Qantas Indecisive and Complaining
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jetstar strategy appears to be delivering well for the group as evidenced by the continued growth and performance of this business for the market Jetstar was created to serve.
So what do they do? Expand it some more!!!
"The Men who Killed Qantas" was pretty light reading, obviously written by someone who had a chip on their shoulder, as it constantly went over the old "qantas has crashed" idea ad nauseum. Singapore and Emirates have had some pretty bad accidents recently as well, and fingers crossed no more occur for anyone. i must admit the parts about GD and the takeover bit was interesting reading, for the life of me i cant believe there wasn't some kind of legal action against Qantas management....but thats another story.
I read recently that Qantas was asked to expand with its relationship with Ethiad in a similar situation situation than Vaus has announce, but turned the offer down. Good idea, probably not. Is interesting i noticed the other day Qantas still has a lot of codeshare flights with Ethiad.
It seems a national sport to give Qantas a kick in the guts whenever we can....and we are getting pretty good at it.
I read recently that Qantas was asked to expand with its relationship with Ethiad in a similar situation situation than Vaus has announce, but turned the offer down. Good idea, probably not. Is interesting i noticed the other day Qantas still has a lot of codeshare flights with Ethiad.
It seems a national sport to give Qantas a kick in the guts whenever we can....and we are getting pretty good at it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sombrero CA.
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pride in Qantas
Australians once were very proud of Qantas-----With good reason.Australians have been let down badly.The emotional connection has been broken.This business regarding the Middle East is typical.No decision or poor decisions.The ME is a fantastic way for Aussies to fly to Europe---Athens Rome Berlin Madrid Copenhagen are all within striking distance.Best of all is no flying to LHR----what a nightmare that joint is.
Singapore Airport is yesterdays toast----its stale
Singapore Airport is yesterdays toast----its stale
Hi Bad Hat,
I dont disagree that the Australian emotional connection with Qantas was lost when it privatised and became just another business.
I also agree that exploring other routing options and diversifying the network can make great sense.
BUT, having spent many an hour at Abu Dhabi's airport, i have to say that it is just an old crappy middle east airport.
If Changi is old toast, than Abu Dhabi is what the toast becomes after you eat it - ****.
Cheers,
Balthazar_777
I dont disagree that the Australian emotional connection with Qantas was lost when it privatised and became just another business.
I also agree that exploring other routing options and diversifying the network can make great sense.
BUT, having spent many an hour at Abu Dhabi's airport, i have to say that it is just an old crappy middle east airport.
If Changi is old toast, than Abu Dhabi is what the toast becomes after you eat it - ****.
Cheers,
Balthazar_777
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do agree with Bal777
Singapore still is one of the leading airports. best of all is a stop over and enjoy the hotels, culinary and shopping experience at an reasonable price. middle east charges like a roaring b....
as for QF its lost its way under GD big time. there is no longer a vision and as pointed out on a number of occassions there is no network left to europa and lots of old planes. let alone different products on offer. nothing like consistancy-NOT
as for QF its lost its way under GD big time. there is no longer a vision and as pointed out on a number of occassions there is no network left to europa and lots of old planes. let alone different products on offer. nothing like consistancy-NOT
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right about giving QF a kick in the guts being a national past time. And I for one say that they have deserved most of what they get. Especially during Scrotums tenure.
But when the sh1t hits the fan somewhere in the world and aussies need to get home, they all come crying to Qantas. Even if the ticket they hold is for another airline. And more often than not Qantas does help these people. This is something they do well and they still do it.
While they still offer this sort of service then I believe there is still life in the company.
Maybe now JB is at VB he will take this piece of QF with him, not many airlines do this for anyone.
Having said all this I do wish they would pour more into QF rather than letting them rest on their laurels. Things have changed since Geoff and Maggie and co p1ssed off but there still loads of things that can be improved.
But when the sh1t hits the fan somewhere in the world and aussies need to get home, they all come crying to Qantas. Even if the ticket they hold is for another airline. And more often than not Qantas does help these people. This is something they do well and they still do it.
While they still offer this sort of service then I believe there is still life in the company.
Maybe now JB is at VB he will take this piece of QF with him, not many airlines do this for anyone.
Having said all this I do wish they would pour more into QF rather than letting them rest on their laurels. Things have changed since Geoff and Maggie and co p1ssed off but there still loads of things that can be improved.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to note that it is not as simple as Qantas just deciding to operate to a European destination, on the terms that it chooses.
Qantas has to deal with a number of bilateral constraints which restrict the opportunity for Qantas to compete freely with other carriers.
A great example of this is Paris - Qantas is unable to secure daily rights into Paris between Singapore and Paris, yet SQ and AF have daily services (as the bilateral is between the two states). Qantas can only operate thrice weekly - this is not enough to deliver a sustainable route for Qantas. It’s unattractive to the premium customer which is a key component for Qantas considering most of the other traffic is VFR and low yield. The Qantas service is not attractive to the business customer (driven by schedule convenience) who is providing the yield Qantas need to deliver an appropriate return - there are minimum requirements in return that must be achieved for the route to be worth it, otherwise it makes better business sense for Qantas to deploy assets somewhere else where they’ll deliver a better return.
Yet Australia offers Qantas competitors an open and liberal framework that allows just about unlimited capacity and frequency into Australia - so for the hub operator like SQ, they capatalise on traffic AUS/SIN/PAR vv versus Qantas who can only offer twice weekly - who is the premium punter going to choose?
Another example is China - Qantas has been lobbying to allow rights from China on to London, however cannot secure rights between China and London.
The same applies for the Middle East - Qantas can get unlimited capacity to the Middle East, but cannot obtain any rights from the Middle East to London. Operating only to/from the ME will not deliver any quality returns to Qantas. Firstly the market is well saturated with capacity and a pricing structure that Qantas would struggle to compete with, in particular with airlines who's Governments or private ownership, may have bigger 'agendas' then just offering air services between the two points, in addition Qantas is competing with airlines who are not even operating profitably i.e. Etihad yet would have to price accordingly to compete, delivering poor yield return to Qantas.
Traffic to ME is primarily European traffic - VFR and holiday makers are very limited as the Middle East is primarily a stop-over for most. With Qantas not able to operate onwards, and only truly carrying limited traffic that go to the ME, what viability could exists when you can fly an Arab airline and continue on to Europe, as these airlines offer a very extensive European network - the same principle will apply to the premium/business customer - they're not going to choose Qantas when the choice of ample schedule and network is delivered by multiple Arab airlines...
Again, Australia being so liberal, ME airlines can dump tonnes of capacity into AUS and beyond i.e. NZ and deliver to the customer, through effective hub/spoke operations, seamless travel into/out of Europe at a cost competitive position.
The playing field is not balanced and that's the reality of it...
Our geographical location further affects Qantas competitive opportunities - where as the hubs, who by way of natural technical limitations take advantage of the requirements for passengers and airlines to hub...
If aircraft could fly direct to Europe from AUS vv, we'd see a very different competitive landscape...
Qantas has to deal with a number of bilateral constraints which restrict the opportunity for Qantas to compete freely with other carriers.
A great example of this is Paris - Qantas is unable to secure daily rights into Paris between Singapore and Paris, yet SQ and AF have daily services (as the bilateral is between the two states). Qantas can only operate thrice weekly - this is not enough to deliver a sustainable route for Qantas. It’s unattractive to the premium customer which is a key component for Qantas considering most of the other traffic is VFR and low yield. The Qantas service is not attractive to the business customer (driven by schedule convenience) who is providing the yield Qantas need to deliver an appropriate return - there are minimum requirements in return that must be achieved for the route to be worth it, otherwise it makes better business sense for Qantas to deploy assets somewhere else where they’ll deliver a better return.
Yet Australia offers Qantas competitors an open and liberal framework that allows just about unlimited capacity and frequency into Australia - so for the hub operator like SQ, they capatalise on traffic AUS/SIN/PAR vv versus Qantas who can only offer twice weekly - who is the premium punter going to choose?
Another example is China - Qantas has been lobbying to allow rights from China on to London, however cannot secure rights between China and London.
The same applies for the Middle East - Qantas can get unlimited capacity to the Middle East, but cannot obtain any rights from the Middle East to London. Operating only to/from the ME will not deliver any quality returns to Qantas. Firstly the market is well saturated with capacity and a pricing structure that Qantas would struggle to compete with, in particular with airlines who's Governments or private ownership, may have bigger 'agendas' then just offering air services between the two points, in addition Qantas is competing with airlines who are not even operating profitably i.e. Etihad yet would have to price accordingly to compete, delivering poor yield return to Qantas.
Traffic to ME is primarily European traffic - VFR and holiday makers are very limited as the Middle East is primarily a stop-over for most. With Qantas not able to operate onwards, and only truly carrying limited traffic that go to the ME, what viability could exists when you can fly an Arab airline and continue on to Europe, as these airlines offer a very extensive European network - the same principle will apply to the premium/business customer - they're not going to choose Qantas when the choice of ample schedule and network is delivered by multiple Arab airlines...
Again, Australia being so liberal, ME airlines can dump tonnes of capacity into AUS and beyond i.e. NZ and deliver to the customer, through effective hub/spoke operations, seamless travel into/out of Europe at a cost competitive position.
The playing field is not balanced and that's the reality of it...
Our geographical location further affects Qantas competitive opportunities - where as the hubs, who by way of natural technical limitations take advantage of the requirements for passengers and airlines to hub...
If aircraft could fly direct to Europe from AUS vv, we'd see a very different competitive landscape...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Jetstar Asia is technically a Singapore airline with Singapore AOC and access to Singapore's air traffic rights, QF can use this vehicle to fly all over Europe (Singapore has unlimited 3rd and 4th freedoms with all European countries except France and Germany I think - but since Singapore has signed open skies agreements with nearly all EU countries, SIN-EU open skies isn't too far off the agenda)
Because JQ has no rights to fly between Singapore and NZ, 3K is the designated Singaporean carrier to fly this route, as SIN and NZ have full open skies.
I suspect SQ will stop FCO and ATH once 3K starts those services. They've languished at 3 weekly for the past 25 years.
SQ is now being kept on their toes because they must share rights with JQ. Eg they had to reinstate the morning flights to Chennai and Bangalore using Silk Air, if not they would have lost those slots and they could have been reassigned to 3K.
Because JQ has no rights to fly between Singapore and NZ, 3K is the designated Singaporean carrier to fly this route, as SIN and NZ have full open skies.
I suspect SQ will stop FCO and ATH once 3K starts those services. They've languished at 3 weekly for the past 25 years.
SQ is now being kept on their toes because they must share rights with JQ. Eg they had to reinstate the morning flights to Chennai and Bangalore using Silk Air, if not they would have lost those slots and they could have been reassigned to 3K.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balthazar - SQ use Terminal 1 at AUH which is indeed pretty $hitty. EY primarily use Terminal 3 which is brand new & absolutely fine - probably still not quite as good as Changi though 
T-Vasis - QF have the right to fly through the UAE to where ever they want, with the restriction being the bilateral agreement between Australia and the ultimate destination (2nd freedom of the Air). As of today, up to 105 services a week (15 per day - see IASC) could carry traffic between Australia and the UAE. There MAY be restrictions in carrying traffic between the UAE and the European destination, but I do not think it would be from the UAE (although I could be wrong - they claim open skies and frankly need all the visitors they can get!), but there might be an objection from the other country (e.g. France or Greece may have a problem with QF carrying DXB-CDG or DXB-ATH pax). That would depend on each bilateral agreement. As 90+% of Australia-UAE traffic is in transit, QF could hub through Dubai or Abu Dhabi IF THEY CHOSE TO. The limited number actually getting off in the UAE should not materially affect the economics of continuing through to Europe and could be considered cream. They just choose to serve their markets through different hubs and then moan about it
jj232 - I am no fan of EK, but if SQ offer more and better connections to Europe than EK I would be very surprised! A service comparison - now thats a different story
T-Vasis - QF have the right to fly through the UAE to where ever they want, with the restriction being the bilateral agreement between Australia and the ultimate destination (2nd freedom of the Air). As of today, up to 105 services a week (15 per day - see IASC) could carry traffic between Australia and the UAE. There MAY be restrictions in carrying traffic between the UAE and the European destination, but I do not think it would be from the UAE (although I could be wrong - they claim open skies and frankly need all the visitors they can get!), but there might be an objection from the other country (e.g. France or Greece may have a problem with QF carrying DXB-CDG or DXB-ATH pax). That would depend on each bilateral agreement. As 90+% of Australia-UAE traffic is in transit, QF could hub through Dubai or Abu Dhabi IF THEY CHOSE TO. The limited number actually getting off in the UAE should not materially affect the economics of continuing through to Europe and could be considered cream. They just choose to serve their markets through different hubs and then moan about it
jj232 - I am no fan of EK, but if SQ offer more and better connections to Europe than EK I would be very surprised! A service comparison - now thats a different story
Last edited by sandpit; 1st Sep 2010 at 10:02.
Yeah, great idea Sunfish. Why not avoid Qantas at all costs. Cause its all about the fluffy little trinkets in the cabin. Why don't you do yourself a favour and assemble a technical perspective. When my family board a QF ship, I am never concerned as to their safety because I know the guys up the front ARE quality!! Cannot say the same ref a couple of your above mentioned carriers....but then again, I am taking a technical perspective.
Regards
Regards
trouble is, I used to work for AN engineering division. and I'm aware of the deterioration in QF standards referenced in PPrune.
Stick QF up your backside, it's running on its reputation and nothing else.
The rot set in around 1986.
Nobody will fly QF internationally unless they have no choice, unless they are Sydney siders.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bad Hat Harry
Singapore Airport is yesterdays toast----its stale
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Nobody will fly QF internationally unless they have no choice, unless they are Sydney siders.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choice?
How many airlines have reduced capacity over the last 12 months?
Friends from Germany couldnt get a seat to Oz.They tried for 6 weeks and price was not a consideration they just wanted to get here.
How did they get here?
Berlin,JoBurg Sydney.
Capacity is so tight there is a bum on every seat and it aint gonna change anytime soon.Thats why QF figures look so good
Any way I digress Qantas management have not got a clue on how to run an airline.Its all about reducing costs and increasing bonuses.It takes real nouse to be innovative with revenue.
Joyce has been handed the poison chalice
Qantas is about cost reduction not about growing revenue or profit
Look at the network reduction and the age of the fleet.
767s are a great aircraft but most of Qfs are around 25 years old
Spend money on the hard product it needs it
Friends from Germany couldnt get a seat to Oz.They tried for 6 weeks and price was not a consideration they just wanted to get here.
How did they get here?
Berlin,JoBurg Sydney.
Capacity is so tight there is a bum on every seat and it aint gonna change anytime soon.Thats why QF figures look so good
Any way I digress Qantas management have not got a clue on how to run an airline.Its all about reducing costs and increasing bonuses.It takes real nouse to be innovative with revenue.
Joyce has been handed the poison chalice
Qantas is about cost reduction not about growing revenue or profit
Look at the network reduction and the age of the fleet.
767s are a great aircraft but most of Qfs are around 25 years old
Spend money on the hard product it needs it
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ka Boom - with respect, it's not Qantas's fault the 78's are delayed. Remember, they'd be flying by now and Qantas would be phasing out their ageing 76's. Also, considering a number of other airlines around the world, fleet age isn't that bad...there are plenty of legacy airlines operating some seriously old hull's
With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.
Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...
Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.
At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...
Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.
And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.
With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.
Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...
Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.
At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...
Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.
And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandpit - there are some 200 + international schedule airlines alone (IATA members).
Whilst Qantas continues to maintain its position in the top 10 global airlines (refer to Skytrax awards - 18 million passengers surveyed), the carrier undoubtedly is considered in the 'top bracket' of global carriers. And as I understand it, pipped EK in the 2010 awards at number seven, whilst also taking the best Y+ award?
At the end of the day, it's about the end-to-end experience for the consumer and Qantas seems to be delivering this at a high level as evidenced by their ranking.
Whilst Qantas continues to maintain its position in the top 10 global airlines (refer to Skytrax awards - 18 million passengers surveyed), the carrier undoubtedly is considered in the 'top bracket' of global carriers. And as I understand it, pipped EK in the 2010 awards at number seven, whilst also taking the best Y+ award?
At the end of the day, it's about the end-to-end experience for the consumer and Qantas seems to be delivering this at a high level as evidenced by their ranking.
Nunc est bibendum
767s are a great aircraft but most of Qfs are around 25 years old.
It would have been great had the 787s arrived on time!
I suspect there is a bit of 'tall poppy syndrome' with QF. It's routinely ranked highly on world standards and the feedback from those that fly is generally high. I suspect sometimes that the criticism often comes from those who haven't flown with us for quite a while.
T Vasis:
1. 787 - There is this concept called "technical risk", which is first cousin of commercial risk and sovereign risk, pity there is no one on the QF Board, then or now, with any technical experience of airlines.
2. The lovely concept of "Acceptable return"! Acceptable to who? I much prefer the concept of "market rate". If QF cannot make a profit on something, then how about cutting down the number of bloated management levels, starting with getting rid of the notion of "The Qantas Group" and the associated horde of "Group General Managers?". Then get the head office out of central Sydney, cutting staff as you go, and put it in a Tin shed as close as possible to the airport.
3. The idea that QF has a "premium business class product" is laughable. I tried that to LAX around Ten years ago and the service and experience was execrable - and expensive. Only a first time business traveler would consider QF.
QF have had excrable management for at least the last Ten years - the entire Dixon reign, and there is no sign of any change.
To put it another way, T Vasis, the first sign of positive change at QF would be abandoning the concept of "Acceptable return" and competing on quality of service and price, like everyone else does. Air travel is now a commodity.
The idea that the "carriage trade", sorry, "premium business class travelers" can be mined to subsidies the rest of your operation, sorry, I mean generate an "acceptable return", is lethally stupid because it exposes your shareholders to risk if that single market segment is all that is holding you in profit. The same idea, as it percolates through layers of management, also devalues and therefore de emphasizes the economy travel experience.
Lets face it, the only thing keeping QF afloat is its ability to lobby the Federal Government and keep out competition.
Ka Boom - with respect, it's not Qantas's fault the 78's are delayed.
Remember, they'd be flying by now and Qantas would be phasing out their ageing 76's. Also, considering a number of other airlines around the world, fleet age isn't that bad...there are plenty of legacy airlines operating some seriously old hull's
With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.
Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...
Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.
At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...
Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.
And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.
Remember, they'd be flying by now and Qantas would be phasing out their ageing 76's. Also, considering a number of other airlines around the world, fleet age isn't that bad...there are plenty of legacy airlines operating some seriously old hull's
With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.
Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...
Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.
At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...
Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.
And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.
1. 787 - There is this concept called "technical risk", which is first cousin of commercial risk and sovereign risk, pity there is no one on the QF Board, then or now, with any technical experience of airlines.
2. The lovely concept of "Acceptable return"! Acceptable to who? I much prefer the concept of "market rate". If QF cannot make a profit on something, then how about cutting down the number of bloated management levels, starting with getting rid of the notion of "The Qantas Group" and the associated horde of "Group General Managers?". Then get the head office out of central Sydney, cutting staff as you go, and put it in a Tin shed as close as possible to the airport.
3. The idea that QF has a "premium business class product" is laughable. I tried that to LAX around Ten years ago and the service and experience was execrable - and expensive. Only a first time business traveler would consider QF.
QF have had excrable management for at least the last Ten years - the entire Dixon reign, and there is no sign of any change.
To put it another way, T Vasis, the first sign of positive change at QF would be abandoning the concept of "Acceptable return" and competing on quality of service and price, like everyone else does. Air travel is now a commodity.
The idea that the "carriage trade", sorry, "premium business class travelers" can be mined to subsidies the rest of your operation, sorry, I mean generate an "acceptable return", is lethally stupid because it exposes your shareholders to risk if that single market segment is all that is holding you in profit. The same idea, as it percolates through layers of management, also devalues and therefore de emphasizes the economy travel experience.
Lets face it, the only thing keeping QF afloat is its ability to lobby the Federal Government and keep out competition.
Nunc est bibendum
The idea that QF has a "premium business class product" is laughable. I tried that to LAX around Ten years ago and the service and experience was execrable - and expensive.
Keg:
With respect, I'm not paying $7000 to find out if it has changed.
My policy since then was to offer employees a choice for international travel, go business class, do your work and return ASAP, or go economy and take a few days R & R at your destination and when you return before I see your ugly face again, and not out of annual leave either. Everyone decided that the latter policy was better.
With respect Sunfish, more than a few things have changed in the last decade in the J class offering.
My policy since then was to offer employees a choice for international travel, go business class, do your work and return ASAP, or go economy and take a few days R & R at your destination and when you return before I see your ugly face again, and not out of annual leave either. Everyone decided that the latter policy was better.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with Keg here. J Class has changed a lot over the last 10 years. Jetstar Star Class is similar to what J Class 10 years ago was like. If you're flying accross the Pacific in J, out of UA, DL and QF direct Aust to USA, I know who I'd choose. In fact I'd rather go Y class on QF than Y class on these other two. I can't comment on V Aus as I've never flown on them.
I think QF has been not too much indecisive over the last few years, just stagnat. Hopefully this will change when the 787 arrives in numbers, will just have to wait and see on that front.
I think QF has been not too much indecisive over the last few years, just stagnat. Hopefully this will change when the 787 arrives in numbers, will just have to wait and see on that front.