Qantas 'worst international airline'
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similarities...except
........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
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akl/lax/akl
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.
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.
Last edited by prunezeuss; 29th May 2007 at 03:23.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GEE!
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
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
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choice Survey
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
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
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?????
"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?????
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
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.
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."
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.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What a crock, they are probably not the best airline in the world, but they are hardly the worst!
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...
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...
Dinosaurs
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.
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.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
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.
Yes 9002
No 21269
The 'great unwashed'
appear to disagree with the argument.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: QLD
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance Reviews
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
)
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.
"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."
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
)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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.