defcon4, pillory me and tell me how it was all my fault, how I should not upset people in their workplace, how I should go and apologise and be thankful that this person is there to get me out of a burning aircraft.
I was starting a holiday and in a festive mood , I may have apologised if treated differently. But at the end of the day, I currently don't fly Qantas. You may say you are well rid of me. I am not an aggressive person, and don't appreciate such an over the top reaction.
You were not there , it is as I said it was. I stand prepared to see you defend this person and heap all the blame on me. Having flown Virgin ,I'm pretty sure it would have been handled differently. I would still have been embarrassed by my actions.
I appreciate staff are being mucked around, it is happening Ozwide, but this person saw me as an outlet for her anger and went beyond the bounds.

[aircraft]

To use the word "worst" is to take an extreme slant and reveals a sensationalist bias on the part of the user - which is to be expected if the spin was induced by a newspaper or other media outlet.

There is only 15% between the bottom and top ratings in this survey. Somebody had to have the highest score and somebody the lowest.

This survey does not mean that Qantas service is bad. The survey only made it into the news because the particular newspaper was able to come up with an angle that was deemed sufficient to excite readers.

Qantas has been doing it tough in recent years so one should have been expecting precisely this result.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

The most interesting thing about these stats is will the senior managers take the blame for a Perceived drop in standards? I think not, they and others will blame unions etc. They will say these cuts are the results of survivability, not a flawed business plan that alienates your core customers. Either way they'll reap the whirlwind, or will they? Probably not they'll be long gone before it falls apart.

Commiserations to all of the proffessional, efficient and committed Q crews that have to wear these sorts of surveys and results. It must be frustrating to see something good slowly turned into a basket case by short sighted clowns, while your once wonderful reputation slowly dissappears.:ugh:

[YesTAM]

In a survey at my "local" which mainly consists of retired or semi retired or senior business folk, Qantas always gets noted as the airline they least want to travel with, domestic and international.

These are seasoned travellers, and almost all of them will travel to Europe or America at least once a year. This is the first year, by the way, when I am not going overseas. A lot go to Europe or the UK for two to three months each summer, barges in French canals, yacht charter in Turkey or the Adriatic, that sort of thing.

The general perception is old aircraft, full aircraft all the time, disengaged staff (not actually arrogant, just bored ****less), always having to fly via Sydney and end up in Heathrow and in general expensive. Doesn't seem to matter if its economy or business, the opinion is the same. It's that bored and slightly annoyed look you get when you go to the galley and ask for a glass of water at about 3.00am that does it for me.

Preferred carriers are Emirates, Singapore and Thai. My brother has decided that when he leaves for his three months in Venice, he is travelling Thai and overnighting in Bangkok then on to Zurich(I think) from whence I'm not sure if its car train or local flight. That gives him two reasonable length flights compared to refuelling in Changi and on to London.

[stable approach]

Prunezeuss,
I work with these cabin crew every time I go to work, and I also have a copy of the GD on every flight. Apart from the 2-3 Japanese crew on a Japan flight, 2-3 Korean on a Korean flight etc, the vast majority are Singaporean, with a small percentage of Malaysians.
With the pride of the "Singapore Girl" evident here, I imagine that the claim that experience as a SQ cabin crew will help on a resume is probably correct.
Would you mind enlightening us as to where you got the evidence to back up your statement?

[twiggs]

Prunezeuss,
you are way off the mark.
I'd would guess that Qantas would have a lesser percentage of Australian based cabin crew that are Australians than SIA has of Singaporeans.

[lowerlobe]

Quote from Prunejuice……… “Stating you are EX CC on any Resume anywhere means squat”

What are your qualifications to back that statment up..?

Well I can’t talk for other countries and their airlines but with QF the selection rate at least in the old days was in fact an advantage to have in your resume.

When I started there was just over 300 vacancies and more than 10,000 applications.

Another supercilious quote from prunejuice.. “Who is an indigenous Singaporean?

Answer me that and we may be able to have a discussion”

I’m not concerned that you MAY want to have a discussion or not but…

As far as SIA is concerned most of the crew that I have met are in fact Singaporean.Now if you want to be pedantic I would say that means someone who is either Singaporean by birth or a Singaporean citizen.

That does not mean they have to be of Chinese ancestory but of any of the ethnic groups that make up Singapore.As most of us know Singapore is a melting pot of a number of different races and cultures.

Max1....If you were in an office and giving a talk and someone was mimicking you and disrupting your briefing I imagine you would not be all that happy even if they were going on holidays the next day.

Personally I'm happy you do not want to fly Qantas because in your own words you were/are a goose

[aveng]

Seem's the QF staff are again taking a battering for the incompetance of the accountants now running QF. I agree there are problems with crew (and everyone else for that matter) moral - but this wouldn't be (in part) attributable to the tools that they are given?

Most of the engineers that have anything to do with the Rockwell collins IFE system Know its a dog. Never worked that well on BA and low and behold QF ends up with it. Would the descision to buy it have anything to do with the then BA accountants sitting in QF's board room at the time? Come to think of it where they also on the board when Qf also got lumbered with the ex BA Rolls Royce powered 767's - another winner with no compatable cabin parts!

QF is absolutely littered with incompetance in management determined to reach their KPI's for their bonus's at the expense of common sense and good service/product delivery.

I fear that things will not changed much until the staff moral improves - but how is this going to be achieved by the current management?

[BelfastChild]

There was a blog on smh.com.au abou this and almost everyone bollocked QANTAS and agreed with the results of the survey. Personally I can't understand what everyone's problem is. I have flown QF economy for years, and whilst I agree that the service maybe wasn't the best in the past, I noticed a HUGE difference in the service towards the end of 2005. I have flown SYD-LHR on more occasions than I care to remember, and the only horrible flights that I have had were with BA. Recently I flew to Europe on CX, and whilst they were okay, I think I actually prefer QF. Agree with one of the other posters here who said the punters are voting with their feet. QF always seems to be full, none of the four CX sectors were full.

[mach2male]

So we have poster who has admitted to being a goose.
Complaints because an aircraft is full.
Going to a J/C galley on QF to get a drink of water.
In J/C QF provide you with a bottle of water...there is also a self service bar.
Have you ever heard of a call button?
Some of the crew in the J/C galley may be Y/C crew having a meal break.
All these complaints(?)are both petty and precious.
Pretty indicative of where contemporary society is.
.......and YesTam needs to impress us with his cohorts in the local pub.....give me a break.These would be people who are in the twilight of their lives and are pretty much bored with everything including the trophy wife.They spend their dwindling time carping about perceived (minor)transgressions by some minion somewhere.
Statistcs prove that the minions live longer than these overindulged/self indulged vermin.
Air..BUS...get it? BUS

[LewC]

Slightly O/T but interesting.A report in todays SMH reveals how Etihad deal with unruly passengers.It is alleged that three Aussie funsters enroute Sydney-Dubai on 26/4 decided to liven up their fellow first class passengers as well as the cabin crew.These lads are said to have indulged in a bit of harmless sexual harrassment that included a certain amount of groping,demanding sex for money and finally dropping their daks and underpants.Two of these fun loving travellers are presently languishing in al-Wathba prison outside Abu Dhabi enjoying a diet of fermented camel meat and are said to be facing up to 15 years in a desert prison where punishment might include stonings and lashings and temperatures exceed 50C.Of course all allegations are denied and it is said that no alcohol was involved but they are nevertheless presently sweating it out in al-Wathba.The moral of the story is, next time fly QANTAS,the cabin crew are so much more accomodating when it comes to satisfying passengers urges.Just ask Ralph.

[Mr Seatback 2]

I think the best - in fact, only - way forward for QF is to eliminate any/all performance bonuses for all management staff.

This is the way I see it...

Frontline staff by in large receive a one-off bonus for each year where the airline makes profit targets. Even then, it's only $1000 pre-tax, not multi-thousands of dollars + shares + other incentives.

What pisses off many of the staff that I've come into contact with is seeing cut-backs made in crewing levels, product and amenities (just to name a few), to then receive feedback such as this (both in reality, and in surveys such as these), when the airline is turning over hundreds of millions of dollars in profit each year, and passing on ridiculous levels of bonuses to the people responsible in reducing passenger comfort and service levels on board the aircraft.

True, Australian travellers prior to the AN collapse were spoiled in comparison to those in other parts of the world. I remember the days of a 40 minute MEL-LST flight, hot meal with a cold option, offered bar, tea & coffee and clear in. So the adjustment to the LCC way of life has been a serious adjustment for many. The added adjustment of aligning markets with carriers whose cost creates a better margin has also been difficult - and not just for the flying public.

Qantas used to be a pioneer in many areas of flying. As I recall, they were one of the first (if not, THE FIRST) airline to introduce the concept of a Business Class back in the 70's. In comparison, now it simply reacts to its competitors only when forced (Skybed as one example), because 'god forbid we have to spend money'. The aversion with which QF spends money in some areas, and throws good money after bad in others, is alarming.

Whilst QF management probably believe they are doing the right thing, and deserve these bonuses, they're not performing with the love of Qantas in mind...rather, it's one eye on the bonus and 'what other board can I join while I'm here?'. Retaining management who put shareholders first, everyone else second, pulls QF into a short term vacuum.

The inability (or reluctance) of any long term planning has seriously impacted QF's ability to perform efficiently over the years. These include:

1) The A330-200 debacle...they ordered the original 4 x A332's with no consideration of how installing Skybed might affect the floor weight. By the time this costly error was discovered, the horses responsible had well and truly bolted. But not without their bonuses.

True, the aircraft were deployed domestically for a period of time, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that a bigger aircraft than the 763 takes longer to turnaround.

2) The Rockwell-Collins IFE debacle...cheapest system, and BA had it before QF did. BA had as many problems with this system earlier on, but what did QF do? That's right - because it was cheap, it must be alright, so they bought it. Now who cops the brunt? The passengers (on a daily basis), and the hapless crew who are forced to play technician troubleshooter on a day by day basis.

3) Leasing the old BA 767RR aircraft. As a short term solution, a good choice for quick expansion. But having aircraft with completely different galleys, engines, etc. to the rest of the mainline fleet complicates (and doubles up) handling processes with engineering, catering, etc. With the aircraft now having had their original 7 year leases extended, the inefficiencies continue.

The average age of the QF fleet is 10 years old. To the extent that John Borghetti and co point to the Skytrax results as proof 'nothing is wrong', perhaps he should consider the same comments made by Skytrax surveyed passengers...'tired and old cabin'...'aircraft looked really old'...'movies didn't work'...that, and the fact that compared witih other carriers such as SQ - who are given a 5 star rating, QF only achieves a 4 star rating.

4) APA bid - nuff said.

In terms of service standards, modern training at Qantas when the new Domestic service was rolled out, consisted of a DVD crew had to study when they got home. Compare that with days gone by when you'd be brought into a classroom for a good hands-on exposure to everything associated with the new way of working. Cheaper? Certainly. Better? :hmm:

You can bet SQ don't scrimp on how much they train their crew.

With edited highlights such as the above, and with said performance bonuses being paid to those responsible, is eliminating these payments altogether such a bad idea?

Performance bonuses were designed to retain those who did a great job. With performances such as these, would you want to retain those responsible?

[priapism]

I think that the reason behind this anti Qantas backlash is that , for years, many many punters saw them as the only acceptable carrier for reasons of blind patriotism and jingoism ,which was carefully and skillfully exploited by clever QF marketing.
It didn't matter if the overall service was marginal.
Now things have changed . The average punter has read in the paper and watched on the television as the current crop of greedy Q.F managers has sent jobs offshore , aircraft maintenance offshore, and managed to cock up an attempt to sell most of the company offshore , and probably left it as majority overseas owned anyway.
Q.F. is no longer perceived as the Aussie icon it was.
It is a shell of a once mighty australian owned business, whose cost cutting has reduced service levels and destroyed the attitude of one of the most loyal workforces the country has ever seen.
It is now hitting them in the polls and will follow on to the box office.
No amount of touchy -feely advertising can correct this I fear.
The qantas board has displayed a disregard for everything except the bottom line - a dangerous an often fatal trait in a SERVICE industry.

Oh, and I am not a Q.F employee.

[misstrolleydolly]

I travel every 6 weeks on a international flight after too many flights I care to bore you about. I no longer will fly QF, everything about that survey is correct. You can sit there and refuse to accept it all you like but it has been fact on my flights. My instructions to my agent now is get me there anyway except QF, he laughs at that because he also has a QF crew member book with him and they request the same. I also have a girlfriend who is QF crew who was ex Ansett and cannot believe some of things she sees happen when she is at work. I myself am ex crew and know how the service shud be done and it isnt being done the way it shud b, all crew can be great when they know they are being checked. But if management refuse to accept there is any problem nothing will be fixed which only result in more customer walking to other airlines. Gee I wonder what would happen if SQ flew within Oz???? My guess pax would go there in droves. I dont normally post here but I felt some people need to know that things are all good at QF.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Denial is perhaps one of the best skills QF management possess.

[AVConsult]

Try comparing QF to OA, IB and AZ, then lets see who the worst international carrier is.

Have to admit though, J* is not much chop. :yuk:

[captainrats]

There are less crew doing a whole lot more work
The demogaphics of QF CC has changed dramatically
You now have a BKK Base an AKL Base,part time,a large pool of casuals and poor morale amongst permanent Australian crew.
If you are not happy you dont smile
So is there a correlation between declining service levels and the declining number of full time Australian crew....OR has QF service just been rubbish for its entire 86 year history?

[lowerlobe]

Just a few quick questions misstrolleydolly..

Who were you crew with.......?

How many crew do SIA have compared to QF?

[DEFCON4]

In real terms it has never been cheaper to fly than now.
Expectations have increased exponentially and can never be met.
All of which means that most people are not aware of reality and are just whinging bastards

[faheel]

Lowerlobe,

SIA's 777 200ER is configured 30J /255 EY and has 11 cabin crew, its the smallest a/c they have, mainly longhaul to Europe and the States.

On the BNE run the standard 777 200 has 13 cabin crew.

[speedbirdhouse]

How many on the 3 class 744?

[BelfastChild]

mach2male - not sure if you were referring to me when it came to complaining that QF is full.:confused: If so, I was not complaining. I was trying to point out that being full is probably a true indication of traveller's feelings towards QANTAS. If it is so sh1te, it would be empty. If you weren't referring to me, ignore this post...........

[YesTAM]

Mach2male, I assume you are one of those homosexual Qantas stewards.

One of those bored individuals who sashay from one end of the aircraft to the other, usually wearing that little gold bracelet around your left (or is it your right?) wrist.

Now I don't mind yor sexual orientation. Back in the 1970's I was a patriotic Aussie, and some of the stuff done by Qantas staff made you simply proud to be Australian. The airline seemed to have a point to make, and did it brilliantly. The staff were motivated and did their best to make their customers happy relaxed and contented.

Fast forward to 2007. Machy - who I hope is not Qantas cabin crew, seems to think that we are lucky to be allowed to fly with Qantas, notwithstanding that capacity constraints make it diffficult to avoid his attentions.

Let me tell you Machy, that if Qantas was the last airline on earth we would still prefer not to fly with it, and postings like yours just reinforce our determination to do without f&*&wits like you.

[mach2male]

My wife and three kids may take issue with your assertion.
If you care to meet somewhere and bring a second with you I could rearrange your face for you.....just to prove a point.
Those that accuse others of being gay are usually living in the closet...with their boyfriends

[YesTAM]

Machy, you miss the point. I'm quite happy to have Prince Wahthisname and his boyfriend serve as Qantas Stewards. The problem I have is bad or totally inadequate service. You might also know that every person who thinks Qantas servce stinks tells about ten other people. I happily pay my Son's airfare differences so that he doen't have to fly with the red rat because I don't trust its maintenance standards nor work practices.

As an employer I have had to refrain from fiirng badly performing homosexual staff because I knew that if I did so, I was going to cop an "unfair dismissal" claim. Simplest method was a "come to Jesus" meeting and a $40,000 to $50,000 one off "redundancy payment". That usually did the trick.

As for your threats, I care not. You know perfectly well about the sexual orientation of your workmates and it is of no importance except from the point of view of their approach to flicking off the occasioanal requests of their passengers.


As for that last matter "the occasional requests of passengers", we have already worked out that we are an annoyance to you and that you couldn't care if we live or die.

We hope to return the favour.

Translation: The gays I know are better than the gays you know, and your airline is ****e.

[Mr Seatback 2]

If your problem is bad service, I don't believe gay 'stewards' have exclusivity in that regard.

I've come across probably just as many bitter and twisted women who fly as crew, both at QF and many other airlines.

Rudeness and bad attitude is not the sole domain of gay male crew.

[DEFCON4]

What the hell do the meanderings of an old elitist homophobic have to do with this thread?

[DirectAnywhere]

The queens are normally better than the straights or the women...when it comes to service I mean....inflight service I mean...oh look, there's no way to write it without it becoming a double entendre but you know what I mean.

[YesTAM]

DefCon4: It's people like you who give Qantas the bad name it so richly deserves.

[lowerlobe]

I once read your posts with interest but after this homophobic diatribe ...

"Mach2male, I assume you are one of those homosexual Qantas stewards.
One of those bored individuals who sashay from one end of the aircraft to the other, usually wearing that little gold bracelet around your left (or is it your right?) wrist"

I realise what a Neanderthal you really are.Then you made the hole deeper by telling Mach2Male that he missed your point.

Those reading these posts understand only too well your point of view and if Darwin was correct the only place for you is a museum.

Scientists will label your display the missing link!!!!!

[speedbirdhouse]

yestam,

your pathetic homophobic rant has no place here, or anywhere.

[speeeedy]

I am not cabin crew but in my observations from the pointy end I would say that this post earlier from airdoris sums it up perfectly:

:D :D :D

My point here is to defend the cabin crew, I don't get involved in the other issues. Four cabin crew on a full international B767 flight in economy, 204 demanding pax is just asking for complaints. Although the service is achievable, hey we all do it, it is definately at the detriment to the pax. Who ever designed the inflight service to this crew compliment should try and do it a few times. It is impossible without pax complaints, and I don't blame the pax for whinging. We are just not available. God help us if we have a medical emergency or something of the like which will result in a crew member attending to that. The B767 needs another crew member in economy. Some may say that the CSM should come down to assist, how can they when they have to appololgise to 25 business class pax that we are out of stock of wine and all we can offer is Y class wine in little bottles. No stock in port. This is totally unacceptable and embarassing and it happens on a regular basis.
The food in both classes is basic at most and I continually find myself appologising. I write reports about all this but it seems to never be actioned. No wonder the crew are disconcerted, we are supposed to provide a product which is promoted but sadly doesn't even exist. I know there are great crew, we just dont have the product to provide, therefore we are in a case of having to say sorry constantly. We don't have a product even close to our competitors, and I think QF should look at that.

[twiggs]

Air Doris is spot on.
I believe the survey results are primarily due to our inferior hard product.
There are just as many indifferent cabin crew on Emirates as on Qantas. (there is no excuse for it, but it happens because we are human beings and some are more suited to different aspects of the job than others)

The same situation that Air Doris describes on the 767 occurs daily on a full 3 class 744, where 6 crew attempt to provide the pathetic economy product to 315 customers.

[roamingwolf]

yestam
mate you remind me of a well known ex football player turned commentator named rex.

if we got rid of all gay people in the service industry then every airline would close down and most hotels and resorts.all airlines have gays working as crew not just qf .so it's clear yestam that you do not have a clue.

Thanks faheel for telling us the number of crew on sia's 777.just a little more pax than a qf 767 and basically double the crew.we have roughly about 80% of sia's pax and half the cabin crew,no wonder qf crew get complaints.it's hard to compete with that.

[YesTAM]

I have no problem with gay people at all. I well recall my wife getting turned away at the door of a certain Melbourne pub by the bouncer when we went to catch up with a certain former Ansett person who owned it. So don't try and stick the homophobic label on me.

What I cannot abide is the flash of female bitchiness and the flounce, whether it is from a female cabin crew or a male cabin crew.

There was a time when the male Cabin crew of Qantas were an asset, and knowing passengers used to say "if there was an emergency, I'm glad these guys are on board looking after us instead of wimpy liitle oriental girls".

Similarly with in flight incidents with football players and suchlike, the little oriental girls just didn't know what to do. the blokes did.

I still take my hat off to the cabin crew in about 1976 who looked after a family of four palid Poms making their immigration flight to Australia. Those guys made that family feel at home before they even got off the ground at Heathrow - "now get that orange juice into ya kids, thats good Australian sunshine". Sadly, that level of service is no more.

I'm sure this is amazingly politically incorrect, but I'm sick and tired of getting fobbed off by some pansy wearing a few thousand dollars of gold bracelets in the cabin - as Qantas male staff seem to do.

[DEFCON4]

The hole you have created for yourself is just getting deeper.
Quit while you are behind(no pun intended)

[lowerlobe]

RW I like your analogy with Rex so....

Various quotes from Rex Messup aka yestam...

"I assume you are one of those homosexual Qantas stewards"

"One of those bored individuals who sashay from one end of the aircraft to the other"

"As an employer I have had to refrain from fiirng badly performing homosexual staff "


"You know perfectly well about the sexual orientation of your workmates "

"but I'm sick and tired of getting fobbed off by some pansy wearing a few thousand dollars of gold bracelets in the cabin - as Qantas male staff seem to do"

Then after digging a hole big enough to bury even his ego ,the missing link tries to extricate himself by telling us ....

"I have no problem with gay people at all"

I think it is time for you to cut your losses and get back to the museum before it closes.

homophobia |?h?m??f?b??| noun an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

DERIVATIVES homophobe |?h?m??f?b| noun homophobic |-?f?bik| adjective ORIGIN 1960s: from homosexual + -phobia .

[misstrolleydolly]

Lowerlobe,
In answer to your questions I was Ex An then QF. I am aware that other airlines have more/less crew, but at the end of the day having a bad attitude doesnt make your day any better and refusing to see there is a problem from management and crew wont help things also. We can all have bad days, but from flying with QF as a normal pax not just a paxing crew member I have seen what that survey was all about. Hope this answers your questions

[misstrolleydolly]

Just got the below message in my PM,s. With a attitude like this I am guessing mach2male is one of the QF crew that is talked about in the survey....... Why would you bother? You arnt doing yourself any favours.

mach2male
Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 79 So True

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to get laid...get yourself a nice guy/girl and get rid of your frustration.
Just make sure that your bonkbuddy is deaf....otherwise your carping will put them off

[YesTAM]

Sounds like Defcon4 and lowerlobe are part of the problem too.

If I fly with an airline I would like to be treated as a valued client.

It's quite obvious from posts here what Qantas problem is - they obviously can do no wrong.

It's almost as if Qantas customers are treated as ****e for the simple reason that we are too stupid to book with another airline.

[Le 3rd Homme]

Behave like a valued client(not a homophobic pratt)and you will be treated like one.

[YesTAM]

Errrr, I'm the one who is paying the money. Should I act as if I am glad that you will carry me?

[Le 3rd Homme]

Get the message sunshine...you have an overblown self perception...you eat and defecate like eveyone else.
Being an elitist doesnt guarantee you longevity...in fact quite the opposite

[speedbirdhouse]

It is going to get worse at QF before it gets any better.

QF management [cough] have been briefing longhaul CSMs on confidential internal reports showing that customer satisfaction levels in the economy cabin have been declining alarmingly over the last twelve months.

These reports interestingly list customer satisfaction levels in First Class at 99% with Business class much the same.

The vast majority of our regional international flying is now being done by what were traditionally domestic cabin crew. How much that "dump and run" culture has to do with these survey results is anyone's to guess.

I have no doubt that the lack of organisational onboard ability due to the lack of dedicated supervisors has some [a large?] part to play.

Also worth considering is the fact that almost a third of the shorthaul cabin crew are now casual contract employees with questionable emotional attachment to our once iconic company.

The level of training QF management [cough] invest in it's cabin crew now consists of nothing more expensive than a take home DVD.

Hardly what I would call worlds best practice.

The recruitment standards for our AKL based cabin crew have fallen to the level whereby previously unsuccessfull applicants are called with job offers.

Text messages have been sent to existing crew asking if they have friends who wish to fly.

Worlds best practice again???
Is the pay so bad at SQ that they have to resort to this???

The morons who purport to run and manage this company know nothing of the pride and culture that made it great. For them its just another gig to line their pockets.

What we are seeing now is just their chickens coming home to roost.

[Bazzamundi]

Text messages have been sent to existing crew asking if they have friends who wish to fly.


:rolleyes:

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Twiggs,

have had the pleasure to travel on many of the airlines being used as bench marks, with regards to your statement about Emirate Cabin Crew, i'd have to disagree, they are some of the most enthusiastic Cabin Crew out there, very very diverse in origins and are very infrequently not bending over backwards for the pax.

As far as QF being the worst International Airline running out of OZ, is it really that much of a suprise to anyone ?, certainly not to me.

Nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the Cabin Crew, even with my chisel cut chins and rather well built one pack, feel the camper of the staff have been more hospitible than the cranky old bag over botox'd trolley dolley down the back.

I can still pick the ex-Ansett staff in their workplace, much friendlier.

[UNOME]

I still have some very close ex-Ansett mates (both cabin and tech).

They have MANY funny and incredible stories about a "family" of people who loved going to work.

That's something we do not have at QF. :bored:

[lowerlobe]

post from misstrolleydolly...

"Lowerlobe,
In answer to your questions I was Ex An then QF. I am aware that other airlines have more/less crew"...

Why do I find the fact that you are ex An not surprise me!!!

As someone else has pointed out other airlines have nearly twice the cabin crew and you don't think that is an issue!!!!!

In any organisation if the management are continually haranguing it's employees while at the same time expecting them to operate with equipment that is less than best then you will have unmotivated staff.

As far as Rex and his homophobic posts are concerned they are about as relevant as those of an ex AN/QF trolleydolley!!!

[YesTAM]

The point I was trying to make is that I have no problems with gay people, however if I am a captive audience sitting in an aircraft seat, I do not believe I should be treated to a display of gayness, including bitching and flouncing around be bejewelled male staff. My gay friends don't carry on that way in public, and neither should Qantas staff whatever their orientation. It's simply unprofessional.

[speeeedy]

This root cause of this problem can be solved easily.


FOG


Sometimes a solution really is that simple......

[speedbirdhouse]

No arguement from me there Speedy.........

FOG

[smartalec888]

It appears that YesTAM is used to the level of service that was provided in the 70's and refuses to accept the change in service as time has progressed. Things change YesTAM, and if you do want that "level of service" that was provided to you back in the 70's I suggest you pay for your Business or First class ticket. Don't expect that level of service in economy. Be realistic. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Also, there is no point singleing out one's orientation and putting the blame on them. You are a riddle of contradictions and must realise that we all do have bad days.

I am not QF CC but my bf is and I am GC. He is sitting here with me and we laugh at your childish comments.

A little advice old son YesTAM, if you can't deal with what people dish back to you don't dish it out.

[ernestkgann]

I've worked with an overseas airline for almost nine years now and in that time have travelled QF domestically around Oz. There is a noticeable difference in QF's customer service product and the product of the company I work for and it's not a new phenomenon. We even got the same kind of service from crew on a QF link 717 when their operation was new.
EK (the company I work for) have all the same variables in the cabin that are discussed here by QF staff that are contributing to bad customer experiences. They have many nationalities, low experience levels, poor managers, fatigued crews and so on. The point of difference is that all EK cares about is customer service. They tick the box on regulatory requirements but their priority is the customers experience. I suspect SQ are exactly the same.
The established airlines are opposite. Cabin crew are taught that safety is their number one and they treat service as an inconvenience. Safer aeroplanes have changed the goal posts for cabin crew and pilots. Accidents are now so infrequent that by operating modern aircraft a management can now pay lip service to safety and make the hospitality side of things the priority. It's commercial risk management.
Give me a QF crew any time that safety is a priority but I'll take anyone else for service.

[funbags]

ernest,

Excellent post, and right on the mark.

Of course you can't expect the service levels to be as high with the reduced cabin crew compliments now in Qantas.

But alot of the comments on the SMH website (in particular) related to the crew's attitude. How they spoke to the passengers, general demeanour etc. Whilst the service cant be world's best with crew number cutbacks, there is no excuse for rudeness, ignoring passengers etc in a service based industry (and this seems to be happening too frequently)

[smartalec888]

Lets cast our minds back to that DVD shall we (all that have viewed it)

"Qantas: Safety first, service always"

[YesTAM]

Smarty my perceptions are not based on wanting a 70's product. they are based on comparisons with other airlines

[lowerlobe]

Thats right Yestam..or Rex..No other airlines have gay cabin crew and of course there were no gay crew before 1976....

Rex still wears flared trousers and drinks KB beer....back to the museum for you Rex

[max1]

Lowerlobe and Defcon4,

I agreed I was being a bit of a goose,however you fail to state whether you believe the FA was being overly aggressive. You talk about how would I react to someone in my 'office' mimicking me. I would like to think I would handle it better. If I worked in a face to face customer service/tourism industry, eg hotel, restaurant,airline? I would hope I wouldn't blow up and give them a blast.
I would like to think that I could remember that this and every customer was paying good money to travel on my airline and that maybe they were being a bit of a goose, and maybe I could use some of those people skills that got me the job in the first place to remind that person to behave better. This may have got the person to stop acting like a goose without being embarrassed , so that the next time they came into my cabin, he wouldn't be a goose and would remember the 'nice' way he was treated.
You seem to have an attitude that this is the FA's workplace that they come first, respect that they work here and I just visit, shut up and do what you are told. Don't ask for a glass of water,appreciate that they have been understaffed and demoralised, in fact just leave us alone completely and we'll get on just fine.Forget, I am PAYING to be there, not being PAID.
You are in a service industry. I appreciate, understand and empathise with the cost cutting , bonus orientated , arse covering management that Qantas staff have to put up with.
I also understand that the great majority of Qantas staff don't have your superior attitude to customers, I have a choice to fly, or not to fly with Qantas. You seem happy not to have me, at this stage I'm happy on Virgin. Everybody is happy.Fantastic.

[DEFCON4]

You were probably the straw that broke the camel`s back
At 01100 yours was possibly the third leg this FA had done.
She probably ignored the mimicking in the first 2 legs.
You won the prize for making her spit the dummy.
She is also very serious about the safety aspect of her job.
Doing a safety demo when (a)no one cares enough to watch and (b)some goose ridicules you makes FAs feel pretty damn stupid.Put this in context of
bi annual EP renewals then maybe you understand why she was upset.
Trying to deliver the unachievable is also stressful.QF advertisng creates enormous expectations.With the available resources these expectations are never going to be met.
This leads to Customer frustration and crew frustration.All this frustration in an aluminium tube is a volatile cocktail.
Crew indifference(aka rudeness)is more often than not a defense mechanism at not being able ot supply what is expected.
For me I am as pleasant and understanding as possible.I apologize,write a report and folow it up when I return to base.
The end result is that nothing changes.
At work I continually try to make amends for the products shortcomings.
I cop a lot of abuse for circumstances that essentially are not of my making.
So QFCC are abused by the customers and ignored by management.
Makes for a really happy employee.....not !

[BuzzBox]

Lowerlobe: No other airlines have gay cabin crew and of course there were no gay crew before 1976....

Yeah, but I'm yet to experience with any other airline the kind of behaviour I once witnessed between two very obviously gay male flight attendants on an international flight with QF.

During the meal service they were wheeling their galley carts, one up each aisle, throwing out meal trays to the passengers. These two guys were totally indifferent to the passengers they were 'serving' and were discussing (quite LOUDLY) their 'exploits' with the local talent the night before, over the heads of the passengers in the centre rows. Now I don't give a flying toss what people, gay or otherwise, do in their spare time, but I do object to having to hear about it afterwards. The passengers around me weren't too impressed either.

[fender]

1. Gay of old was happy
2. Gay of recent past was Poof
3. Gay of now is like sissy boy pooncy!!..But not necessarily pof.
4. Gay of future will mean macho manly Alpha male type of guy.

Your all gay no.2 or 3

[Butterfield8]

What was the QF Flight Number....from where to where.?
Sounds like LHR base or AKL Base to me

[BuzzBox]

It was a few years ago and I can't remember the flight no., but the sector was PER to SIN. I wouldn't swear to it, but I think the crew was based in SYD.

[Butterfield8]

That sort of behaviour is unacceptable
Havent seen/heard it for quite awhile though.

[lowerlobe]

BuzzBox..
If that was what was happening then your right it is unacceptable.What people do in their own time is their own business and of course some gay guys are more overt about their sexuality than others.Just as some straight guys are different than other straight guys.

max1...I don't know exactly how distracting you were although you do admit you were a goose.I also don't know if you were the straw that broke the camels back and she let loose on you.

I'm sure that there are times you have lost your temper when normally you would not.The problem is not only that you were not watching something that is safety related but that you may have distracted others attention as well.

If you think crew get off on doing saftey demo's your wrong.When you have done them for years it becomes more than tedious but at the same time is crucial because you might just need that information to survive one day.

Personally,I would not have acted as you claim she did.Our job is similar to a diplomat because most of the time you can never say exactly what you are thinking or what you would like to say.

Instead, I would have accidentally tipped a tray of tomato juice over you later on.....then laughed about it over a beer with the crew after the flight...

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[twiggs]

Instead, I would have accidentally tipped a tray of tomato juice over you later on.....then laughed about it over a beer with the crew after the flight...

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

If you are serious lowerlobe, then thanks, from the rest of us who are trying to do a good job, that you are leaving.

Or as Rex would say "You idiot"

[lowerlobe]

Twiggsy....

Of course most of you in the office don't like things like that but it fixes the problem doesn't it?

The goose would never interrupt a safety demo again.

But then you never like crew fixing problems out on track because it takes away from your power base!!!!

I can't wait to hear the lame excuse of your solution.

If it is the Rex I think your referring to he would think it was great solution.

[misstrolleydolly]

Lowerlobe u really need to go and get a job you enjoy because you are really one very bitter person. I have not read pprune for about 1 yr until about 3 weeks ago because most topics have the few standard individuals like yourself that turn the topic into a slinging match. Find something you really enjoy doing I am sure your attitude will change, then you wont be talked about in the next Choice survey. Hope things get better for you.

[mach2male]

You havent taken my well intentioned advice I see

[lowerlobe]

Trolleydolley

Did Anset going south really upset you that much…

[YesTAM]

Did Anset going south really upset you that much?


Yes, because for a while it left us no alternative to dealing with pr!cks like you.

[redsnail]

Permit me my thoughts and experiences here.

I've flown Qantas both long haul and short haul. I haven't flown long haul business class since May 2000 so maybe it's changed? I don't know.

I have flown since then Emirates, TAP Air Portugal, Delta and US Airways all long haul business class. All are good, but not as good as Qantas IMHO. Where QF excelled was their customer service and quality that was offered.
Tomorrow I'll experience United Airways business class.

I often do BA, bmi, Alitalia, TAP Air Portugal, Swiss, SAS intra Europe business class. Nothing flash there these days, a hot meal is about all the difference these days.

I have also flown economy BA and Qantas long haul to Australia. QF is better than BA definitely. I have never had a problem with the cabin crew, all have been attentive and worked well as a team and no one was left ignored. QF do a few things that the other airlines don't do (yet) and it does make the drag of the 10+ hour flight a tad less painful.

BA's advantage is with the cabin lay out. QF really do need to look at that. Virgin Atlantic have the "super economy" seats too.

I have yet to experience Virgin Atlantic (flown Virgin Blue, they're fine. My loco benchmark is Ryanair), Cathay and Singapore. (I last flew Singapore about 30 years ago so I think the comparison is a bit flawed).

Is Qantas the worst from the above? No. Definitely not. Is the bean counters making life harder for the cabin crew to do their job well? I'd say so.

The best FA? IMHO it's the FA with a tonne of experience both in the job and in life that still loves his/her job. They're worth their weight in gold for the company.

[speedbirdhouse]

Quote- "The best FA? IMHO it's the FA with a tonne of experience both in the job and in life that still loves his/her job. They're worth their weight in gold for the company."

------------

Yep. Never a truer word spoken.
What a shame QF management [cough] aren't smart enough to realise it.

[rafterman]

I was on a DJ flight recently heading up to YBNA and the lovely young lady up the front doing the announcement looked like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth. I had to laugh when she finished by saying that she " hoped everyone up the front weren't too disturbed by the couple in row 5 who insisted in talking continuously throughout the safety demonstration " :D
She was such a lovely petite young thing with the most beautiful soft brown eyes but the last statement was delivered, despite the sugar sweet smile, with such venom that the offending couple didn't say a word for the rest of the flight, and I fell instantly in love with her. Can't remember the name but vividly remember the smile. :)

[Ref + 10]

Rafterman, I'd have paid money to see that!!

[rafterman]

It was worth the price of the airfare.

[lowerlobe]

The best result is when you embarrass the individual(s) and the approach she used works well when you want a direct approach.As I said I find that the subtle approach works better because then you can't be called into the office .

The goose in question understands that it was no accident but cannot prove it. The other pax usually think the goose deserved it anyway and have trouble not laughing because he probably has continued to act the goose throughout the flight.

Those office dwellers who post here (you know who you are) do not like any of these solutions because it takes them out of the loop.They would want a 5 page report in triplicate and probably 5 hours on the phone .This usually results in an apology to the goose from the company when the goose threatens to fly with someone else.They would end up taking him and his wife out to dinner to apologise for the actions of the crew.

[aircraft]

mach2male,

The PM you sent to misstrolleydolly is inappropriate. If you had said that in person, at the office, and there were witnesses, you could expect to be convicted of sexual harrassment. You lack commonsense and maturity. Is your wife aware of what you said? How does she feel about it?

Moderators, this individual has admitted sending the PM. Why haven't you banned him?

Here is the admission (post #124):
You havent taken my well intentioned advice I see

misstrolleydolly's post revealing the PM is here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3321839&postcount=94

[YesTAM]

And here is a PM from 3rd Homme:

U R about as popular as fart in an elevator Jack

To which the obvious reply is "Thats how Australians view Qantas"

[DEFCON4]

Someone woke up the Queen Mother...go to sleep NoTam...go to sleep.
Its a pity...the credibility Tam once had has evaporated.
He is now viewed as a homophobic old fool who has an overinflated perception of his own importance...he has become irrelevant.
His reply will be as predictable as he has become.
Not clever,not humourous but sarcastic.
Perhaps himself and the Dolly could pool their limited intellectual resources and form their own fabulous airline.
The bottom line QM, is hire a batman and Lear Jet/Falcon next time you travel .
Its the only way you will receive the servicing you desire.

[aircraft]

YesTAM said:
To which the obvious reply is "Thats how Australians view Qantas"
Wrong. Plain wrong.

Shortsighted Australians, as the result of a negative experience on board QF would regard them this way, but all Australians?

The less shortsighted appreciate that it is impossible for any airline, at all times, to give positive impressions. Some would also appreciate that, as Qantas is striving to reduce costs, they cannot man the cabins to the extent that passengers would like.

Whilst speaking with friends recently about the failed takeover bid, the view was expressed that Qantas is "a great Australian icon". I would expect that many more Australians have a similar view.

You don't seem to grasp what the survey in question is saying. It is not saying that the airline is bad. It is not even saying that some Australians have a "negative" perception of Qantas. It is purely ranking passenger preferences for different airlines.

Your statement is a gross generalisation and suggests that you are, quite possibly, one of the shortsighted.

[smartalec888]

Well said aircraft.

[capt.cynical]

Posted: 28 May 07 09:25
Post subject: Qantas
Company / Organisation name: Not Applicable
Issue type:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well congratulations Qantas you have done it again ... totally peeved a paying customer that is.

In Novmber 2006 I booked 2 return flights from Coffs to Sydney and due to circumstances I had to cancel one of them.

“No worries” the customer rep said on the phone, “I cant give you the money back (for your partners flight) even though you paid for the seat but I can issue a credit in your partners name so when he next wants to fly to Sydney he can use that so long as it is within 12 months. Goody happy customer so I thought.

In Feb this year we tried to cash in that credit for a flight to Sydney. “Oh no” we were told, “Mr X did not cancel the ticket so he was marked down as a ‘no show’ when he did not turn up for his flight.”

Ermm “I canceled this flight in October last year and was told that he had a credit in his name that only he could access so that is what we would like to do please.”

“Oh sorry Qantas policy is that the person flying has to cancel the ticket or it cant be done. Oh ok - so why was I told that Mr X’s seat ot the flight had been canceled and he had a credit issued to him?” “Sorry don’t know about that but Qantas policy is ..... .as above. “

Imagine my surprise when the same thing happens to my friend.

Her partner buys her a ticket from Mel to Syd and then cancels it as they split up .... SHE gets the credit and the flight too (with added $ of course). No one says to her that SHE has to be the one to cancel the flight or anything like that.

Why do Qantas customer service reps seem to have one rule for one person and one for another or is it just that they make up the rules as they go along???

If this has happened to anyone else can you please contact me (if allowed) as I have asked Qantas this question in my letter of complaint.

If it is not resolved in a satisfactory and timely way I will be reporting them to the ACCC as I cannot believe that I am the only person that this has happened to.

The money is insignificant it is the principle. They state that they have a policy but then someone else does exactly the same thing and gets a different response.

As far as I am concerned Q has stolen my money.

NGE Member: nurseratchett


Say's it all really ! :uhoh::ugh::yuk:

[DEFCON4]

1.The Interview process(for Staff) is flawed
2.The training is both poor and insufficient
3.Staff are under resourced
4.Due to pressure and all of the above policy is made on the run
5.There are no systems or protocols in place to resolve problems...ergo inconsistency
6.Dixon and his team macro manage but forget about the simple but important details
7.QF is a top down company where information/orders flow only one way
8.The management have a poor skill set in people management
9.If Branson ran Qantas....Wow!

[Zeus Ex Machina]

"QF CC are abused by customers and ignored by management"
No wonder morale is so poor.
Is anybody listening?
Does anybody management really care?
The Management attitude...dont like it?...leave

[Willi B]

To say that having a negative QF experience makes one short sighted is a non sequitur.

'Choice' asked subscribers to rate airlines against a range of criteria, including in flight service and value for money. From 4000 responses, QF was ranked seventh out of seven. Are you seriously suggesting that 4000 'Choice' subscribers are unthinking?

Some of the usual suspects have been quick to stick the boot into management. While management may well play a part in this rather sad state of affairs, from the tenor of posts here, cabin staff are not without fault either.

I'm self employed. If I don't deliver customer service, I don't get repeat business. When I travel, I want value for money. I make around six trips per year to Western Europe and North America for work purposes.

Look at Flight Centre fares for a Business Class flight from SYD-LHR in a fortnight's time at http://www.flightcentre.com.au/GNE?faretype=M&todaysDate=02%2F06%2F2007&gneProperty=&searchType=on&tripType=RT&tripTypeRadioGroup=RT&departure=SYD&destination=LON&destinationdisplay=London&departureDate=13%2F06%2F2007&cabinClass=J&x=41&y=10

The quoted QF fares are at the upper end of the list, and more expensive than some of the more highly ranked airlines in the 'Choice' survey.

Why should I spend around $10K of my hard earned cash on QF when there's a significant risk I'll encounter poor service, AND the more highly ranked competition is cheaper?

[packrat]

When you purchase a ticket what are you actually paying For?
How are your expectations determined?
You cannot get personalized service on any QF service nor should you expect it.
There is 1 CC member per 40 customers on QF international services.
Travel today is less expensive in real terms than it has ever been.
Travelling on a modern jetliner is a horrible experience.
Poor oxygen flow
Crap food
Uncomfortable seating unless you shorter than 175cm and taller than 140 cms.
8 toilets in economy for over 300 customers.
Spending innumerable hours next to someone you dont know(or possibly even like)
It has been said over and over again it is transport...nothing more nothing less.
How I feel when I reach my destination is down to me.
I have no other expectation other than to arrive safely and on time.
The rest is just window dressing and I am not interested in it.
A book
An iPod
A bottle of water
Two pens
A very small back pack
A tooth brush
Eye Drops
Moisturizer
A spare T shirt
These are the things I need
I dont interact with the crew...I dont need to ...I dont want to.
The purpose of travel is reaching a destination

[DutchRoll]

I'd have to agree with that Willi B. Choice is non-profit and non-politically aligned. Nor do they take advertising income. It is pretty well respected for consumer surveys etc (that's why it exists in the first place). 4000 people is a decent sample for a survey. The only reasonable conclusion is that people really don't like the service they're paying for, and that there are significant problems.

This of course is not exactly earth-shattering news to anyone such as myself who works for QF. Dixon has been very lucky - in many political circles he (and QF) is a protected species. But as more competition slowly comes ashore, he'll choose to ignore surveys like this at his peril.

He's certainly gutting the experience and morale of the staff, and that's bound to reflect in the service and is indeed a Management problem. The brand new part-timer CC who had to ask the tech crew how to arm the front door recently is a case in point. On the flip side, there is no shortage of "attitude" among some crew too, including quite a few younger ones bringing with them the "you can't tell me what to do" philosophy.

[DEFCON4]

Gee,I thought airfares were the cost of renting a piece of equipment worth $250m to transport you to your destination and back again.

[DEFCON4]

Do not design aircraft
Do not design seats
Do not determine catering
Are not engineers
Are not mechanics
Do not decide which IFE system an airline purchases
Are not responsible for fog
Are not clairvoyant
Do have names
Do have families
Are human beings
Do not like being abused
Are generally ignored by management
Do not like being poked prodded or grabbed
Do not respond to whistles grunts or clicking fingers.
Are not responsible for the passenger next to you throwing up on you
Are accountable for everyhing and responsible for none of it
Do not design service procedures
They ARE responsible for passenger safety
They ARE responsible for maintaining toilets
They ARE trained in CPR
They HAVE delivered babies
They HAVE saved lives.
Live in a constant state of fatigue
Are away for births deaths and marriages
Are away for Christmas Easter and every public holiday and weekend
Are away for anniversaries and birthdays.
Do become indifferent to the unbelievably high expectations of the travelling public because their employer does not provide the resources with which they can meet these expectations.

[Buster Hyman]

9.If Branson ran Qantas....Wow!
If Branson ran Qantas...he would've sold it years ago!:suspect:

[bushy]

I agree. I could not do your job. You should be paid lots.
Imagine what it would be like if you were not there.!!!!!!!

[lowerlobe]

The problem here is that the choice magazine survey polarizes the aviation community and gives a chance to those who love nothing more than taking a cheap shot at QF.

This is nothing more than the Holden/Ford rivalry or Lib/Lab supporters situations.

[captainrats]

Does any body read previous posts in a thread?
Air Doris simply reiterated what was said not 3 posts before albeit with slight embellishments.
"Cabin Crew are held accountable for everything and are responsible for none of it"
.......from a previous is it in a nutshell.

[RaverFlaver]

As a customer service representitive of any company, it's generally your job to take onboard customer complaints or concerns, fix them and feed them back to the company.

Aside from our primary safety related duties, we are also there to channel this feed back, good and bad to the company. Of course it's not our fault most of the time, however we are just a point of communicatiuon between the passenger and the company.

A good portion of customer service work, is sorting out customer complaints, problems, stuff ups and so on.

It's how you handle these and deal with them that matters. And I think that may be what the results in some of these surveys are about when relating to cabin crew.

I agree, it is extremely trying on some flights and very repetitive having to explain that we don't have certain service items available. For the simple reason of cost cutting. It does make our job challenging, especially when you apprently fly for a full service airline!

[roamingwolf]

raver

everything you said is true but what about when you go into the office after after a trip and let them know about a problem you had and they treat you like you have some kind of disease.

One problem is stuff like ife and the other is lack of back up .mix that with lower crew numbers than our competition and i reckon you get surveys like this.

[flightfocus]

DEFCON 4,

Everything in your post is true of every member of the cabin crew staffing CX and SQ (among others that I would rather fly!) flights.

Why is it that they ARE able to remain professional and provide a QUALITY experience?? :rolleyes:

As SLF we

Are not responsible for cabin crew being generally ignored by management
Do not like doing poking prodding or grabbing
Do not want to resort to whistles grunts or clicking fingers for service.
Are not esponsible for the passenger next to me throwing up on us either :\
Care that you are accountable for everything and responsible for none of it
Want realistic cabin service procedures
Know that you ARE responsible for passenger safety
Hope you actually DO maintain the toilets
Are pleased you ARE trained in CPR
Admire that you HAVE delivered babies
Are pleased you HAVE saved lives.
Live in a constant state of being cramped, starved, dehydrated and ignored
Travelling to a birth death or marriage
Are with family for Christmas Easter and every public holiday and weekend (Heaven help us!! :{)
Are away for anniversaries and birthdays.
Do become indifferent to the unbelievably low reality of the travelling QF because your management does not provide you the resources with which you can meet these expectations.

[DEFCON4]

.....just Reality
QF Crew do NOT have the resources that CX and SQ have..namely manpower'
The management of both these airlines is superior to that of QF
Your post only validates the position of QF CC...namely...you dont give a rats rissole about their plight...nor do you offer a remedy.....apart from employing a lot of gorgeous Asian girls.
NB..your post is selective .You ignore CC are human like eveybody else..we understand your plight.... we spend more time pax than anyone else in the airline industry....the survey that started all this was of 4000 people...QF carries 32million a year......do you really think its indicative?
I get to be both a passenger and a Cabin Crew member.
Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize.

[DEFCON4]

A recent piece in th Brisbane Times suggests that Australians no longer have an emotional attachment to QF.
Considering that a large number of CC are no longer Australian is anyone really surprised
Ask a Thai flight attendant about the rugby
Ask a LHR crew member how Manly or the west coast Eagles did over the weekend
You cant have the Australian Experience without Australians
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/highflyer-had-a-long-way-to-fall/2007/06/07/1181089237549.html

[Willi B]

Not really. The main thrust of the article, like the SMH and Choice pieces, is that Australians have high expectations of Qantas, which "survey says" aren't being met.

Why is this so?

In the 2006 Skytrax Airline of the Year Award http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards-2006/AirlineYear-2006.htm in a survey of 13.61 million respondents, Qantas manages a respectable second place.

Yet in the same awards, for cabin staff, Qantas didn't make the top five - http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards-2006/CabinStaff.htm

Commenting on the results, Skytrax said ..... "cabin staff play a pivotal role, not just in ensuring the safety and well-being of passengers, but also projecting the whole corporate image that an airline is seeking to achieve. It is often the standard of cabin staff service that will make or break a travel experience for many customers, and our Survey is structured in such a way as to enable differentiation between what we regard as 'hard' and 'soft' service elements. The hard service factors are those that relate mostly to the designated service duties - be it safety, catering etc. Soft service is something that can be said to reflect the individual character of either an airline or the country it represents - that special smile, genuine service interest, staff friendliness, staff enthusiasm etc. These are areas where some airlines clearly excel, and achieve great customer loyalty through their ability to deliver this in a consistent manner.

[Zeus Ex Machina]

Why is service so bad?
Is it lack of moral?
Poor quality hard product?
Aging aircraft?
As far as CC are concerned Dixon considers them a necessary evil and tells them so ...often
Great way to treat your frontline staff.
Pilots, Engineers and ground staff are all unhappy.
Everyone stays in the hope that things will improve.
With Dixon in charge service will never improve.
"Never have so few delivered so little to so many"
Wake Up Geoff!!

[lowerlobe]

The attitude and behaviour of any boss permeates through his business or area of influence.You only have to look at Mr Personality-Charisma By-Pass and his attitude to employees and you can see the effect.

[aircraft]

Zeus Ex Machina said:

Why is service so bad?

What makes you say the service is bad? The Choice survey was not saying this, nor was either of the two surveys pointed to by Willi B.

[Willi B]

As far as 'Choice' is concerned, not so.

The quality of service is particularly important on long international flights, and QANTAS was rated lowest for this

'Choice', June 2007, p.15

[lowerlobe]

DO you think Willi that that might mean things like IFE /seats etc..and just not CC?

[aircraft]

Incredible. Throughout the life of this thread I have frequently suspected that posters are confusing the meanings of the words "worst" and "bad". After Willi B's last post, my suspicions are confirmed.

The Choice survey merely asked respondents to rank the airlines according to their preferences. This was also the case for the Skytrax awards. None of these surveys asked the respondents whether they considered the airline service "good" or "bad" - that would have been a much more demanding and time consuming survey.

I could conduct exactly the same survey here, by asking readers to rank the following in terms of their fuel efficiency:

1. The Boeing 707;
2. The Boeing 747;
3. The Boeing 787;

The 787 would no doubt be ranked first, and the 707 last. So the 707 could be described as being, in terms of this survey, "the worst". But would it be right to then go on and refer to the 707 as "bad"?

Zeus Ex Machina, my question to you still stands.

[Willi B]

With great respect, you should consult the source material before making assumptions.

The Choice article says (at p.15) Although 38% of our respondents had flown with QANTAS on an international flight, they rated it significantly lower than the average for overall satisfaction. SINGAPORE AIRLINES and EMIRATES (the second and third most flown airlines) rated significantly higher than the average.


The most common reason given for choosing to fly with QANTAS was 'frequent flier points', and large numbers of our respondents continue to fly with QANTAS even though they rated it relatively low for satisfaction. It seems that the appeal of frequent flier points, along with a good safety record and sheer force of habit, are driving people to still use QANTAS despite the comparatively poor standard of service they complain about. The most common reason for choosing SINGAPORE AIRLINES, on the other hand, was the 'good standard of service'.


What the punters are saying is that, notwithstanding frequent flier points, the QANTAS cabin package (NOT the flying/maintenance component) doesn't match the competition.

[RedTBar]

OK Willi B, you've told us what you think now there are two possibilities.

Either the survey is accurate or......

the survey is not.

Which do you think it is and why?

[chemical alli]

for the cc at the pointy end of an airline with low morale it must be a hard days work to deliver, when the product is little more than basic and cheap,for all the slf gripes and goans just hand out gd,s work ph number to said punters and let them ask god almighty the hard questions.even if a few ring his pa will be run of her feat.

[Fantome]

This last long weekend's activities at Longreach, when the first 707 that went to Q (1959) came home to the Q Founders' Museum and where a good cross section of Q staff attended, showed enormous spirit. Some of the negative remarks on this thread would apparently reflect ignorance of or indifference to the impressive Q story. If a documentary were made of the recovery of that magnificent machine and those involved were asked to give their opinions as to the quality and relevance of their input we would see an inspiring doco. While I may seem to be off this thread, the connection is that if a company getting flak needs to raise it's game, where it came from is also a valid consideration, and in Qantas's case it's history is extraordinary. There were men and women out at Longreach this holiday weekend who are and were Qantas. Even the most savage critic would be sub-human not to be moved by the evidence.
The chief engineer from the Southend company in England that helped the Australian team to get the Seven-Oh finished and flying was at Longreach and oh, what a moving address he gave about current values and cooperation and as a postscript, how good was what he had to say about the quality of youth in this industry deserving acknowledgment, encouragement and support. If anyone gets hold of a transcript and puts it on a new thread here, all with half a heart reading it, will not only be moved and inspired, but will also, as was the case the other night, be inordinately proud to be part of a great industry. And this is not history. This is now.

[YesTAM]

Couldn't give a rats ass about the B707. That was then, this is now! Qantas isn't a shadow of what it was back then. It,s amusing to see the current managment appealing to history while screwing those who gave it its reputation.

[surfside6]

The angry old homophobe has returned.....with more of the same.

[Willi B]

I've said what I think in my post at #141.

The sample size of 4000 is a fair one. 'Choice' is respected and claims that it provides reliable, expert advice. You may disagree with the conclusion that people don't like the product - but it's a reasonable conclusion nonetheless.

[mrpaxing]

SQ/EK have more cabin crew per pax then QF. aircraft config on the a340/777 is more customer friendly then qf 747 with 315 in y/c with 6 crew to look after them. and so on,and on...., add low moral, ever shrinking flying and many other issues with cant be posted here. no surprise then the outcome of the survey. i think qf managment (through an external company)have done2 internal surveys on staff moral ,etc. staff never had any feedback. according to some leaks it was the worst outcome ever for any large corporation. regardless GD and Co will march on regardless of any surveys,etc. at the end of the day the are only interested in their egos and bonuses. in my view the take over may have failed at this stage but watch out after the next election..........
just look at the latest re-shuffle. nothing changes just some people get moved around

[busdriver007]

The ANOP company of company consultants did a survey earlier this year and it included approximately 30 staff which included a majority of management people and surprise surprise the result was very complementary to the company. This survey was quoted by the chairmen as a statement that the staff were very happy with the morale in the company which contrasted to the 2005 engagement survey which quoted 33% engagement among flight crew compared to a norm in any industry of 65%. The spin is outstounding.:bored:

[International Trader]

So what you are saying is that as far as a passenger is concerned ( I suppose these were the ones that voted),SQ and EK are better Airlines.
This would make QF ...aahhh.....the worst of the group,Right?

As far as QF cabin crew in E/C goes, I don't think it would matter much to the service if there were 16 or even 60 in there.

[roamingwolf]

yeah right more anti qf rubbish..all this is more by people who couldn't get a job with qf...:E

[DutchRoll]

Whether Qantas was rated as "worst" or "bad" or whatever, doesn't change the problem. It's just playing with words.

The sample size and target was reasonable. The surveyor (Choice) is politically and commercially independent and doesn't really give a rat's about who is offended by the results. They just stated the results, and I've never known them to produce a survey where the results were subsequently invalidated.

QF's problem is that it was rated by passengers significantly below some of its major competitors. In a differently worded survey, the respondents might consider QF "brilliant", but Emirates then becomes "more brilliant", and SQ "even more brilliant still", with everyone else perhaps varying degrees "more brilliant" than QF! Whatever way you look at it, and whatever wording you choose, it indicates a problem for QF. It's that simple.

[surfside6]

Dixon.
Remove him.
FOG!!

[QFinsider]

The problem begins with Dixon and he was in the sell off up to his neck.

He is yesterday's man and totally without cedibility in the wash up of APA :E

[Sandy Freckle]

The possibility that these fools can arogantly dismiss ANY survey, whether accurate or not, amazes me. It probably shouldn't after more than a decade at the rat, but it does. I'd respect them more if they said "OK, we'll look into it and fix it if we can" (followed by furious inaction).

Qantas IS currently flawed, I am sorry to say.

The sooner that Dixon et al wake up to it, the sooner that my beloved company will recover. Alas, I am not convinced that these people are not interested in simply raping this icon and disappearing into a luxurious retirement.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. FOG!

[International Trader]

For those who believe that the world ends at the shores of Australia and that " those gods of worlds best practice " are the only ones with the RIGHT to call themselves airline pilots, let me put some more colours in your paintbox beyond white and red.

There are bigger, better and more profitable airlines than QF.

There are those that won jobs with QF ( how else do you get a job with 500 hours and no qualifications or experience), there are those that weren't lucky enough and had to go and qualify themselves and there are many who hand there sights set higher in the first place.

There are also those who are too stupid to realize that' like him or hate him, Dixon is the best man to run QF. QF:}:}:} would have been up the creek years ago without him and if you yo-yos are able to get rid of him your company will end up a basket case

[International Trader]

Sorry for the "n" in hand, wanted to say "had".
Sorry for the apostrophy.Should have been a coma.
Sorry about the :}:}:}.
They were to be at the end.


Here's some more.

:}:}:}:}:}

[mach2male]

Bigger...Yes
Better...Yes(If Dixon was so good it would BE the best)
More Profitable....there is only ONE... SQ....
Dixon is nothing more than an uneducated thug.
Its the employees who make the difference
Ansett falling over(sadly) had nothing to do with Dixon.
QF experienced 7 years growth in 12 months when that happened.
If Dixon had some interpersonal skills(like Branson)the business would receive a 10% productivity increase at zero cost .
The best thing about Dixon is his age....he is retiring soon. But not bloody soon enough for the 36000 people he has managed to piss off!
International Trader...you are a goose!

[mrpaxing]

why Qf mainline is were it is.
aircraft (are)getting old (SQ/EK constantly upgrade aircrafts)
totally stupid mix of aging aircraft eg.743, 744 the older ones are 20 years plus, 767 RR& others, 737 800/400, A330-300/200 domestic &international configuration.
eg. on the tasman you have 6 different j/c products (seats,ife, etc)
different ife systems on various aircrafts (the standout is handing out dvd's/players on the tasman)
QF management is very top heavy (compare the numbers/management structure in SQ/EK/etc.)
add millions spend every year on Boston and other consulting services
add marketings love affairs with spending squillions on ads/sponsorship (SQ spends it on the product)
and in my opinion the biggest mistake GD & company made is being london/frankfurt centric (EK offers 23 european cities, SQ i think is over 10)
buying the wrong aircraft
where is the 777 which could have serviced the"thinner routes" in europa and saved a bucketload on the akl-lax services.
ITS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICE BERG:ok:

[DutchRoll]

There are also those who are too stupid to realize that' like him or hate him, Dixon is the best man to run QF.
....and there are those who are too stupid to see that the only way he has maintained profitability is by slashing expenditure across the board to the point where it will ultimately become unsustainable. The same people are also too stupid to realise that with the respect and willing cooperation of his employees which he has gone about systematically destroying, those profits could be substantially bigger.

When poor leadership of "the team" is exhibited, the "team" becomes disorganised and disinterested, failing to maximise their productivity and effort. That applies universally, and that means the corporate world too. Dixon, while he may know about accountancy, is unfortunately not smart enough to understand the ramifications of this. While his routes are protected, his competition is heavily restricted, and there are sufficient people to employ out there, it won't be a problem for him. But as things change..........

[lowerlobe]

It takes no managerial talent or skill whatsoever to slash and cut back.It not only takes a lack of talent but also a complete lack of understanding of business and human psychology to realise the effect of low morale on your employees especially in a service industry.

However,it does take skill to motivate your employees and give them direction and feedback to make full use of their skill.This requires that you as a manager understand that your work force is your biggest asset and not a liability.It takes a good manager not only to motivate but to develop new markets and improve your existing products.Something which is I feel is sadly lacking at present.

Those here like International Trader show their similar lack of understanding and should only look back a few short weeks to remember the debacle of the APA bid and the boards complicity.

[Sandy Freckle]

International Trader = Geoff "Dick"son.

:}:}:}:}:}

[roamingwolf]

International Trader = Geoff "Dick"son.

thats right or one of his fan club ..all 3 of them:E:E:E:E

[International Trader]

Goose?
All I see are QF pilot feathers flying.
Doesn't take much to set you guys off.

Love the guy who says that....yeah, yeah, we are the worst in all areas except the fact that there is "only"( or at least) 1 more profitable. And I suppose it's all due to the efforts of you wonderful emplyees that are "shooting the messenger".Nothing to do with the CEOs policy.
I think there are quite a few Australian CEOs who would love to bust their fat cat unions, without industrial action ,while starting a new brand in the same industry, at a fairly minimal cost. Geoff now has 3 fingers in the airline pie while you have had your fingers firmly..... you would know but, I wonder if it's the same place you have had your collective heads for the last many years.
I'm not related to him nor consider myself the thing that you have refered to in your very clever (not) word play.
I have made quite a bit out of the QF shares that I have owned and it is thanks to the current CEO. Not those staff that are complacent and believe that the company owes you a living.
The current situation is the only reason there ever was a buy out attempt and it's a logical corporate move. He has looked after the shareholders and maybe not you. Maybe you have been making sure that the company looks after yourselves first for so long that you have forgotten about shareholders.
Maybe your time is over!
:}:}:}:}

[speedbirdhouse]

Quote- "He has looked after the shareholders"

----------

Would these be the same shareholders who he and his management team tried to rob of 4 [or was it 6?] AUD billion dollars????

[DutchRoll]

He has looked after the shareholders
Bwahahahahaha!
I'm sorry, are you talking about the same Geoff Dixon who so desperately wanted his beloved shareholders to sell up at $5.45 initially, followed by a revision to an "exceedingly generous, never gonna be better, you're an idiot if you don't" $5.60? And what is the share price now? I just looked it up and it's $5.81. Those who flogged off their shares on his advice must be really, really sh*tty now! Those who rejected his "expert" advice and negotiation with APA are laughing all the way to the bank! Has the sheer irony of that escaped your attention, IT?

He and Jackson trashed the bid. They clearly undervalued the company grossly. They've slashed costs by cutting service and people at "the coal face", which is an unsustainable way of increasing profit in the longer term. They make most money on routes protected by the Government. Then QF was handed domestic market share on a platter because the second airline in a market duopoly folded! He has zero respect from the vast majority of his employees - so much so that there are literally dozens of examples every day I go to work where employees cost him (Qantas) more and more money because they simply don't care about what they do. You know, Inspector Clouseau could probably run QF in recent times and make money out of it.

......and by the way IT, without the employees, there is no Qantas. And you are then left with sweet nothing except some worthless bits of paper which you once thought would make you lots of money. Better hope the employees hang around and do their jobs well, eh?

[lowerlobe]

This hilarious quote from International Trader…. “I have made quite a bit out of the QF shares that I have owned and it is thanks to the current CEO”

Just a few questions IT…

How long has The current CEO been there?

When did the shares increase?

That’s right IT remember a little thing called the APA takeover bid?

The share price increase had nothing to do with anyone on the board.If it had why did it not happen before the takeover bid ?

It’s good to see that someone here like IT has a sense of humor.

[chemical alli]

so am I to take that due to the inept decisions of the board share prices have stayed strong or is it due to the market actually rallying against the q board.

why was the airline undervalued for so long?

MORAL AND SERVICE WILL NOT IMPROVE NO MATTER WHAT GD AND CREW DO! THE COALFACE WORKERS HAVE BEEN BURNT AND WILL NOT FORGIVE



FOG/FOG/FOG

[International Trader]

**** NEWS FLASH *****
Qantas pilots petition company for blue collar shirts to fit in with their new public persona!
"Coal face" workers?........... give me a break and take your hands off the shovel handle will you.You'll get splinters as well as go blind.
You guys can't be QF pilots with that opinion of yourselves.

GD put your company(and mine as I still have some shares) in a good position for the privatization. When Ansett was headed for doom, he did his level best to ensure no help or quarter given by the Gov. If you think that any CEO in that situation would do nothing behind the scenes then, you are bigger idiots than I already believe you are. He took advantage of the situation after Ansett's demise and has successfully slowed VB's expansion.
You know my opinion about J star.
His motives regarding the buy out........look after shareholders and himself first,second and last.....not workers.
Rather like the way QF staff look after themselves before shareholders and ,god forbid...passengers.
His performance during the buy out?, yep, maybe not the best price achieved at the last offer but, maybe he though that that it was time when he should start looking after himself more and push the deal through.
Hmmm...again,how unlike QF staff.
The price certainly would not have made 100, 50 or 25% more but, his price had peaked.
I made money over recent years.Who says that you always have to sell at the peak? Before is safer in my book.

Ok, bid finished. He can't change that. Do a song and dance to try to convince the masses that he shouldn't get the shove. Success, so far.

Now, back to the business of restructuring to a brand management holding company with 3 airline brands and some trimmings.

Continue with strategy A : Bust the union strong hold and get all he can on AWA's. Squeeze out as many as the others as he can .....that means YOU!

Compare him with Branson and others? Not so different. Certainly started Jstar with an ideal foundation to make it profitable and saleable.

Has GD been what you guys want?..... not by a long shot but, exactly what do you want, apart from ....everything? A straight shooter....nope.
A good CEO.... I would vote him in again but, what do I know?
I'm sure that you will now proceed to tell me!

A brave new world regarding employer/employee relations and you guys have been sleeping on the job!

I'll bet the "FOG..FOG" ..will go a long way...... What a joke.
Sounds like a chant that you would hear coming from the member's stand at Collingwood !
Hey, now that's " coal face" country. Maybe I was wrong about you guys! :D

Now tell me that you have someone better than GD to run the company...... apart from your magnificent selves, of course! :}:}:}

[cokecropduster]

IT: You are looking in from outside. GD is destroying the QANTAS brand by cutting budgets in ALL departments.

Where other airlines, such as Emirates and Sing Air are spending a fortune
on developing their airlines' product. Eg., Emirates and Sing Air (to name just two) have more crew than QF and have the best and newest of everything on-board. Just take a look at the Business and First Class seats at SQ.

BTW, can anyone tell me why the same cleaners on QANTAS have 5 minutes less than Jet Star International to clean?? When you consider blankets, pillows, amenity packs, headsets, etc. are not done on JQI it is quite suprising??? I guess someone paying thousands for a seat on QANTAS doesn't need a new magazine... someone else's rubbish is so much better.

Cutting corners on quality is not going to get a long term sustainable future.

Please consider... :}

[mrpaxing]

IT says-"GD put your company(and mine as I still have some shares) in a good position for the privatization"
GD had something to do with the privatisation of QF. i just saw a pig fly by my house. did not have a red tail. mmmhhmhmm:ugh:

[lowerlobe]

Quote from International Trader..

"A good CEO.... I would vote him in again but, what do I know? "....Apparently not a lot...

Another quote.. “I have made quite a bit out of the QF shares that I have owned and it is thanks to the current CEO”

You did not answer my question IT.
How long has he been CEO?
When did the share price rise?

The share price only went up when the market found out about the takeover bid.

Even you should be able to work out how much credit the board can take for that.....IT, If you made money out of QF shares you should thank APA not anyone on the board...

[chemical alli]

cant wait until IT, flys his beloved gd airline.spending the millions made on q shares.doesnt like staff, so guess he wont complain when handed a scummy amenties kit,gets delayed by no parts to fix aircraft,and wonders why the crew aint smiling

[robroy]

I thought the topic is about the WORST airline in the world, not the ceo,s etc.

funnybum is without a doubt in my mind THE WORST, I will never fly funnybum again and it has been a while since I had to fly with this SUBSTANDARD mob, ( Unfortunately I had to go Syd. to pick up a P & O cruise, the service was , no, there was no service, the landing was nothing more than a semi controlled collision with the earth. A tug appeared with an Engineer walking towards the Boeing with gear pins with the attached long red tapes. A long veeeerrry slow taxy to the terminal and not a word from the flightdeck, VEEERRRYY SLACK !!! )

I advise all our friends to travel VB and O/Seas MAS. I know I am biased to MAS BECAUSE,I flew Boeings for them and I know the standards, I with many others trained their young F/O's , who are now Captains.

There is another very good reason to travel MAS, but I am not sure if I want to put it on Pprune. Have a quite think about that one.

Cheers,

robroy

[prunezeuss]

In any organization the buck stops with the CEO.
Ergo...a crap business with crap service has a crap CEO.
The Viagra Driven Dwarf doesnt see a problem.
When asked about moral at a recent roadshow VDD suggested that it was merely an overused, misused word..total denial.
VDD obviously hasnt bothered to read the last two staff surveys.

[International Trader]

I agree that I have strayed away from the thread.

The CEO is in the end responsible for the airline's position on the list but, in a modern, first world country do the staff have no responsibility?

Is it No CARE and NO RESPONSIBILITY ?

[mrpaxing]

morale is a "funny word". Qf employees have continued to take care and responsiblity, otherwise Qf would have gone down the s'.... a while ago. however to go back to the top it needs a lot more then fancy words.;)

[lowerlobe]

Obviously IT is president of the Dixon fan club as he still has not answered my question as to why the share price rose.

This quote from robroy... "I thought the topic is about the WORST airline in the world, not the ceo,s etc"

Whether or not any business is the worst in the world the CEO is responsible for the business.He/She sets the standard,the marketing,new policies etc....

The CEO is the company as they dictate everything.Their attitude flows onto the staff and is refected in their jobs and in the way the employees interact with the customers.

[DutchRoll]

Geez you'd be a depressing employer to work for, International Trader.

The term "coal face" is a common one and refers to the strictly operational end of a job or business (some might call it the bit that is the whole "raison d'etre" for the Company), IT, and has nothing to do with being blue, white, pink or purple collar. That you clearly have never worked at the "coal-face" anywhere is quite evident. I can just imagine you as the CEO of, say, a newspaper and being shown around:

IT: "Wow, and what is this machine you're running?"
Employee: "It's a printing press, sir."
IT: "Cool. And what does it do?"
Employee: "Well, sir, it prints the newpapers that we produce."
IT: "Uh huh. And what do we do with them then?"
Employee: "Err, well, we sell them to the public sir. That's how we make our money sir. If it stops working, we can't produce anything sir."
IT: "Gosh. Isn't this company absolutely amazing! Keep up the good work! As a token of my appreciation, please accept this paper clip. It's brand new."
Employee: "Err, right you are sir. That's very generous of you sir. Thankyou sir."

GD put the company in a good position for privatisation? Qantas was "privatised" in 1995. GD was not the one at the helm who set it on course to making money. Sorry to disappoint. Of course, it's always possible you're misapplying the term "privatisation" as it would normally be used talking about previously Government-owned assets. GD inherited a pretty robust Qantas from James Strong.
A brave new world regarding employer/employee relations and you guys have been sleeping on the job!
If you mean that certain employers now have legislative backing to make their employer/employee relations a one-way street, you are absolutely correct. However we are far from "sleeping on the job".
Now tell me that you have someone better than GD to run the company...... apart from your magnificent selves, of course!
Well, actually, many are almost begging for James Strong to come back. I personally can think of a dozen CEOs around the traps who are both running their company very well, and for whom employees would do almost anything (including taking pay freezes, doing unpaid overtime, etc) . Naturally many QF employees would do things for Dixon too.......but only if it led to his untimely demise.

[robroy]

No, not a free plug for MAS, but a fact of life (unfortunately ).

I am undecided as to whether I should post my reasoning or not, as this is a site available to ANYONE!!!

I shall PM Danny and seek his advice, it's his site and I will tell him my reasons, which are agreed to by very many of my friends ex MAS.

If he is worried, I will be available for PM's, but I will only answer, long term, regular posters that I recognise their callsigns and those who have demonstrated a leaning towards ultimate safety.

Cheers

robroy

[robroy]

I have PM'ed Danny through Tail Wheel, it's up to Danny, after I explain it to him and him alone.

His decision,

Cheers,

robroy

[amos2]

Well, we're all ears!...
we just love all this "hot off the press" breaking news! :rolleyes:

[evilroy]

This seemed an appropriate place to post this rather than start a new thread.

Is there anywhere online where you can see Qantas On-Time Performance?

I ask because just over the last few days, flights were being significantly delayed. An example is when I managed to get an earlier flight to Melbourne (ETD 30 mins earlier than my original flight) and yet I got into Melbourne 20 mins later than my original planned ETA!

So I was curious.

[robroy]

Danny, is unavailable, so I have posted my reply to Tail Wheel re the reply from, lower loop, to which, I took, UMBRAGE !!

Cheers, to you,

and UP, quaintarse,

robroy

Brierly was first!

[Farmer 1]

I ask because just over the last few days, flights were being significantly delayed. An example is when I managed to get an earlier flight to Melbourne (ETD 30 mins earlier than my original flight) and yet I got into Melbourne 20 mins later than my original planned ETA!

"So, on average, that's five minutes early. What's your problem?" (Qantas PRO.)

[robroy]

I PM'd Tail Wheel, with my reasoning, got his reply but Tailey hasn,t said, NO.

So therefore, I can only assume I can put the truth in my mind, to Pprune.

I will wait 24 hours, before I post my reasoning, why, MAS, is the SAFEST and THE BEST AIRLINE IN THE WORLD TO FLY ON, INTERNATIONALY. Also being the BEST , with cabin service.

If, I get a personal PM, from, Danny, OK. I won't post.

If not, I will post the PM's , I sent to Tail wheel, originally meant for Danny.

Come on you lot, make a, COMMAND DECISION.

Cheers,

robroy

AA

[stubby jumbo]

....if you reckon MAS are so bloody hot.

Start up your own thread on :

MAS .....the worlds most fantastic & safest airline!!!!

Who gives a flying -fig any way.????

MAS are going to be smashed into oblivion by Air Asia.:uhoh:

( oooo ahhhhhhh...'hope I didn't offend "Tailey " or Danny.):rolleyes:

[Lowkoon]

Oh Robroy! Cant wait! While you are at it, explain to us why MAS was going to be banned from European skys for 2 flame outs due to fuel starvation after landing at Heathrow... (Seperate incidents). Dying to hear how they went from that, to safest in the world in just a few short years! :}

[robroy]

That was many years ago, pre 88, POQ

RR

[robroy]

My reply,

It's quite simple, really, and if, you richard craniums, can't work it out, TUFF.

robroy

[robroy]

Of course it is.!!!!

But, I can't say anything, until, Danny, approves the PM, I sent to Tail Wheel.

Tailey, come on, make a decision, contact Danny, because, never, never, never,never, ever, will a S&&b ever, be accepted in Oz. Aviation.

Your choice.

Now, we find out, on which side of the fence your on.

robroy

[lowerlobe]

from bobboy...

"MAS, is the SAFEST and THE BEST AIRLINE IN THE WORLD TO FLY ON, INTERNATIONALY"..this is starting to sound like a former malaysian pm.....

Well,bobbyboy we are waiting to here from the MAS marketing board why MAS are the safest.Not that I am debating that point but just curious as to your justification...

[amos2]

Right, well I've set my alarm for 1303 for the big announcement! :rolleyes:

[priapism]

The suspense is killing me!

[blueloo]

http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/r-crosswindjet.jpg

[Big Unit]

A picture tells a thousand words.....

That wouldn't be one of the young F/O's (now captains) you personally trained up to a superhuman level of professionalism. You, robroy are a legend!