Is there a linear, positively correlated relationship with wearing white jackets and increased redundancy in a declining market? If so...please state the appropriate Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and corresponding coefficient of determination statistic (r squared). Please use hypothesis testing and support your claims with a 2-tailed significance figure and appropriate t-value and degrees of freedom. Also cite in your report the 95% confidence interval of the population parameter.

Or in other words (there are pilots reading this, we need to keep it simple, use pictures whenever possible), is anyone going to loose there job over this?
I think not. :ugh:

rmcdonal
 

It does not appear likely that there is an intrinsic correlation between wearing white jackets and "increased redundancy in a declining market" ...as you have quoted and substituted....however:

1. We are not certain that redundancies will not happen

2. Unnecessary spending on non-value added items or processes could INDIRECTLY lead to redundancies.....which is paradoxical in a sense.

IF IT WERE TRUE...that the introduction of white jackets would lead to increased sales revenue in a declining market....then the company's spending foray would perhaps reap greater economic efficiencies if they made us wear Kabayas like SQ. Clearly...it is not the uniform that distinguishes an airline....its the product and service offering. SQ have a great product and service....there's no need to meddle with uniforms. QF on the other hand, have a comparatively average service and product......SOLUTION....give the crew new white jackets instead of spending it on other product enhancing things. :ugh:It doesn't make sense.

I can now see where the cost savings of voting managers off the island went to....buying new white Scotch-gaurd fabric at Lincraft.

Regards,
Domestos :)

pylet...As I suggested...stick to flying.
Perhaps not but if the bean counters are suggesting that 'X' number of crew are made redundant to save money in this current climate due to a reduction in demand for flying....

Then they spend $300,000 or more on a superfluous item that does nothing to increase yield or an increase in revenue I'm sure the shareholders would like to know...

And for those of you who think....."Yes but SQ/CX/EK/EY have more money lining their pockets and different cost structures...therefore they can afford to offer great service/product".....

Unfortunately....the travelling public judges airlines by one standard only....service, product, and 'value per each dollar spent'. They do not care if the other airlines have different wages/cost structures/oil fields to finance them etc....at the end of the day...they will still compare apples with oranges with mandarins.

For instance.....

1. CX have 3 meal choices in Y/C....two meat dishes and a third one which is vegetarian. QF....you'd be lucky to even get a meal choice....and vegetarian...don't count on it always being onboard.

2. CX carry Johnny Walker Black Label as standard scotch pours in Y/C....on QF you get Johnny Walker Red.

3. TG....carry full bottles of premium wines on top of their carts in Y/C together with full bottles of Camus brandy. Their meal trays are bigger in size than your fold down tray table. After main meal service in Y/C, crew walk out and pour glasses of Camus brandy and offer it to everyone....yes in Y/C. OK admittedly, TG don't have a world class IFE system.

My point is...the money QF spends on stupid things like white jackets or other niggly bits does not add value to the product being offered to customers. The money spent on QF could be better utlised by providing better amenties kits for pax, offering more meal choices and increasing the meal size etc.

Regards,
Domestos :)

Qantas keep pounding crew: Focus on customer! + shoulders back! + name badge straight! + smile! + be attentive! etc etc :yuk:....

.....but sadly at the end of the day....if your product is crap.....your product is crap. FULLSTOP. No amount of smiling or eXceptional training courses will save you....they can only go so far. Sooner (if not already), the customer will see beyond the smoke song/dance.

Regards,
Domestos :)

that is so true domestos, in fact SQ had never changed their uniform once since they started, it is always that demure sarong and a nice batik embroidery number for the top, it has always been like this. This is the trade mark.

I also agree that the Asian carriers have bigger meal portion, I think too, the Asian carrier offer newspapers to Y/C, in QF they only do that in J/C and you had to be some chairman lounge in Y/C to get a miserable newspaper.
And that silly cheap chocolate and mint tea that Qantas got for free from manufacturers to off load to customers, what on earth does that do? Nothing.

Offer a nice filling multi choice meal instead, and customers will appreciate it over some stupid cheap no cost item, and as for a white jacket, honestly, that does not add value for the customer.

Must be one of Grant's bold exceptional idea, somebody just sack her, useless piece of nz trash.

i might just
 

add a bit here. recently travelled on TG and the big difference was that there were a lot more crew in y/c and the space between seats(agree with meals being bigger and as QF used to have open bottles of wine). even with all the extra personal the service was good but slow( second glass of wine took forever). walking around later in the flight i realised premium cabins were more or less empty. ;)
white serving jacket will almost certainly be a disaster;
looks crushed coming out of the cabin bag inflight
galley operators will carry stains on way or another.
dry cleaning costs will go throught the roof
i can see clause 11 coming up for some of the above issues:yuk:
who says we QF needs to save money?
look at the restructuring of senior managers in qf cabin services??
different titles no change-maybe a few of the lower managers will see the door shortly but overall the same story- go figure:sad:

heads down
 

I totally agree with you agreeing with me...LOL :) and I am sure my fellow colleagues would agree with us too.

I'm quite happy to forgo the poky $500 EBA bonus or whatever other cash incentives the company decides to dream up in their limited wisdom...if it means that the average Mr. Tom Dickenson got a bigger serving of desert or Mrs. Cynthia Rowbottom got a larger portion of beef in her meal. If it means investing in the customer hard product and enhancing the loyalty of our brand, then I am all for it. For :mad: sake...give the customer what they want....give them what market forces dictate. Stop taking away from customers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Band-aid solutions such as white jackets and Warehouse of Excellence do jack all to make Tom and Cynthia want to fly Qantas again.

The company has clutched the 'safest airline in the world' straws for so long that it is becoming tedious and monotonous. OK...so there are many safe airlines around the world.....and...what else do you offer Qantas??? Yeah OK...people like the (sometimes) down to earth friendly nature of Qantas....but you know what...if I were a passenger and had the choice between robotic consistent pleasant service with big meal trays and great IFE on an Asian carrrier.......OR.....'friendly, engaging, down to earth service' with small pokey meals and IFE failures on Qantas....I know who I'd give my money to.

But folks...do you know what the sad thing is.....customers pay more to fly with Qantas.....AND THEY GET LESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
Domestos :)

The White Serving Jackets are only being trialled on the A380 in First Class so it will only affect a handful of people. 30 max. Current Black Service Jackets are not allowed to be Dry Cleaned so it won't affect the Dry Cleaning costs at Qantas. And those black things are like Teflon so you hose it off and your good to go.

As soon as the company accepts that it's an Airline and not a Neil Perry Restaurant in the Sky and get rid of Aprons and Serving jackets (and Perry for that matter) altogether and give us vests back instead of "knitware" the company will be one step closer to regaining some credible ground.

When you think about it Singaporeans and Thai's (as a general rule) are not big drinkers so Thai Airways and Singapore can afford to have bottles of wine. The Australians on the other hand can drink a bottle of wine to themselves. Imagine the bottles you would have to carry and the varietys to keep 200 passengers happy on a daylight LAX flight in economy.

Agreeded with the serving size and variety in Economy. Ditch the 2 x meal services to SIN and have sandwiches and muffins like CX do (or used to do).

As we all know any feedback would fall on deaf ears and you would not be supportive of the company and they would try to clause 11 you out of the company.

Thank goodness for PPRUNE:D

Small individual bottles of Y/C wine are a recent development.

It's easier, quicker and more efficient to hand a bottle to a passenger than to fill a glass and pass it.

I think it would be a retrograde step to return to full size bottles for both passenger and crew.

White serving jackets ?

Pfffttt.......:rolleyes:

Typical of Qantas to try putting lipstick on a pig.