QANTAS - WHERE TO NOW?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767 salaries have nothing to do with the so-called Longhaul losses.
The losses are just creative accountancy on the part of AJ. LH is not part of the future plan of this current management and is being loaded up with debt (from other entities) to bolster their argument to shareholders to shut it down or palm it off.
It's that black and white.
To believe that Aircrew salaries are the reason for airline losses considering the minimal percentage of costs they contribute compared to the overall costs of the whole operation is just being naive.
The losses are just creative accountancy on the part of AJ. LH is not part of the future plan of this current management and is being loaded up with debt (from other entities) to bolster their argument to shareholders to shut it down or palm it off.
It's that black and white.
To believe that Aircrew salaries are the reason for airline losses considering the minimal percentage of costs they contribute compared to the overall costs of the whole operation is just being naive.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now FWA suits are whinging and restless
Qantas call a win for commonsense
Date August 13, 2012
Ross Gittins
The Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor
Both parties in the Qantas dispute have been 'bloody-minded'. Photo: James Davies
FAIR Work Australia's monumental rebuff to the Transport Workers Union in its dispute with Qantas strikes a blow to the credibility of claims the Fair Work Act is some kind of conspiracy against employers. The commission (which is what Fair Work Australia is in all but name) had no choice last week but to support Qantas management because, in both its tactics and its demands, the union was being so bloody-minded.
That's true even though, by grounding its planes worldwide and locking out all its staff last October, Qantas management could come up with no more creative solution to its bargaining problem than to be as bloody-minded as some of its unions.This was not so much a win for ''managers' right to manage'' as the commission's commonsense judgment that all the industrial parties needed to face up to the harsh commercial realities threatening the survival of their business.
Here we had a union demanding 5 per cent annual pay rises at the same time it was fighting to prevent its employer from turning to cheaper sources of labour. That makes sense?
It will be a pity if the commission's refusal last week to split the difference in the old way encourages other militant employers to seek to resolve disagreements with their workers the chaos-causing Qantas way. Even so, the commission's refusal to go anywhere near splitting the difference provides powerful evidence it can be trusted to adjudicate issues sensibly in a system that hasn't swung the balance too far the unions' way.
Perhaps this explains why the national dailies - which, in their campaigning against the evils of Fair Work, seem to find another story about union atrocities for the front page most days - were not excited by the employers' big win last week.
Read too much of their stuff and you come away thinking the union movement has risen from its death bed to pose the greatest threat to our continued prosperity. Remember, union membership is down to 18 per cent of the workforce (from 50 per cent in 1982) and 14 per cent of private-sector workers.
Another figure to keep in mind when you read about the union monster poised to eat the economy's lunch: more than 80 per cent of enterprises don't have a union presence.
Two labour lawyers, Dr Anthony Forsyth, of Monash University, and Professor Andrew Stewart, of Adelaide University, note in their submission to the Fair Work review that ''the concerns about union activities that so animate certain employers in the resources, manufacturing and construction sectors are very far removed from the issues confronting businesses in other parts of the economy''.
''For the small to medium enterprises that predominate in sectors such as retail and hospitality, both unions and, indeed, collective bargaining are largely absent. Their concerns are much more likely, in our experience, to revolve around the costs and 'inflexibilities' imposed by the award system, and the renewed exposure to unfair dismissal claims that the Fair Work Act has brought.''
So far, Fair Work has failed in its aim to greatly increase the extent of collective bargaining, with the proportion of employees covered by collective agreements increasing from 39.8 per cent of the workforce in 2008, to just 43.4 per cent in 2010.
Dr Forsyth and Professor Stewart argue many of these new agreements are effectively non-union instruments drafted by employers to replace the individual workplace agreements formerly available under Work Choices.
Genuine collective bargaining is likely to be confined mainly to large, unionised workplaces in the public sector and to some sections of the private sector.
Much of the bitter complaint about Fair Work comes from the miners. The labour lawyers say what some employers in the resources sector are seeking is a capacity to manage their businesses without the involvement of unions, and to undertake projects entirely free of any threat of industrial action.
'These aspirations are simply not compatible with the principle of freedom of association … Indeed, to allow them to be fully realised would involve restrictions on the taking of industrial action, or on union rights of entry, that would go far beyond anything envisaged by the Howard government, even during the Work Choices period,'' they say.
Talk of Fair Work having unnecessarily bolstered ''union power'' should not only be kept in proportion but understood in the context of a broader ideological agenda that is profoundly antithetical to the principle of collectivism, they conclude
my bold
Read more: Qantas call a win for commonsense
Date August 13, 2012
Ross Gittins
The Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor
Both parties in the Qantas dispute have been 'bloody-minded'. Photo: James Davies
FAIR Work Australia's monumental rebuff to the Transport Workers Union in its dispute with Qantas strikes a blow to the credibility of claims the Fair Work Act is some kind of conspiracy against employers. The commission (which is what Fair Work Australia is in all but name) had no choice last week but to support Qantas management because, in both its tactics and its demands, the union was being so bloody-minded.
That's true even though, by grounding its planes worldwide and locking out all its staff last October, Qantas management could come up with no more creative solution to its bargaining problem than to be as bloody-minded as some of its unions.This was not so much a win for ''managers' right to manage'' as the commission's commonsense judgment that all the industrial parties needed to face up to the harsh commercial realities threatening the survival of their business.
Here we had a union demanding 5 per cent annual pay rises at the same time it was fighting to prevent its employer from turning to cheaper sources of labour. That makes sense?
It will be a pity if the commission's refusal last week to split the difference in the old way encourages other militant employers to seek to resolve disagreements with their workers the chaos-causing Qantas way. Even so, the commission's refusal to go anywhere near splitting the difference provides powerful evidence it can be trusted to adjudicate issues sensibly in a system that hasn't swung the balance too far the unions' way.
Perhaps this explains why the national dailies - which, in their campaigning against the evils of Fair Work, seem to find another story about union atrocities for the front page most days - were not excited by the employers' big win last week.
Read too much of their stuff and you come away thinking the union movement has risen from its death bed to pose the greatest threat to our continued prosperity. Remember, union membership is down to 18 per cent of the workforce (from 50 per cent in 1982) and 14 per cent of private-sector workers.
Another figure to keep in mind when you read about the union monster poised to eat the economy's lunch: more than 80 per cent of enterprises don't have a union presence.
Two labour lawyers, Dr Anthony Forsyth, of Monash University, and Professor Andrew Stewart, of Adelaide University, note in their submission to the Fair Work review that ''the concerns about union activities that so animate certain employers in the resources, manufacturing and construction sectors are very far removed from the issues confronting businesses in other parts of the economy''.
''For the small to medium enterprises that predominate in sectors such as retail and hospitality, both unions and, indeed, collective bargaining are largely absent. Their concerns are much more likely, in our experience, to revolve around the costs and 'inflexibilities' imposed by the award system, and the renewed exposure to unfair dismissal claims that the Fair Work Act has brought.''
So far, Fair Work has failed in its aim to greatly increase the extent of collective bargaining, with the proportion of employees covered by collective agreements increasing from 39.8 per cent of the workforce in 2008, to just 43.4 per cent in 2010.
Dr Forsyth and Professor Stewart argue many of these new agreements are effectively non-union instruments drafted by employers to replace the individual workplace agreements formerly available under Work Choices.
Genuine collective bargaining is likely to be confined mainly to large, unionised workplaces in the public sector and to some sections of the private sector.
Much of the bitter complaint about Fair Work comes from the miners. The labour lawyers say what some employers in the resources sector are seeking is a capacity to manage their businesses without the involvement of unions, and to undertake projects entirely free of any threat of industrial action.
'These aspirations are simply not compatible with the principle of freedom of association … Indeed, to allow them to be fully realised would involve restrictions on the taking of industrial action, or on union rights of entry, that would go far beyond anything envisaged by the Howard government, even during the Work Choices period,'' they say.
Talk of Fair Work having unnecessarily bolstered ''union power'' should not only be kept in proportion but understood in the context of a broader ideological agenda that is profoundly antithetical to the principle of collectivism, they conclude
my bold
Read more: Qantas call a win for commonsense
The way things have turned out over the last two years, my thoughts only, highlights the fact there is a lot a fat ($s) for manger, and lawyer types, (non operational) in the Qantas case, showing a heavy dose of disrespect for the guys and girls left who physically operate the airline each day... other words, how do you begin to repair the damaged staff relations when the suits appear to way outnumber the actual people who keep the show on the road...? all trust appears to have evaporated ..
We are only a few days away (again) from the profit results and nothing appears to have moved forward.... other than our friends in suits getting their way of course..
Is this what "legacy" means when big business always use it prior to saying the word "airline" these days..?" reinforcing the belief shared by many that Qantas was gutted to pay for Jetstar..
Today the suits think they have won the war, but it will come back to bite them when it is realised in a few years, Australia will have a generation of highly trained/untrained out of work people sharing the podium because we gifted our expertise to Asia & elsewhere.. (exactly what happened in the UK recently the service industry couldn't hold up the show any longer) sooner or later we can't all keep doing each others washing..
Don't think the Asian's won't do the state government power bill type price rise thing (up the costs) when all's quiet on the aviation front back here in Australia.
What bugs me more, Qantas management dined out on the demise of Ansett, had it easy for many years, now all of a sudden things are bad....
The Question is, what took the powers to be so long to wake up? Many on here could see it coming, people have been firing warning shots for years now, just look back over the the last couple of years, all that has been said pretty much has come true.
What annoyed me throughout the recent events, inflated Captains wage figures where endlessly floated around the media. What was never understood by the general public, many Australian pilots spend years working their way up the ladder, many from the hard $$$ slog GA division... I admire them all as I know how hard it is for young Australian pilots to climb the seniority ranks just to become a Captain.. having said that, I believe the seniority system has served the profession well, producing here in Australia one of the best tech & safety records in the world.. if the guys in the suits want to keep messing with it, sooner or later they will come unstuck, and it appears, the system allows them to be not responsible.. go figure..
.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 12th Aug 2012 at 19:37.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor pay in GA and doing it tough does not equal Airline dollars.
Airline dollars = People paying for tickets at a reasonable price.
Cheap airfares are here to stay and this same conversation will drag on forever.
There will be a downward drive on pilot prices for the foreseeable future.
Airline dollars = People paying for tickets at a reasonable price.
Cheap airfares are here to stay and this same conversation will drag on forever.
There will be a downward drive on pilot prices for the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crystal
There will be a downward drive on pilot prices for the foreseeable future.
As there are more and more training academies producing qualified pilots that will add to the numbers wanting to earn a living, even one below the current salaries, that supply will put further downward pressure on salaries. Even more so if they've paid for their own ratings.
Thus the airline that can obtain lowest cost qualified labour has a keen advantage.
Same could be said for corporate jobs as well, problem being they require locating in the corporate environment so there's often not such an easy path to outsourcing them. Unfortunately.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Alan Joyce. You do realise 94 that what you wrote effectively justifies Joyce's posiiton? Because, in the end, "everyone arrives at the same time, despite what price you've paid for the ticket" which means you see price as the one and only determinant in peoples' choice.
I am going to respond to this for the last time, as the two in question and their compromised position in life has gotten more publicity than they deserve.
First class is about something else. Call it experience, or status, or whatever you like, it commands a massive premium in exchange for it being "just right". So when it's not "just right" then it's wrong. Simple as that.
Have a read of the two articles below, both from very prestigious car makers, and the faults in them, after the very high premiums have been paid, and after potentially causing accidents. Using your analogy, the PJ deprived passengers are in the same category as those who paid a high premium for their prestige cars and whose vehicles weren't "just right".
In reality, the PJ's make no difference whatsoever other than a sense of entitlement and a keepsake of their "experience". The mechanical problems however, no matter the price of the car, are ones worthy of demand and entitlement.
Porsche recalling 2012 911 Carrera S over possible fuel leak
Luxury image suffers after Rolls Royce recall - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Compounded by the bitchy ego trip of the message this one was handled very badly.
If people don't have the maturity to match their wealth, they should stay in economy.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Qantas, where to now? Gold coast! Thank you, at last !! Should never have given it all to JQ.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 94
Originally Posted by romulus
First class is about something else. Call it experience, or status, or whatever you like, it commands a massive premium in exchange for it being "just right". So when it's not "just right" then it's wrong. Simple as that.
But when you get to fly First it's an incredible feeling (done it twice via upgrades).
If you do it regularly it confirms your status and position, that's what is being sold. Not just PJs but social differentiation. Some people are prepared to pay for it and they are prepared to pay massively. So Qantas takes their money and good on them. They sold what the customer wanted.
Think it doesn't have a powerful level of command and respect? Think again.
As a pretty regular customer I garnered enough status points to be a Platinum and use the First class check in line. I have to admit, that's where I reckon the most benefit is, that whole process is made brilliantly easy rather than a long laborious queue.
Anyway, I was once coming back from Europe and as with all things when you're away from home the infrastructure isn't as large as it is when flying QF in Aus. Got to the airport and there's a woman giving every staff member in sight a hell of a hard time, she wanted this and that and everything else and was mouthing off everywhere and telling the whole airport how important she was. Complete bitch quite frankly. Handled about as well as was possible by the QF staff who showed great restraint.
But then something amusing happened.
After finishing my duty free shopping (like my Scotch just a little bit too much some would say) I rocked up to check in and wandered down the First queue. And guess who happened to be at the head of Business queue (all of abotu 5 or 6 people/couples so not a terribly long line but still too long for her highness)? Still mouthing off. everything was taking far too long. And there was no way she was giving way to this bloke who rocked up after her so she decided she was next.
Only to be told, in a very sweet and polite manner by a very smiley QF staffer, that customers in First had priority and she would have to wait.
That completely and utterly shut the big mouth up. Not a peep in the next 5 minutes or so and I never saw her again after that but I certainly didn't hear her again. She was totally deflated because her own sense of importance got overridden.
Now you could argue that we both got on the same plane and we both left and arrived at the same time etc. But the invisible social power of that differentiation seen by very few people was enough to put her right back in her box. That's what those PJs represent to those particular customers. They give them demonstrable social cachet. Be that right or wrong, and I would agree they appear incredibly insecure and shallow people, that is what they value. A tiny detail in the scheme of things, but it is those tiny details that the customer pays for.
Think credit cards. Platinum cards cost several hundred dollars a year for generally meagre, if any at all, benefits. Yet people pay. It impresses others. It marks them in a positive manner. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by 94
Have a read of the two articles below, both from very prestigious car makers, and the faults in them, after the very high premiums have been paid, and after potentially causing accidents. Using your analogy, the PJ deprived passengers are in the same category as those who paid a high premium for their prestige cars and whose vehicles weren't "just right".
But I do like Italian cars, I own one. Not a Ferrari or even a Maserati but an Alfa. A tiny, stupid, inconvenient, underpowered, athsmatic and illogical 2 door convertible (now 12 years old). It's worth maybe $10K tops but when I drive around I feel like a million dollars. I just love the experience. I can't explain it but that's what it does for me.
The intangible. That's what First is. That's what my Alfa is.
And when anything goes wrong with my Alfa (somewhat bizarrely the most reliable car I have ever owned - that can be interpreted as either a statistical improbability, as a tribute to improved Alfa build standards or perhaps to the fact every other car I have owned has been a real sh*tbox and thus the bar is very low) I absolutely hate it. I'll pull it apart or pay overpriced mechanics (compared to their peers) to fix it. That's just my thing. For some people they get the same gratification from First. That's the power of the intagible and that's what Joyce is, in my opinion, destroying. Hence my comment.
Originally Posted by 94
In reality, the PJ's make no difference whatsoever other than a sense of entitlement and a keepsake of their "experience". The mechanical problems however, no matter the price of the car, are ones worthy of demand and entitlement.
Are you prepared to listen to them?
Or will you just tell them you are right and their opinion is invalid?
Originally Posted by 94
If people don't have the maturity to match their wealth, they should stay in economy.
Business to First isn't such a huge step.
I was told that this is what JB introduced, it was not advertised because 'it was suppose to be the Australian way, i.e. don't brag, just do it'
Ref Mr and Mrs Pyjamas
Maybe this case wasn't isolated for them. Let's consider they travel with QF first class or business class reasonably frequently. Have they been let down time and time again by sh!tty little things that just shouldn't happen when they are spending so much money.
Just maybe this wasn't just a case of ONE set of Pyjamas. Maybe it was more a case of "well stuff it, I have finally had a gut full of this airline."
Always two sides to a story and I'm not sure that one isolated incident such as this would create such a meltdown.
Maybe this case wasn't isolated for them. Let's consider they travel with QF first class or business class reasonably frequently. Have they been let down time and time again by sh!tty little things that just shouldn't happen when they are spending so much money.
Just maybe this wasn't just a case of ONE set of Pyjamas. Maybe it was more a case of "well stuff it, I have finally had a gut full of this airline."
Always two sides to a story and I'm not sure that one isolated incident such as this would create such a meltdown.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trevor: you'll find they expressed to media sources they were happy to fly Qantas again. Given the way the problem was dealt with ect, he even expressed to the crew "you can tell them if you want" and so he did. Perhaps one needs to get their head around the sky isn't falling over an odd situation like this.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that correct? isn't there a little secret that QF do not like to advertise? i.e. pickup from home/hotel etc to airport? valet at the airport?
I was told that this is what JB introduced, it was not advertised because 'it was suppose to be the Australian way, i.e. don't brag, just do it'
I was told that this is what JB introduced, it was not advertised because 'it was suppose to be the Australian way, i.e. don't brag, just do it'
If departing SYD/MEL, call the day before to book a spa appointment and given number of QF Host. Curbside baggage at SYD/MEL and dedicated checkin area.
In the First lounge they will reserve a table while you have your massage.
You will be greeted by a host who has done some research and engage you in commentary (how was your last flight to xxx, we have seen many people from company yyy recently)
On Board, the food is slightly better (but a direct comparison shows many choices shared with Business), the alcohol and service substantially better, the seat and IFE bigger..
And the PJs are brown not grey, and rather than a massive black roo, they have a far more subtle brown one, and a tag on the back collar that simply says "FIRST"
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It reminds me of the scale of force/force continuum used by law enforcement agencies. The idea is that you respond to a situation with the same or one level greater use of force.
Someone threatens you verbally? The acceptable level of force may be verbal or basic physical control, depending on the circumstance.
Someone threatens you with a machete or a gun that you believe is loaded? The acceptable level of force is much greater and may be fatal. However, it's not appropriate to shoot someone dead just because they verbally threatened you.
Likewise, IMO not having the right peejays is a problem when you've paid a lot for a first class ticket. Probably worthy of a verbal spray, a nasty letter and a change of carrier for future flights.
Worthy of a tantrum? Probably a little excessive, a bit un
but within the acceptable level of force.
Worthy of stomping off and delaying everyone else, including a number of first class pax who also paid top dollar? Don't think so. Just how good are these jammies? Do they sing you to sleep or something?
Life is full of small disappointments. The 60 buck restaurant main is average, the expensive French champagne tastes like Yellow, the Alfa breaks down, costs a bomb to fix and a month waiting for what turns out to be the wrong parts (not that that should be surprise, mi amore
)...**** happens. Don't most people just deal with it? You still get the big bed, the fancy wine, the knowledge that your seat is swankier than everyone else's and that everyone knows you're a Big Cheese 'cos your luggage tags say so.
First World problems...
Brown, eh? Queensland Corrective Services issue brown peejays too. Very swanky colour, brown...lots of wealthy guys have worn it; even a few pollies. Until they served their time, anyway. 
Someone threatens you verbally? The acceptable level of force may be verbal or basic physical control, depending on the circumstance.
Someone threatens you with a machete or a gun that you believe is loaded? The acceptable level of force is much greater and may be fatal. However, it's not appropriate to shoot someone dead just because they verbally threatened you.
Likewise, IMO not having the right peejays is a problem when you've paid a lot for a first class ticket. Probably worthy of a verbal spray, a nasty letter and a change of carrier for future flights.
Worthy of a tantrum? Probably a little excessive, a bit un
but within the acceptable level of force. Worthy of stomping off and delaying everyone else, including a number of first class pax who also paid top dollar? Don't think so. Just how good are these jammies? Do they sing you to sleep or something?
Life is full of small disappointments. The 60 buck restaurant main is average, the expensive French champagne tastes like Yellow, the Alfa breaks down, costs a bomb to fix and a month waiting for what turns out to be the wrong parts (not that that should be surprise, mi amore
)...**** happens. Don't most people just deal with it? You still get the big bed, the fancy wine, the knowledge that your seat is swankier than everyone else's and that everyone knows you're a Big Cheese 'cos your luggage tags say so. First World problems...
And the PJs are brown not grey, and rather than a massive black roo, they have a far more subtle brown one
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 13th Aug 2012 at 15:01.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 121.5
Age: 59
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point here is that QANTAS LAX never keep enough PJs of any size and these pax have probably been let down on a number of occasions including not having their desired meal available and IFE being on the fritz on more than one occasion.
The problem is we usually talk the talk but NOTHING ever changes. So, a business person who doesn't want to sit in their suit for 14 hours is left with one sound means of 'getting through' to management. Angry letters and all that stuff don't have any effect. This reaction does and good on them I say.
It's high time we started walking the walk. The world is full of Y-gen bull**** artists. So there!
The problem is we usually talk the talk but NOTHING ever changes. So, a business person who doesn't want to sit in their suit for 14 hours is left with one sound means of 'getting through' to management. Angry letters and all that stuff don't have any effect. This reaction does and good on them I say.
It's high time we started walking the walk. The world is full of Y-gen bull**** artists. So there!
No limo on QF First
Also makes me think of the latest announcement regarding the OOL service. Ch 9 flogged it this morning. So are management listening to their customers? might be a big supply heading to LAX now to ensure that there are always XL, XXL or XXXL PJ' ready !!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 73
Originally Posted by Rom
Business to First isn't such a huge step.
I was told that this is what JB introduced, it was not advertised because 'it was suppose to be the Australian way, i.e. don't brag, just do it'
What I meant was the jump in service level from Business to First (even allowing for the transit) is not as great as the jump in service when you go from Economy to Business. Diminishing returns and all that.
Last edited by Romulus; 14th Aug 2012 at 05:00.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jump to first class
I travel business regularly enough and these days for pleasure, but I have used first several times to understand the differences are not value enough.
So why pay the difference? Romulus is right to say "for the experience"
It IS an experience, and while the "experience" is great, it does wear off. Like buying a new car, it's great driving it and getting used to the bells and whistles, but you get used to it.
Business and skybeds are great as well, and the experience isn't that different.
If you have used first enough, you get used to it and you find you don't use most of the services for which you have paid.
Mostly I've travelled overnight so it's really only the bed. It's the same comfort in business as first in my view.
That's my "experience".
So why pay the difference? Romulus is right to say "for the experience"
It IS an experience, and while the "experience" is great, it does wear off. Like buying a new car, it's great driving it and getting used to the bells and whistles, but you get used to it.
Business and skybeds are great as well, and the experience isn't that different.
If you have used first enough, you get used to it and you find you don't use most of the services for which you have paid.
Mostly I've travelled overnight so it's really only the bed. It's the same comfort in business as first in my view.
That's my "experience".
Sometimes it goes the other way.
I have it straight from the horse [shall we say] that a couple of weeks before the alleged pyjama incident a crew delayed in LAX waiting for First Class doonas [the quilty things that first class pax are provided with to sleep on].
At 30 minutes to departure the Duty Manager was notified that the doona department were 8 short. At departure time, still no show. Pressure, pressure - gotta go.
Oh, well, not really - not without the doonas anyway.
So, the waiting began. It took about another 20 mins., but 8 doonas duly arrived and the flight pushed back soon after. Blows the Manager's KPIs out of the water, but hey, it kept the suits happy.
It isn't rocket science.
At 30 minutes to departure the Duty Manager was notified that the doona department were 8 short. At departure time, still no show. Pressure, pressure - gotta go.
Oh, well, not really - not without the doonas anyway.
So, the waiting began. It took about another 20 mins., but 8 doonas duly arrived and the flight pushed back soon after. Blows the Manager's KPIs out of the water, but hey, it kept the suits happy.
It isn't rocket science.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 14th Aug 2012 at 11:44.