Vanessa’s lovely message to members
"Rex have shady ways of bolstering numbers." What are these ways?
As an aside, Rex is killing it in the marketing. They just hit the right spot in terms of appearing genuine which is the marketing gold at the moment. Qantas has the silver tongue gumph from marketing as per the OP's posts that anyone can see through and it just looks old fashioned.. It is a tricky one for Qantas, the only thing they could do is show they care for more than only profit and corporate bonuses, but as a public company, they really can't. Another sleeper marketing issue i think for Qantas is their FF program. With virtually nonredeemable flights unless you are retired and can book a year in advance, it has alienated from the Qantas brand the very people it should be trying to befriend. All in all, while i think people still feel warmth towards the Qantas front line staff recognizing it is not their fault, the QANTAS brand feels like a family member who ripped off the inheritance.
Qantas is the best positioned in the industry due to a lot of legacy factors, but it is well past its Peter Allan days. It will be in its Alan Joyce days for at least a decade brand-wise.
As an aside, Rex is killing it in the marketing. They just hit the right spot in terms of appearing genuine which is the marketing gold at the moment. Qantas has the silver tongue gumph from marketing as per the OP's posts that anyone can see through and it just looks old fashioned.. It is a tricky one for Qantas, the only thing they could do is show they care for more than only profit and corporate bonuses, but as a public company, they really can't. Another sleeper marketing issue i think for Qantas is their FF program. With virtually nonredeemable flights unless you are retired and can book a year in advance, it has alienated from the Qantas brand the very people it should be trying to befriend. All in all, while i think people still feel warmth towards the Qantas front line staff recognizing it is not their fault, the QANTAS brand feels like a family member who ripped off the inheritance.
Qantas is the best positioned in the industry due to a lot of legacy factors, but it is well past its Peter Allan days. It will be in its Alan Joyce days for at least a decade brand-wise.
The Newcastle to Adelaide flight was to be operated by a contacted company, not Qantas nor Qantas owned
Take-off to Adelaide with QantasLink
Take off from Newcastle to Adelaide with Qantas.
You can now fly direct to Adelaide 5 times a week on a Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.With a flight time of just 2 hours and 20 minutes a weekend trip to South Australia just got a whole lot easier.
Fly out Friday and return Sunday or stay a little longer and fly home on Monday, the choice is yours.
Qantas has partnered with Alliance Airlines to operate an Embraer E190 jet aircraft on this service with 10 business and 84 economy seats. The E190 is the perfect size for the short flight time.
If you are booking online you may see a description such as 'Flight QF1969 is operated by Alliance Airlines' or similar, and when boarding the plane you will notice it features Alliance Airlines' livery and logos.
Ads are subjective so unless you would like me to recruit a focus group I don't have any.. But the favorable PR featuring senior manager (CEO?) talking to camera about how they are full service, they dont charge for bags etc seemed to hit the spot along with things like the on time rankings report. I don't see any social advertisements for Qantas lately, but when they did pop up on my feed they would have done more harm than good.
20 years ago there seemed to be a big difference between a low cost airline and a traditional carrier.
Right now it seems the only difference is if the baggage is included or if I need to check a box to make it included during the booking.
QF offers little to nothing more, at 6'2" the seats aren't any more comfortable in a QF737 than a JQ320.
(Except when travelling business class)
Right now it seems the only difference is if the baggage is included or if I need to check a box to make it included during the booking.
QF offers little to nothing more, at 6'2" the seats aren't any more comfortable in a QF737 than a JQ320.
(Except when travelling business class)
20 years ago there seemed to be a big difference between a low cost airline and a traditional carrier.
Right now it seems the only difference is if the baggage is included or if I need to check a box to make it included during the booking.
QF offers little to nothing more, at 6'2" the seats aren't any more comfortable in a QF737 than a JQ320.
(Except when travelling business class)
Right now it seems the only difference is if the baggage is included or if I need to check a box to make it included during the booking.
QF offers little to nothing more, at 6'2" the seats aren't any more comfortable in a QF737 than a JQ320.
(Except when travelling business class)
People may react differently to different advertising but when it comes to marketing, it is there to ultimately put bums on seats and transfer cash from the punter to the business.
My point was only really to agree with the OP. and most other posters. Qantas as a brand was destroyed over the last ten yrs and sugary words from Vanessa or a new chairman won't change that. SO many things, including its involvement in Joyce's political beliefs, its alleged rorting of jobkeeper, its screwing of the worker (baggage handlers for example.). There is not much the marketing people could do right now for domestic anyway.. Can't polish that turd. But if Qantas actually made some changes on the ground, for example investing in excess capacity so that it always was on top of cancellation/delayed rankings rather than doing worse than the so called "budget airlines:, and then advertised that fact, it would be something. I mean if you are going to call yourself premium, there has to be some difference. And there isnt. It feels a bit more special getting on Bonza at the moment than Qantas for me anyway. But Qantas has the netwrk and frequency so it wont be challenged too much.
There is a difference between what a company says and what it does. Granted, QANTAS is not the only airline guilty of this but it's hard not to imagine QANTAS like a V-Dub with a Rolls Royce hood ornament, flattering to deceive.
‘Zero empathy’: Qantas refunds customer forced to pay $1900 for spelling mistake
https://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...22-p5f714.html
Qantas will refund a customer who was forced to cancel a flight booking and buy an airfare more than twice as expensive because of a spelling mistake.
Chris Bowers was left about $1900 out of pocket after he was advised by the national carrier that a typo in the spelling of a name on a booking from Japan to Australia could not be corrected because the itinerary contained a flight operated by Jetstar Japan.
Bowers booked a $1400 flight from Sapporo in Japan to Brisbane last November for his nephew Frazer Linscott to accompany his daughter Sasha on the flight.
But he made a typo when booking the airfare, spelling Linscott’s name with an “s” instead of a “z”.
“A hasty call to the Qantas customer care line informed me that the only solution was to cancel and rebook the flight,” Bowers said.
However, the cost of the flight had jumped since the original booking to more than $3000.
Qantas boss Vanessa Hudson last year promised to improve the airline’s customer service.
“The injustice was compounded when I discovered that the cancelled flight had also attracted a $300 cancellation charge bringing the total cost of a single letter spelling mistake to $1900,” Bowers said.
Bowers complained to Qantas and then the Airline Customer Advocate, a complaints body set up by Australian airlines that has long been regarded by consumer advocates “as a glorified post box” because it lacks powers to enact resolution outcomes on behalf of customers.
Qantas boss Vanessa Hudson last year promised to improve the airline’s customer service and review outdated customer policies such as charging customers to change their name on a ticket.
Hudson also apologised to customers in a video message.
“I know that we have let you down in many ways and for that, I am sorry,” she said. “We haven’t delivered the way we should have. And we’ve often been hard to deal with.”
However, a Qantas customer care representative told Bowers that customers could only correct names on bookings wholly operated by the national carrier.
“As your ticket also contained flights operated by Jetstar Japan (GK) , we advised you to cancel the booking and rebook; however, the fare is not guaranteed,” she said in an email dated January 24.
She also said Qantas would not refund the difference in fares but offered to “provide an insurance letter stating the changes made, and the fare difference paid when you made the change”.
A Qantas spokesman said changes made to bookings on other airlines on the same day attracted no fee. Qantas is a minority shareholder in Jetstar Japan.
“Whilst the customer was given the correct information from our customer care team regarding changes for a Jetstar Japan booking, we have offered the customer a refund for the cancellation fee as a gesture of goodwill,” he said.
However, one day after this masthead contacted Qantas, the airline offered Bowers a $1600 travel voucher “in recognition of your experience”.
Bowers said he was frustrated with the “zero empathy” shown by Qantas. “Despite asking multiple times whether they thought this was the right thing to do, they refused to engage,” he said.
Consumers’ Federation of Australia chairman Gerard Brody said there was a gap in the law when it came to unfair trade practices by airlines.
“Refusing to allow a simple name change and imposing additional costs by forcing the customer to cancel a ticket and make a new booking at significant expense doesn’t sound fair,” he said.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said last year in asubmission to the Aviation Green Paper that a lack of competition in the domestic airline industry had led to high prices, poor customer service, decreasing service quality and issues resolving disputes and obtaining redress.
The Consumers Federation of Australia wants an airline and travel ombudsman to resolve these sorts of complaints more efficiently and cheaply for consumers.
“At the moment, there is little access to justice with these sorts of complaints,” Brody said. “Consumers are largely reliant on the airline’s goodwill unless they have the time and resources to go to court.”
Chris Bowers was left about $1900 out of pocket after he was advised by the national carrier that a typo in the spelling of a name on a booking from Japan to Australia could not be corrected because the itinerary contained a flight operated by Jetstar Japan.
Bowers booked a $1400 flight from Sapporo in Japan to Brisbane last November for his nephew Frazer Linscott to accompany his daughter Sasha on the flight.
But he made a typo when booking the airfare, spelling Linscott’s name with an “s” instead of a “z”.
“A hasty call to the Qantas customer care line informed me that the only solution was to cancel and rebook the flight,” Bowers said.
However, the cost of the flight had jumped since the original booking to more than $3000.
Qantas boss Vanessa Hudson last year promised to improve the airline’s customer service.
“The injustice was compounded when I discovered that the cancelled flight had also attracted a $300 cancellation charge bringing the total cost of a single letter spelling mistake to $1900,” Bowers said.
Bowers complained to Qantas and then the Airline Customer Advocate, a complaints body set up by Australian airlines that has long been regarded by consumer advocates “as a glorified post box” because it lacks powers to enact resolution outcomes on behalf of customers.
Qantas boss Vanessa Hudson last year promised to improve the airline’s customer service and review outdated customer policies such as charging customers to change their name on a ticket.
Hudson also apologised to customers in a video message.
“I know that we have let you down in many ways and for that, I am sorry,” she said. “We haven’t delivered the way we should have. And we’ve often been hard to deal with.”
However, a Qantas customer care representative told Bowers that customers could only correct names on bookings wholly operated by the national carrier.
“As your ticket also contained flights operated by Jetstar Japan (GK) , we advised you to cancel the booking and rebook; however, the fare is not guaranteed,” she said in an email dated January 24.
She also said Qantas would not refund the difference in fares but offered to “provide an insurance letter stating the changes made, and the fare difference paid when you made the change”.
A Qantas spokesman said changes made to bookings on other airlines on the same day attracted no fee. Qantas is a minority shareholder in Jetstar Japan.
“Whilst the customer was given the correct information from our customer care team regarding changes for a Jetstar Japan booking, we have offered the customer a refund for the cancellation fee as a gesture of goodwill,” he said.
However, one day after this masthead contacted Qantas, the airline offered Bowers a $1600 travel voucher “in recognition of your experience”.
Bowers said he was frustrated with the “zero empathy” shown by Qantas. “Despite asking multiple times whether they thought this was the right thing to do, they refused to engage,” he said.
Consumers’ Federation of Australia chairman Gerard Brody said there was a gap in the law when it came to unfair trade practices by airlines.
“Refusing to allow a simple name change and imposing additional costs by forcing the customer to cancel a ticket and make a new booking at significant expense doesn’t sound fair,” he said.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said last year in asubmission to the Aviation Green Paper that a lack of competition in the domestic airline industry had led to high prices, poor customer service, decreasing service quality and issues resolving disputes and obtaining redress.
The Consumers Federation of Australia wants an airline and travel ombudsman to resolve these sorts of complaints more efficiently and cheaply for consumers.
“At the moment, there is little access to justice with these sorts of complaints,” Brody said. “Consumers are largely reliant on the airline’s goodwill unless they have the time and resources to go to court.”
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 25th Feb 2024 at 02:54. Reason: C&P due to paywall issue mentioned in post below
The following users liked this post:
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: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
Paywalled here.
