New Qantas livery.

[Jc31]

Thoughts everyone?

[tail wheel]

A most informative post indeed. :ugh:

I guess you are referring to this:

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/new-Qantas-livery-787.jpg

Qantas reveals new livery and logo | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/10/qantas-reveals-new-livery-and-logo/)

[chimbu warrior]

Disclaimer: don't work for or own shares in Qantas.

Personally I think this is like the Emperor's new clothes. Minor difference, achieved at (no doubt) major cost. A bit like the cabin crew and pilot uniforms.

If it ain't broke.....don't mess with it.

[Fonz121]

Light typeface - so hot right now.

[Fonz121]

Some of the group aircraft don't even have the current livery yet. I guess they can skip straight to this one and it 'saves' a paint job.

[Jc31]

A most informative post indeed. :ugh:

I guess you are referring to this:

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/new-Qantas-livery-787.jpg

Qantas reveals new livery and logo | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/10/qantas-reveals-new-livery-and-logo/)
Wasn't trying to inform anyone of anything tw just starting a new thread so we could discuss the change. Why do you like banging your head against a wall?

[Old Fella]

CW, agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Would be interesting to know just how "major" the cost was to redesign the previous livery to the new.

[logansi]

I really don't understand why, a new font and an arm less kangaroo aren't really going to make money. I would rather them spend there money on a few more aircraft that painting all the current ones!

[Jc31]

I really don't understand why, a new font and an arm less kangaroo aren't really going to make money. I would rather them spend there money on a few more aircraft that painting all the current ones!

It's about staying relevant and renewed in a world that is globalised where branding and marketing is ever so important. Also more aircraft doesn't necessarily equate to making more money.
I for one love the new livery.

[tail wheel]

Why do you like banging your head against a wall?

I don't really know, been doing it for 20 years as a PPRuNe Mod. :confused: :confused: :sad:

Regarding your thread, this is PPRuNe, not a Qantas exclusive aircrew forum.

People visit this forum from all over the world, from the aviation industry, wannabes and non aviation people. Kids visit this forum. And PPRuNe Mods moderate this forum that have never worked for or had anything to do with Qantas and didn't know there was a new colour scheme. It is not earth shattering news you know.......

A little informative detail in the first post would go a long way to enlightening the masses and illiterate Mods!!! :ok: :ok: :ok:

:}

[Jc31]

I don't really know, been doing it for 20 years as a PPRuNe Mod. :confused: :confused: :sad:

Regarding your thread, this is PPRuNe, not a Qantas exclusive aircrew forum.

People visit this forum from all over the world, from the aviation industry, wannabes and non aviation people. Kids visit this forum. And PPRuNe Mods moderate this forum that have never worked for or had anything to do with Qantas and didn't know there was a new colour scheme. It is not earth shattering news you know.......

A little informative detail in the first post would go a long way to enlightening the masses!!! :ok: :ok: :ok:

:}

That's a fair statement tw. Happy flying!

[Capn Bloggs]

They forgot the bit at the back!

[Fris B. Fairing]

It's not clearly visible in the photo above but Ch 9 just showed some footage of a "Dreamliner" that looked not unlike an A330 and on both sides of the nose was a winged kangaroo in a circle. This emblem first appeared on the B747 engine cowls. Given this recognition of what the roo used to look like, I could be persuaded to live with the new stylised version on the tail. It's certainly an improvement on the current club foot abomination. It's basically armless anyway. As for the new logotype - I don't like it at all.

[International Trader]

Is it a new shade of white or something?
Wait,now I see it.
We will be staring up at the heavens in wonder, to see just which god is descending to earth. We will read the belly title and know that it is the god of aviation!
How low do they need to descend for the public to read it?

No perceivable difference that will translate into $$$.
Glad my $$$ aren't there.

Then again, better than a cartoon figure of a of Leprechaun smiling at you.

[Ida down]

Wasn't trying to inform anyone of anything tw just starting a new thread so we could discuss the change. Why do you like banging your head against a wall?
Beautiful aircraft. Why does it need one of those things on the tail, that your nan used to make baby blankets with? What was wrong with the roo?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"Looks 'armless enuf"......To an Irishman maybe......

Is that a 'leprechaun hat' Oi wonder....??

:p

[ANCDU]

With this new livery and my shiny new white cap, I am so engaged right now I think I am going to pop!!:rolleyes:

[troppo]

It's halfway towards morphing into a NZ koru...not long now :E

[crwkunt roll]

They spelt Sydney wrong.

[OzBob]

That thing on the tail looks as much like a kangaroo as one of these;

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/pterodactyl-extinct-flying-reptile-science-source.jpg

[Keg]

I would have liked to have seen the red tail and roo on the underneath of the aeroplane as well.

Repainting all aeroplanes in three years is welcome given its been more than 8 years since OGD was unveiled on the world and we still have aeroplanes in the old (now old, old) colour scheme.

I like the touch of the old, old, old, old logo under the cockpit.

[rodney rude]

Great - its all cool to reinvent and keep modern and real, but this guy probably charged 6 or 7 figures to what????? chops Skippy's front legs off. I could've come up with that for about 30 bucks

[ramble on]

Crikey, what a massive self flagellation.

Making such a big deal about the 787 when so many operators are already operating it, including their own low cost brand. Jetstar crew must have a wry smile. Even Joyce looked uncomfortable trying to fit his ass in the J class seat.

What happened to 777s - every other smart operater has them?

Wasting so much money on uniform changes and livery (font) changes when what is really needed is someone to look at it from a customers perspective.

I recently flew an internal low cost mainland China airline and from the passengers perspective it left QF for dead.

I am in the bunker with helmet on - and yes I am a lifetime QF Club member.

[PoppaJo]

Since when are they the Spirit of Australia?

Spirit of Sydney anyone?

[logansi]

Since when are they the Spirit of Australia?

Spirit of Sydney anyone?
Lets hope that changes a bit thanks to the 787 with MEL-DFW among others from MEL, BNE and PER

[ExtraShot]

Disappointing for the Economy Pax.

17.4 inch wide seat, roughly that of the 737, with a 32 inch pitch, which is what the 737 SHOULD have (it has 30 inch pitch incase you didn't know, apparently that is a 'Premium' product). Nothing innovative or spectacular.

This aircraft is going to be regularly doing 16 and sometimes 17hr plus sectors, very uncomfortable down the back unless you have a spare seat next to you. Surely they could have sacrificed one seat per economy row (around 20 seats total as a guess), and provided an industry leading 8 abreast like the aircraft was intended.

After all the build up to todays unveiling, it becomes a half-announcement, and people still have to wait to see where the Aircraft will fly and what this so called 'super duper' premium economy will consist of.

A Big 'Meh'-Burger with cheese so far.

[Keg]

Yeah. You're right. Nothing to see here. Except the media loved it and lots of free PR for Qantas. The method to their meanness I suspect isn't about announcing anything significant, it's about creating 'a buzz' for the media and public that don't pay much attention.

[dragon man]

The rumours are, aircraft 1 and 2, Mel/Lax/Mel.
Aircraft 3 and 4 Mel/Pth/London return.
Aircraft 5 and 6 Bne/Lax/JFK return.

[In the Soup]

What happened to 777s - every other smart operater has them?

Yeah, like VA.

No doubt QF would have had the 78's much earlier if it wasn't for the financial losses in recent years

[Going Boeing]

No doubt QF would have had the 78's much earlier if it wasn't for the financial losses in recent years

Yeah, but they were "losses" on the books to achieve a certain outcome for senior executives - not genuine losses.

Joyce says that the B787 will "revolutionize" Qantas - I wonder how much better off Qantas would be right now if he hadn't cancelled 51 orders for very keenly priced B787's.

[Duck Pilot]

Some of the contractors aircraft could do with a wash/polish/new paint job! B717 VH-NXK looks like something I'd expect to see on a GA bug smasher.

[QuarterInchSocket]

Thought we'd seen the worst with the pink hostie uniforms... then came the cheap ManToMan single breasted hipster suit, with a nice looking cap ruined by the dark chocolate kangaroo biscuit slapped on the front of it.

To cap off this s**t sandwich - everyone gets a roo without front legs, font on the fuse that looks like qf's main domestic competitor's, and an emirates... correction, qantas tattoo on the gut of the plane.

On a side note, I can't believe theres still people buying the <orchestrated> financial losses propaganda. Come on!

[RENURPP]

Some of the contractors aircraft could do with a wash/polish/new paint job! B717 VH-NXK looks like something I'd expect to see on a GA bug smasher.hhhhmmmmm, Qantas aircraft, maintained increasingly, all heavy maintenance by QF.

The contractor you insinuated has its own aircraft. The 717's aren't theirs.

[XPT]

what an incredible waste of money. The new typeface comes straight out of a word processor & should have cost nothing, but somehow bet Newson got paid squillions.

[Keg]

Re the typeface. I'm not sure what the fascination is these days with the subdued grey. Every time I see that grey I feel like I need to get my glasses re-tested. It's like someone's painted it poorly, not that it's supposed to be that way.

[ACMS]

Looks like the word OANTAS

Very strange Q

[Oriana]

ACMS has it. the gap between the 'Q' and the 'A' is weird.

Additionally, the old-logo-by-the-nose is a rip off from Lufthansa livery.

[cattletruck]

I guess a new plane means new face make up, particularly if you're in touch with your feminine side.

I've never understood the Premium Economy class, it's like buying a Commodore with wings.
In fact why doesn't Qantas reclassify their seating classes into something that is more Oztralian.
Economy = Scumbag class.
Premium Economy = Scumbag class pretending you are not a scumbag.
Business = Business expense write-off class.
First = Tax avoider class.

The could even paint lines on the outside of the fuselage to help with the distinction when they are all flying together.

[Turnleft080]

What ever happened to the beautiful cheat lines that airliners use to have. It made an
airliner an airliner with the black nose. All airliners in the 60s 70s 80s wore them.
Note the 2 QF retros
They looked smart with a touch of class. Today's colour schemes are a disgrace.
I can only name 2 companies that have a C/L. SIA and TAAG Angola.

[nicolai]

Re the typeface. I'm not sure what the fascination is these days with the subdued grey. Every time I see that grey I feel like I need to get my glasses re-tested. It's like someone's painted it poorly, not that it's supposed to be that way.

Internet is becoming unreadable because of a trend towards lighter, thinner fonts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/23/internet-is-becoming-unreadable-because-of-a-trend-towards-light/) has some details.

In summary, some online media designers like it because it looks "elegant" and "restrained", while in fact it's hard to read and obscures communication. Since only a few graphic designers at a few companies are the gateway to most of the content you see, via computer app and content design guidelines, lighter text and lower contrast becomes ubiquitous, and associated with "modern", and then people like airlines follow suit.

Lemmings over a cliff, because they couldn't read their too-trendy signs.

[Fris B. Fairing]

In the lead up to Qantas' 50th anniversary in 1970 the logotype was revised with a more "chunky" style. Initially the "n" was a lowercase character but this was soon changed to uppercase. I seem to recall that this was because the lowercase "n" represented another letter in some languages. I think the all uppercase version looked better than anything before or since.

http://www.adastron.com/aviation/vault/Qantas-logotype-69-70.jpg

[Allan L]

I have been researching some historic stuff around Thornton, Victoria when I was shown a photo which piqued my interest. Story attached.

[Icarus2001]

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/QF-tails-line-up-copy.jpg

Okay, I could of course be completely wrong here, it happens all the time but I notice Alan seems to be preoccupied with the logo/branding. Having removed the kangaroo from the uniforms, see below, I wonder if the evolution of the kangaroo on the tail is designed to progress to a white swirl on a red tail, eventually becoming a hint or nod towards being an image of a kangaroo. An abstract image if you like.
In an attempt to "internationalise" the brand and remove the cultural reference to make it more palatable to someone?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/22/17/36820F2400000578-3703415-image-a-161_1469204260169.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1d/50/ff/1d50ff46af46017f784c5deb44390225.jpg

[keepitrealok]

In an attempt to "internationalise" the brand and remove the cultural reference to make it more palatable to someone?


Yeah of course. That's why 'Spirit of Australia' is still written on the side of the aircraft......to remove cultural reference.

Get off your paranoid horse.

:ugh:

[Fris B. Fairing]

I know he doesn't like pilots but removing the cockpits from all the aeroplanes is a bit severe.

[On eyre]

Don't like the new scheme at all. WTF was wrong with the old one - that had some class not like this new abomination!!

[Keg]

They've left out a very subtle change on one of those aeroplanes. After the merger (takeover) of Australian QF for a time dropped the 'spirit of Australia' slogan and became 'the Australian airline' as a nod to the former domestic carrier. Not sure how long it last but it was a few years- maybe 5 or so from end of 92 or early '93 through until at least '97 or so because I think it was still current when I checked out as an F/O.

No change t the roo though so technically doesn't fit the 'logo' change but it was a livery change.

[Duck Pilot]

RENURPP

Re the cosmetic looks of contractor aircraft (or any aircraft that I fly in as a customer), I expect the looks of the aircraft inside and outside to be reasonable.

I like the new QF livery, good business strategy changing the visual image of any organisation on a regular basis.

[Ken Borough]

It's a bit of a dog's breakfast! The first thing I notice is that the "Q" seems to be from a different font family. There is too much real estate between the Q and the A.

They have an old logo mark under the flight deck windows (love it!) but another one on the cowls. I think the 'nose' mark should have been repeated on the cowls as the second image makes the overall livery look too busy and disjointed. I assume that there's a third version on the inside of the winglets.

All in all, what is now RetroRoo II cannot be beaten. The new version makes Qantas look even more like Iberia's latest livery. Finally, as Qantas is often known as the Flying Kangaroo, why the hell don't they reinstate the wings????

[cattletruck]

It doesn't look like a roo especially to someone who has never seen one, it looks more like a clothes peg. Give it in few more years and it will morph into a boomerang.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Love the new jacket rules --- will be "on" up to 27C --- that's stepping right back to the old PanAm uniform rules.
Will a recording thermometer be part of the uniform issue??
Will there be a new outbreak of the short versus long sleeve shirt controversy.
Will allegations of "coats off" at 26C be a "tea and biccies" matter??
As for "what's old is new again", I still have my original white hat.
Tootle pip!!

[NSEU]

It doesn't look like a roo especially to someone who has never seen one, it looks more like a clothes peg.

+1

Everything is out of proportion. No arms, no chest.. Just a head stuck on a two-bladed ninja throwing star. The feet look like they would impale the ground. It also looks like it's tail heavy, like it would fall on its @ss (not a good impression).

I have the feeling the alternative designs were so bad, this designed qualified only because it was the best of the bad.

[Allan L]

There was a mention earlier of some 'real estate' betwixt the Q and the A, have a gander back at the pic at Ixarus' post - there's room there for a full sub-division, back abt the V-jet times. And if you think the roo looks ugly now, have a look at the attachment to Post 43, which has now been approved.

[Capn Bloggs]

Allan L, that is a bad winged kangaroo! No wonder the mods took so long to approve it. :)

[Icarus2001]

Yeah of course. That's why 'Spirit of Australia' is still written on the side of the aircraft......to remove cultural reference.

Get off your paranoid horse.

Of course you could be correct but if it is part of a slowly developed change plan then the writing would disappear last. Only an observation.

Qantas, I still call Australia 51% home.

[ramble on]

Qantas - A light waft of Australia
Jetstar - Australia Eau De Toilette

[SenZubEanS]

Wish they'd carried over the roo on the engines.

[Out Of Trim]

Yeah, the engines look a bit too "plain" without the roo on them!

Mind you, the roo on the tail looks a bit like a pterodactyl now.. :E

[Tuck Mach]

Has anyone else noticed what a triumph of 'spin over substance' modern management are?

The livery has been changed on an aircraft still not delivered.
There will be in excess of 500 of these aircraft (787) flying in the world, even Lan Chile operate them, Jetstar have for a few years too

A media buzz over a seat?
Sounds like the 25 year old marketing kid work experience project.
Another release for menu changes, premium economy seats?

Then again it's all about 'transformation' right...

[Keg]

Wish they'd carried over the roo on the engines.
They have- it looks less like a roo than the one on the tail. Piccie here. (http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/10/qantas-reveals-new-livery-and-logo/)

[Ken Borough]

They have- it looks less like a roo than the one on the tail

The Roo on the cowls should be the same as that on the nose - a classic Qantas logo with a real kangaroo image sporting wings.

[AerialPerspective]

In the lead up to Qantas' 50th anniversary in 1970 the logotype was revised with a more "chunky" style. Initially the "n" was a lowercase character but this was soon changed to uppercase. I seem to recall that this was because the lowercase "n" represented another letter in some languages. I think the all uppercase version looked better than anything before or since.

http://www.adastron.com/aviation/vault/Qantas-logotype-69-70.jpg
I remember this... my Mum and Dad still have some collateral that has that lower case N.

Here's my take on the logo... and I do say this from a design background...

There is a history and a character to Qantas typefaces over the years, all since the fifties have been italic, this has formed part of the character of the brand image in our collective minds.

The 60s logotypes were designed by Harry Rogers who also produced all of Qantas' posters during the 50s and 60s. Rogers' design evolved the slight italic character and produced a type style that was thicker and built on the original versions. Rogers also produced the ochre and red livery and the typeface shown in the 50th Anniversary logo was a complete alphabet designed by Rogers for Qantas and it was called 'cyclone'.

In 1984, I think it was fair to say the winged kangaroo was due to evolution, it was very much a forties design and its precept was not adaptable to modern design.

Enter Tony Lunn and Ron Dyer of Lunn, Dyer and Associates who I believe executed probably the most respectful. sound and brilliantly executed re-design I think I've seen.

The development of the triangle motif was brilliant, it effectively took the tail shape and adapted it to be applicable to other items, the triangle 'bleeding' off the edge of letterhead, etc. was the mark of a truly good design - one that looks natural on any item it is applied to - geometrically it was well sorted also - the kangaroo's nose, tail and foot all touched the triangle at the mid point of each axis. The word Qantas similarly, was precisely one half the height of the triangle. It was a very unified design.
It did this by showing respect for the previous liveries by an evolution of Harry Rogers' cyclone font, matching it with Helvetica italic light which lent a unified look to less important text as a natural extension of the logotype.
Enter 2007 and the need to take account of non-paint areas of the tail-plane and Hans Hulsbosch executed probably the worst adaptation possible. The synergy between the triangle and the word Qantas in the logotype was broken, the word looking like it was just thrown next to the logo or that something had gone wrong in the printing process and it wasn't properly aligned. The kangaroo lost it's grace (Lunn/Dyer actually used the original kangaroo ever so slightly modified with the wing removed), becoming something wholly different with all the wrong proportions. What is even more annoying is the number of times that it has been wrongly commented that Hulsbosch designed the 1984 livery and he never corrects those mis-perceptions.

Now we move to 2016. The typeface goes against the grain of all the previous ones, it has no sympathy with Qantas' brand image through 60-70 years. The silver area in front of the tail is an afterthought and cynically, just replaces the gold stripe Hulsbosch removed in 2007 (albeit thicker at the base). The replacement of the triangle motif with that silly tail shaped thing makes the whole logotype when stacked on top of each other look like it's falling over backwards - hardly forward movement of the old logo or any previous livery... when the tail shape precedes the word Qantas in the new typeface (horizontal logotype) it has no connection or synergy and the typeface looks like it's backhand.

And please, can the media stop the rubbish about it now being possible to know it's Qantas flying over because of the name on the underside... ANY aircraft that flies over is obviously Qantas from almost any altitude because of the way the read wraps around under the fuselage - side on, it's one of the most recognizable liveries from miles away because of the large area of red at the rear.

To me, this is a complete waste of money. The typeface will date very quickly and I wouldn't be surprised if there's another re-brand in 5 or so years.

What was wrong with the 1984 livery and if it needed sight revisions, why didn't they just engage Tony Lunn or Ron Dyer who are still active come in and modify it.

[Fris B. Fairing]

AerialPerspective

Many thanks for that insightful and forensic analysis.

why didn't they just engage Tony Lunn or Ron Dyer who are still active come in and modify it.

Probably because today's wunderkinder would think that Lunn and Dyer are yesterday's men or ...

Loss of corporate memory or ...

a bit of both.

Rgds

[On Track]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The new livery sucks.

[Stanwell]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it ."
Of course... but..
There's a lot of smoke and mirrors stuff happening within the Qantas boardroom to at the moment - in an attempt to deflect attention from other things.
I'm saddened that it's been allowed to get to this stage.
I'm presently unloading my shareholding.
Ta Ta.
.

[Stagger Lee]

Quite like the new font and I do think that the planes needed a refresh

But as others have mentioned this will all seem very dated, very soon.

[cynphil]

"Smoke and mirrors" is exactly what has been happening at Qantas for years!!!! All the hype of the 787 coming to Qantas.....replacing a 450 seat aircraft with a 236 seat aircraft!! Announcing hiring 170 new pilots over the next 3 years and at the same time the chief pilot saying that 50 pilots a year will retire for the next few years adds up to really less than a net gain of 7 pilots a year!!! It is the incredible shrinking airline!!!!!! New routes mean a lot more new aircraft than they currently have and replacing a jumbo with a 787 really requires 3 extra departures per day if you want to provide enough seats to cover the existing and then some room for passenger growth!!! Wake up to the facts..."the incredible shrinking airline"...."smoke and mirrors"!!!!!

[Beer Baron]

Cynphil, while I can understand the lack of excitement about Qantas' plans, some of your facts are incorrect or out of date.

"The incredible shrinking airline"
The 789 is not replacing a 450 seat aircraft. The 744's seat ~350-360 pax. And as to the increase in pilot numbers, you neglect to include the roughly 200 guys returning from LWOP.

So yes, it's baby steps for the moment but thankfully we have stopped shrinking and we are now slowly growing.
Maybe the glass is actually half full?

[Tuck Mach]

Shall we look at the fleets then?

In 2009 when the little fellow got to run amuck the respective fleets stood as follows:

JQ around 36 airframes
QF around 190 airframes

today

JQ 122
QF 120 ish

That is a nett loss of around 80 airframes from Qantas mainline.
It is a long way back to parity....:(

[Revenue_Melb]

Ummm....while we all love aircraft, how it looks on the plane isn't actually the main consideration. The logo and typeface will be used on advertising, letterhead, airport signage, posters, etc. The average passenger will spend more time looking at the logo on their napkin as they wait for their tray to be cleared than they will looking at the aircraft before they board. Decisions on branding and logos should be based on what most customers and prospective customers will see (e.g. Emails, website and advertisements). While it's nice make sure the planes look great the primary function of a logo and brand is to fill up the aircraft. Repainting aircraft is hard and expensive but the new look is already being used where it is most important - on things that drive passengers. A well designed press campaign is going to drive more passengers than what a plane looks like that is parked nose into a gate where the passengers never really get a close up look at it. I don't really have a preference between the old and new - but I guarantee most passengers or prospective passengers have noticed the change already, all of which helps Qantas break the image of being old and stogy - absolutely essential when you're up against Virgin that has a brand that is positioned as innovative. I make no comment on the relative merits on the two airlines but their marketing teams are trying to position the airlines in different ways.

[Tuck Mach]

Revenue_Melb

"but I guarantee most passengers or prospective passengers have noticed the change already, all of which helps Qantas break the image of being old and stogy"

Ahh marketing, 'the triumph of spin over substance'

On what factual basis can you 'guarantee' anyone has noticed?
Do you work for Qantas? Work for T shirt Todd Samson and the brand experts?

Brand is a modern management cliche.

Qantas cost itself $100 million in 'brand value' in 2011 (10%), undertaking a malicious campaign aimed against the staff, indirectly the customers and indeed the nation when an industrial negotiation period no longer suited the management who orchestrated a grounding and lockout.That cost in GDP terms Australia's circa $250 million.

A 95 year old company has processes, culture and certain things that distance it from others. Qantas commanded a 'safety premium' and everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment.

“You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts.” Jim Collins from Good to Great

Being honest with themselves, management ought concede poor leadership, bad decisions and feeble attempts to corral the staff through IR and other implied threats actually adds to total operating cost. There is a lot of .literature out there confirming this hypothesis, not my opinion. Qantas may have 5,000 less FTE staff and most 'staff' are pay frozen, but the expenditure is up by $300 million. Wonder why? It isn't the small bonuses remaining staff received.

“Mediocrity results first and foremost from management failure, not technological failure.”

Qantas kicked an own goal in the brand denigration, they focused on the wrong things like aggressive growth in Asian franchises that have not yielded a dollar trade profit in 10 years!

A liquid overhaul and new envelopes does not change the reality. Qantas destroyed a lot of its built up $1.1 billion 'brand value' with campaign aimed at strong arming unions through Fair Work.
Am sure the Net Promoter Scores are fantastic. For the un-initiated, management consultants sell these little projects to companies who it turns out love the way they form part of the senior manager KPI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter

Alan Joyce and the Qantas revival: was there ever a crisis? (http://www.theage.com.au/comment/alan-joyce-and-the-qantas-revival-was-there-ever-a-crisis-20151022-gkfsyn.html)

Alan Joyce has been handsomely rewarded for his 'performance' but as alluded to in this article, his remuneration is excessive compared to regional peers. His returns for shareholders was very poor, Qantas impaired their fleet in 2014, saving a lot of a depreciation book entry, and they got lucky with a big drop in oil prices.Without those two events (one management controlled) Qantas would still have lost money..Alan Joyce has come a long way from very humble roots in Ireland. However the question remains that was he the right leader in the first place?A liquid overhaul and 'brand' repair may in themselves seem necessary from time to time, but I would strongly suggest to you the 'brand damage' Qantas needed to repair was of their own making. :ok:

[Revenue_Melb]

Brand is not just about spin - it's how customers relate to a company. Logos and advertising form a major part of that. We might not like it but how an aircraft looks isn't as important as other elements. As I said, how the aircraft looks is one of the smallest ways a passenger will see the logo. I'm actually serious when I say that a passenger will probably spend more time looking at the Qantas logo on their napkin that comes with their drink than observing their aircraft. We might not like that but it's true.

Will customers notice the change? Yes and no. Some will be explicitly aware of the change, others will simply realise that their monthly points email seems a bit different and fresher.

The challenge from a brand perspective for Qantas appears to be to capitalize on the elements you mentioned (history, safety, reliability) but also to be seen as up to date, modern, stylish, etc.

An airline can't just say that they want to focus on history and past reputation. If virgin position themselves as being hip and young and stylish and Qantas doesn't address that then there's a large market segment they loose.

Ansett disappeared fifteen years ago - so pretty much any flyer under thirty has grown up with Virgin - they don't see virgin as the new kid on the block, they see them as an established carrier. That's a major challenge for Qantas - they can play up their history and reputation but its going to be seen as less relevant over time by a lot of flyers. They need to simultaneously play homage to their heritage and look cool, responsive and not afraid of change.

So the new logo appears a bit hipper, the change reinforces to customers that Qantas is changing and is not afraid to improve (e.g. Combats concerns it's an old fashioned airline stuck in the past). The logo change isn't for pilots, it isn't for aviation enthusiasts - it's designed to look good on advertising and collateral (of which how it looks on the aircraft is probably the least important part).

As Qantas and Virgin battle for a twenty something frequent flier how the plane looks is the least important element. How the website looks, how the app works, will be more important than what the plane looks like nose into a gate.

[Revenue_Melb]

Oh and in regard to this:
"everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment."
That film came out eighteen years ago in 1998. A 32yo frequent flier was 14 when it came out ..... and is unlikely to know about it or care.
I don't think Qantas has any commercial advantages for most of the market in relation to safety or perceptions of safety (e.g. That translate into bookings or higher yields). Maybe on some international routes but not domestically or trans Tasman. Even if people were surveyed "who is safer, virgin or Qantas" I doubt that it's going to influence bookings.

I'm going to guess that brand changes are designed to combat the potential negatives of an older, established brand - namely that it isn't seen by some customers as innovative.

Also worth mentioning that all customers are different. I'm sure you can find a demographic that believes Qantas is a trusted, established brand that is regarded as safer, who sees virgin as a young upstart (I'm going to guess Australian born white men aged 50 plus will fall into that category). That's an awesome advantage for Qantas - but that's not who the brand changes are for.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Oh and in regard to this:
"everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment."
That film came out eighteen years ago in 1998. A 32yo frequent flier was 14 when it came out ..... and is unlikely to know about it or care.


Unfortunately it was 1988, and your 32yo was only 4 and even less likely to know about it or care.

[Revenue_Melb]

Whoops - good pick up!
Yeah, so anyone under about 42 doesn't give a crap about Rain Man.

[Tuck Mach]

Revenue_Melb
You addressed many things in your post.
You failed to provide a fact. You 'guess' you could find a demographic of 50 year old men that may fall into that category...
Where is your data?

Here are some::


Qantas brand value loss during management escalated dispute $100 million.
Given your pseudonym "revenue" Qantas total revenue growth, just kept place with inflation at 3.65% that would be called almost 'organic' (economy wide) that is with a fleet reduction and management neglect as JQ was the 'new kid in town' and Alan believed it his creation! (again not supported by fact)
JQ added nearly 80 aircraft to their fleet from 2009. Their "revenue" contribution is static.Alan and the board were a little pre-occupied
The new livery painted aircraft is not a 787. That hasn't been assembled yet. It was an A330. JQ was given the first 787, and it hasn't done much with branding given their static 'revenue' since it started flying. Ever wonder what happened to Bruce?
There will be in excess of 500, 787 flying when Qantas gets its first.
A few mock ups are not actual product.



The major challenge for Qantas is not in branding, it is having a valid strategic direction.
Given Qantas has at various times in the tenure of the incumbent board and senior management needed $3 billion to compete with Virgin (December 2013) then six weeks later not needed it, been 'terminal' and transformed all within a few years, had Red Q to be set up in Singapore, no Malaysia, err we aren't sure then hastily abandoned. JQ HK was a first mover airline that despite not fitting the PPB (principle place of business) rules was pushed anyway, then abandoned, I would suspect that stopping digging their own holes is probably a good thing.


So please show the data that confirms Qantas is old and stodgy, given its revenue was grew organically during an extended period where the company was shelved in favour of the bright new upstart (JQ)



Where is it you work?
What is your source data, or is it an opinion?

[Revenue_Melb]

I think you're confusing brand with strategic direction. I'm talking about how customers view the Qantas brand / product. How they relate to it. Airlines around the world fly essentially the same pieces of metal - aircraft selection is one element that influences the customer experience and perception of the brand - but it isn't the most important element.

Let's consider it over time. When Virgin launched they didn't have any loyal customers. People selected them based on price and a few other elements. Today they are a powerful brand force in their own right. Many people travel with virgin because they feel it better represents who they are.

In other words, customers have a choice at hurtling though the airport in metal tubes built by the same manufacturers, travelling to/from the same airports. How airlines differentiate their tubes from their competitors is part of branding.

If you want to have a debate about strategic direction then that's for another thread - the discussion here is about the new logo and branding.

Your points about a lack of strategic direction are perfectly cromulent but that's actually a different discussion as to how Qantas communicates with its customers and how it positions itself in the market.

This is a rumor network - and you're looking for facts? 😜

[cattletruck]

cromulent - I had to look it up, it comes from a cartoon.
Grown ups still watching cartoons? Would have been more impressed if you quoted from Dickens, but hey.

[Tuck Mach]

Revenue,
Thanks for your opinion. let us not confuse it with fact!

So given your opinion, is the yield improving with this re-branding?
How do the load factors look? Will a scrungy T-shirt inspired campaign translate to additional yield you know RPK?

Will it address the declining RASK/CASK margin as stated in the last monthly update, before strangely going three monthly...?

Or was it another triumph of spin over substance?