Qantas 'worst international airline'
"Worst" does not mean "bad"
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft
With great respect, you should consult the source material before making assumptions.
The Choice article says (at p.15)
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.
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Either the survey is accurate or......
the survey is not.
Which do you think it is and why?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTBar
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 2 cents
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
just look at the latest re-shuffle. nothing changes just some people get moved around
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fountain Gate...
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigger,Better,More Profitable
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and here are some more reasons,
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
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