Qantas London base
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: anyware and everyware
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an idea but if QF are opening a base in the uk and BA are opening a base in aus, why not just second the respective crews to each other in their home countries? that way both airlines can save their hotel penies and the crew can stop bitching cause they'l still have their jobs! just an idea!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q-Tee, I love your work.
I have enjoyed reading about the positive outlook you have on the coming changes, and they ARE coming.
Unfortunately not all your colleagues will see this and will not survive. 70's style militant unionism just doesn't work anymore. Thankfully they are in the minority.
I wish you all the luck in the world on your adventure.
I have enjoyed reading about the positive outlook you have on the coming changes, and they ARE coming.
Unfortunately not all your colleagues will see this and will not survive. 70's style militant unionism just doesn't work anymore. Thankfully they are in the minority.
I wish you all the luck in the world on your adventure.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas will create hundreds of cabin crew jobs in Britain
Dominic O’Connell
THE Australian airline Qantas is to create several hundred jobs in southeast England by establishing its first British base for cabin crew.
Qantas confirmed last week that it would employ 400 cabin crew in Britain to staff its flights from Heathrow. Industry sources have told The Sunday Times that UK employment could eventually grow to 1,000. Australians working for the airline in Australia would be given first call on the new jobs, chief executive Geoff Dixon said.
"QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE"
JBM,
Id give your comments on 70's style unionism a little rethink given events of late.
Teachers, busdrivers,Combank on Friday.It seems to me that the wheel has turned.
How does a Virgin Blue FA like yourself state with such authority the feelings of QF longhaul about the current climate.
I see PLENTY and they dont seem happy about the issues to me?
L2P
Dominic O’Connell
THE Australian airline Qantas is to create several hundred jobs in southeast England by establishing its first British base for cabin crew.
Qantas confirmed last week that it would employ 400 cabin crew in Britain to staff its flights from Heathrow. Industry sources have told The Sunday Times that UK employment could eventually grow to 1,000. Australians working for the airline in Australia would be given first call on the new jobs, chief executive Geoff Dixon said.
"QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE"
JBM,
Id give your comments on 70's style unionism a little rethink given events of late.
Teachers, busdrivers,Combank on Friday.It seems to me that the wheel has turned.
How does a Virgin Blue FA like yourself state with such authority the feelings of QF longhaul about the current climate.
I see PLENTY and they dont seem happy about the issues to me?
L2P
Last edited by Left2primary; 30th Jun 2004 at 23:20.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floaty
I dont find it acceptable AT ALL, and I am sure you wouldnt find it acceptable if all B.A. flights out of Australia were crewed by Australians or all B.A. flights out of the United States were crewed by Americans, that's what we are talking about here.
There are 400 positions on offer and say no current long haul crew go up to London, that means ALL flights into and out of the U.K. will be crewed by U.K. Citizens as Qantas has made it clear NO Australian based crew will be ever going back. That is my point, it is unacceptable to have a base full of U.K. Citizens operating OUR national airline.
The chances of getting a Flight Attendant job with Qantas in Australia are slim to none these days so why should U.K. Citizens be taking jobs that thousands of Australians rightly deserve. That is why I hope all 400 positions are filled and continue to be filled by Australians ONLY.
I dont find it acceptable AT ALL, and I am sure you wouldnt find it acceptable if all B.A. flights out of Australia were crewed by Australians or all B.A. flights out of the United States were crewed by Americans, that's what we are talking about here.
There are 400 positions on offer and say no current long haul crew go up to London, that means ALL flights into and out of the U.K. will be crewed by U.K. Citizens as Qantas has made it clear NO Australian based crew will be ever going back. That is my point, it is unacceptable to have a base full of U.K. Citizens operating OUR national airline.
The chances of getting a Flight Attendant job with Qantas in Australia are slim to none these days so why should U.K. Citizens be taking jobs that thousands of Australians rightly deserve. That is why I hope all 400 positions are filled and continue to be filled by Australians ONLY.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self Interest
Airline management are united and focussed.Cabin crew in this forum appear to be motivated by self interest.Mix this with a few outsiders,pilots et al and you have a lot of anger and vitriol.End result: lots of anger and little else.This is why we (long haul CC)have lost and relinquished so much in the last 10 years.We fight amongst ourselves.Some want seniority others dont.Same with the bid system.Everyone complains but no one provides a viable alternative.
We are all destination focussed.We go to work to pay the bills,the destinations are a bonus.The slip formula and the pay keep this job/lifestyle enjoyable.
Can we please have some positive creative ideas.
The vitriol should be vented on QF management not on each other
We are all destination focussed.We go to work to pay the bills,the destinations are a bonus.The slip formula and the pay keep this job/lifestyle enjoyable.
Can we please have some positive creative ideas.
The vitriol should be vented on QF management not on each other
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this thread, with an open mind to all the points that have been mentioned and now I just want to express what I feel. I want to highlight that I am not a flight attendant and am Australian.
I think that the main issues that have been discussed or the main concern is......
A:
That some QF crew don't want people other than Australians working from the London Base.
I kind of think that it is a very narrow minded approach and resembles views of Pauline Hanson and her hideous claims and attacks against other ethnic groups taking jobs away from Australians.
Also I would think the experience of working with foreign crews would add to the excitement and interest in working with different races and for an international airline.
B:
Further more QF is being referred to as the "Worlds greediest airline", and how greedy they are for money.
Is it not the crew who are complaining about the London base, primarily concerned about the reduced money/allowances, reduced destinations and reduced Australain crew crewing flights, portraying themselves as greedy too?
A lot of companies go through change and develpoment, that see currrent situations for the employees changed, that effects them directly, though most tend to adapt to the change and continue, and more often than not, new and sometimes better outcomes are acheived for both the employees, customers and business.
Even though QF is making record profits, doesn't make it wrong for it to want to increase the profit share even more. Unfortunatley the areas they look in are the area's where money can be saved.
If it was your company I ask what you would do. Would you settle for the current state, or would you want your company to grow more and more financially?
C:
Why don't people try and look at other area's in the company where reductions can be made, or possiblities other than what is being done now and putting it forward to management as you guys are the ones who probably know the company the best? By being proactive in providing alternatives or other solutions to what is being put through by management now may help in some way.
D:
I understand, feel sorry for and sympathise with the what has happened re the shortlist. I think that maybe QF could have held on to the shortlist applicants longer and offered them the positions that may come up in the future for the London base, and do think that they should have given shortlisters the opportunity to take up the Auckland base if they wanted to.
E:
I am only expressing my view, and indeed might I add that I may lack the knowledge, exact circumtstances and conditions that others may be privvy to, but just wanted to post.
No harm or upset to anyone is meant.
Have a great day.
RaverFlaver
I think that the main issues that have been discussed or the main concern is......
A:
That some QF crew don't want people other than Australians working from the London Base.
I kind of think that it is a very narrow minded approach and resembles views of Pauline Hanson and her hideous claims and attacks against other ethnic groups taking jobs away from Australians.
Also I would think the experience of working with foreign crews would add to the excitement and interest in working with different races and for an international airline.
B:
Further more QF is being referred to as the "Worlds greediest airline", and how greedy they are for money.
Is it not the crew who are complaining about the London base, primarily concerned about the reduced money/allowances, reduced destinations and reduced Australain crew crewing flights, portraying themselves as greedy too?
A lot of companies go through change and develpoment, that see currrent situations for the employees changed, that effects them directly, though most tend to adapt to the change and continue, and more often than not, new and sometimes better outcomes are acheived for both the employees, customers and business.
Even though QF is making record profits, doesn't make it wrong for it to want to increase the profit share even more. Unfortunatley the areas they look in are the area's where money can be saved.
If it was your company I ask what you would do. Would you settle for the current state, or would you want your company to grow more and more financially?
C:
Why don't people try and look at other area's in the company where reductions can be made, or possiblities other than what is being done now and putting it forward to management as you guys are the ones who probably know the company the best? By being proactive in providing alternatives or other solutions to what is being put through by management now may help in some way.
D:
I understand, feel sorry for and sympathise with the what has happened re the shortlist. I think that maybe QF could have held on to the shortlist applicants longer and offered them the positions that may come up in the future for the London base, and do think that they should have given shortlisters the opportunity to take up the Auckland base if they wanted to.
E:
I am only expressing my view, and indeed might I add that I may lack the knowledge, exact circumtstances and conditions that others may be privvy to, but just wanted to post.
No harm or upset to anyone is meant.
Have a great day.
RaverFlaver
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Passenger
Everyone seems to forget about the self loading cargo.With the cost cutting.network reduction and reduction in service they suffer more than anybody.They are the reason we have a job.I am embarrassed by the service we offer them.Imagine telling a 1st class passenger they cant have more fish or potatoes because the bean counters have only budgetted for them to have particular portion size.15 grand LAX/SYD return and you have to say no to them.They are the ones copping it in the neck.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My biggest issue with all of this is that QF will not offer Australian's cabin crew positions with the airline but are more than happy to export the positions off-shore. I couldnt care less if it was London, L.A. or Singapore the fact remains Australians cant even get a job with Qantas as cabin crew so any bases opened should, if they can, be operated and crewed by Australians. At least this would give people the opportunity to work as cabin crew with their national carrier.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P
With great respect, you still can't accept that abuse isn't an acceptable form of argument. Also, you still have difficulty in coming to terms with the damage you and others of your ilk have done to QANTAS.
You should look at the Skytrax 'World's Best Cabin Staff for 2004' awards here Globally, for the second year running, QANTAS fails to make the top ten. Regionally, QF ranks five out of five. Why?
Could one reason possibly be, as 34R suggests,
the number 1 aviation groupee speaks!!!
You should look at the Skytrax 'World's Best Cabin Staff for 2004' awards here Globally, for the second year running, QANTAS fails to make the top ten. Regionally, QF ranks five out of five. Why?
Could one reason possibly be, as 34R suggests,
It is people like you that is wrong with Qantas.
If you really hate the place as much as you do, are as appalled with management as you say you are, by all means, make a stand. RESIGN. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are still there.
If you really hate the place as much as you do, are as appalled with management as you say you are, by all means, make a stand. RESIGN. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are still there.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
what exactly is the damage that myself and others have done to Qantas and what are your views on Qantas exporting hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost its already record bottom line?
Please answer.
L2P
what exactly is the damage that myself and others have done to Qantas and what are your views on Qantas exporting hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost its already record bottom line?
Please answer.
L2P
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P
Letting your 'belt and braces' negativity influence adversely your attitude to passengers and colleagues, with a consequent fall off in service delivery standards and lowering of staff morale.
This is a separate issue, which is not as clear-cut as you assert. My personal view is that where possible, we should keep jobs in Oz. You seem to be saying that no jobs should ever be transferred offshore; and that those currently employed by QF (such as yourself?) should be guaranteed a job for life, irrespective of whether you loath the Management or not. In fact it seems your position is that loathing management is a prime criterion for continued employment with QF.
QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.
QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. But to achieve its commercial objective, it can either conclude individual agreements with each FA or reach some form of accommodation with the union. In this case, it's probably the latter although doubtless QANTAS would wish for the former if at all possible.
That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. Others have pointed out that without passengers, there’s no revenue. It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on terms under which such staff might retrain and move on. The Commonwealth Public Service had a term for this process - enlivenment. Who knows, there might even be the prospect of a 'win win' - disenchanted staff become redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some assistance from QANTAS; any consequential vacancies are filled by enthusiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; Argus and other ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure and dividends to shareholders increase.
what exactly is the damage that myself and others have done to Qantas
what are your views on Qantas exporting hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost its already record bottom line?
QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.
QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. But to achieve its commercial objective, it can either conclude individual agreements with each FA or reach some form of accommodation with the union. In this case, it's probably the latter although doubtless QANTAS would wish for the former if at all possible.
That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. Others have pointed out that without passengers, there’s no revenue. It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on terms under which such staff might retrain and move on. The Commonwealth Public Service had a term for this process - enlivenment. Who knows, there might even be the prospect of a 'win win' - disenchanted staff become redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some assistance from QANTAS; any consequential vacancies are filled by enthusiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; Argus and other ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure and dividends to shareholders increase.
Last edited by Argus; 1st Jul 2004 at 10:09.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tough Love
Argus
Having a bit of difficulty following the rationale in your post...
So what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that in order for service to improve at Qantas, and for its financial performance to improve, the airline should reduce the number of Australians it employs?
And those who disagree with the decision to introduce a de facto ban on recruiting Australian domiciled persons, for Flight Attendant positions, are a cause of workplace negativity and poor service standards?
Try as hard as I can, I can't see anything 'anti management' in L2P's posts. What I do see is an attempt to encourage awareness that new management policies are not necessarily going to bring about the cost efficiencies that are being promoted.
Having a different persective to the status quo is actually pro-management, pro-company, being vocal is part of quality management process that embraces continuous improvement.
If the overseas base model is so efficient then why has every airline Lesley has introduced this at gone bankrupt?
Having a bit of difficulty following the rationale in your post...
So what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that in order for service to improve at Qantas, and for its financial performance to improve, the airline should reduce the number of Australians it employs?
And those who disagree with the decision to introduce a de facto ban on recruiting Australian domiciled persons, for Flight Attendant positions, are a cause of workplace negativity and poor service standards?
Try as hard as I can, I can't see anything 'anti management' in L2P's posts. What I do see is an attempt to encourage awareness that new management policies are not necessarily going to bring about the cost efficiencies that are being promoted.
Having a different persective to the status quo is actually pro-management, pro-company, being vocal is part of quality management process that embraces continuous improvement.
If the overseas base model is so efficient then why has every airline Lesley has introduced this at gone bankrupt?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
Im having a little trouble with your logic too.
My [negative] concerns relate to QF mass offshore employment plans and the attack on Australian based crew's conditions of employment.
CC at QF are professional enough to make distinctions on varying aspects of their lives.
Frustration with management practise does not automatically flow through to passenger service despite your assertions.
Poor moral at QF is a symptom of management practice not peoples attitude to it.
I assume you heard of, "cause and effect". [or is it affect?]
Any assertion of yours about poor CC performance at QF indicates an inability of MANAGEMENT to "performance manage" those that dont meet grade.
Why dont you address your concerns to them.They are the ones paid to be responsible.
The loss of hundreds of Australian jobs is at the heart of the matter are far more important than "senior executive" performance bonuses and share prices.
Excepting of course if you are one of the pigs at the trough.
L2P
QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE
Im having a little trouble with your logic too.
My [negative] concerns relate to QF mass offshore employment plans and the attack on Australian based crew's conditions of employment.
CC at QF are professional enough to make distinctions on varying aspects of their lives.
Frustration with management practise does not automatically flow through to passenger service despite your assertions.
Poor moral at QF is a symptom of management practice not peoples attitude to it.
I assume you heard of, "cause and effect". [or is it affect?]
Any assertion of yours about poor CC performance at QF indicates an inability of MANAGEMENT to "performance manage" those that dont meet grade.
Why dont you address your concerns to them.They are the ones paid to be responsible.
The loss of hundreds of Australian jobs is at the heart of the matter are far more important than "senior executive" performance bonuses and share prices.
Excepting of course if you are one of the pigs at the trough.
L2P
QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE
Last edited by Left2primary; 1st Jul 2004 at 13:13.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus:Qantas Service Failure
Service delivery failure in any industry is the responsibility of management.
To deliver excellent service you need to spend money Eg Emirates.
Service delivery failure at QF is so bad thet they have provided all onboard managers with a service recovery kit.This is a bandaid for the symptons not the causes of a system that is failing due to a lack of investment.
It is now a prerequisite to be able to apologize in 15 different languages to be an effective QF crew member.
Morale is non existant and crew are dismayed at not be able to do their jobs due to lack of resources.There is only one other airline that has less crew on a 3 class 400 and that is Air New Zealand.Air New Zealand collapsed and was bailed out by the New Zealand government.Lesley Grant was a member of the management team that precipitated Air New Zealand's failure.She is now weaving her magic at QF.She is being ably assisted by a variety of other failures from BA.Not one person in the Cabin
Services management team is an Australian.
There are currently 1400 Long Haul crew with their names on the transfer list to shorthaul.What does that tell you?
In 1980 Qantas was an excellent airline and a reasonable business.In 2004 it is a good business and mediocre airline-A quote from a QF Platinum frequent flyer.
QF Long haul crew are under siege and thats why they are not in the top ten in the Skytrax Surveys
To deliver excellent service you need to spend money Eg Emirates.
Service delivery failure at QF is so bad thet they have provided all onboard managers with a service recovery kit.This is a bandaid for the symptons not the causes of a system that is failing due to a lack of investment.
It is now a prerequisite to be able to apologize in 15 different languages to be an effective QF crew member.
Morale is non existant and crew are dismayed at not be able to do their jobs due to lack of resources.There is only one other airline that has less crew on a 3 class 400 and that is Air New Zealand.Air New Zealand collapsed and was bailed out by the New Zealand government.Lesley Grant was a member of the management team that precipitated Air New Zealand's failure.She is now weaving her magic at QF.She is being ably assisted by a variety of other failures from BA.Not one person in the Cabin
Services management team is an Australian.
There are currently 1400 Long Haul crew with their names on the transfer list to shorthaul.What does that tell you?
In 1980 Qantas was an excellent airline and a reasonable business.In 2004 it is a good business and mediocre airline-A quote from a QF Platinum frequent flyer.
QF Long haul crew are under siege and thats why they are not in the top ten in the Skytrax Surveys
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vacation Jan/Feb 2005
Thinking about a vacation during January and February 2005?Don't use the Qantas International Network.This is about the time the EBA negotiations will collapse and everything will go pear shape
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow Rocket
What I’m saying is that I believe there’s a correlation between poor QF staff morale (for whatever reasons) and poor customer service. I’m not suggesting, however, that this is solely the fault of the cabin staff. As in all walks of life, it takes two to tango. QF management over the years has consistently failed to grapple with all of the issues that contributors to this thread have identified as being major divisive workplace and culture/attitudinal issues.
As I previously said, the locating of jobs offshore is a separate issue. Some see opportunities, others see threats. Being but a humble ‘punter’ (sorry to disappoint you L2P no snout in the trough - I don't even own Qantas shares, let alone work or have ever applied to work for QF or any other airline), I’m not privy to the small print. However, from what other posters have said, there’s a safety net for those who accept; and no forced redundancies for those who don’t. On this basis, it seems a 'win/win' situation to me.
What does concerns me is that in all of the bickering, there’s no consideration for the poor old customer who pays the fares that keeps the whole show on the road. Complaints to Qantas either go unanswered or are responded to in ambiguous language that rarely answers the questions put by the complainant. Cabin service is, at best something of a lottery. So punters vote with their feet.
Take a moment to look again at the 2004 Cabin Staff survey The supporting information says that it attracted more than two million (2,117,846) eligible nominations from 93 different nationalities over a 10 month period, there were detailed back-up interviews of a representative sample of respondents and, finally, data weighting was applied to provide nomination equity when evaluating airlines of different size and network. Unless that’s all a load of guff, it’s a well run survey, with reliable results.
So the question is, if QF fails to make the top 10, two years in a row, when will ALL who are resonsible for customer service get on with the job of lifting the company's game?
What I’m saying is that I believe there’s a correlation between poor QF staff morale (for whatever reasons) and poor customer service. I’m not suggesting, however, that this is solely the fault of the cabin staff. As in all walks of life, it takes two to tango. QF management over the years has consistently failed to grapple with all of the issues that contributors to this thread have identified as being major divisive workplace and culture/attitudinal issues.
As I previously said, the locating of jobs offshore is a separate issue. Some see opportunities, others see threats. Being but a humble ‘punter’ (sorry to disappoint you L2P no snout in the trough - I don't even own Qantas shares, let alone work or have ever applied to work for QF or any other airline), I’m not privy to the small print. However, from what other posters have said, there’s a safety net for those who accept; and no forced redundancies for those who don’t. On this basis, it seems a 'win/win' situation to me.
What does concerns me is that in all of the bickering, there’s no consideration for the poor old customer who pays the fares that keeps the whole show on the road. Complaints to Qantas either go unanswered or are responded to in ambiguous language that rarely answers the questions put by the complainant. Cabin service is, at best something of a lottery. So punters vote with their feet.
Take a moment to look again at the 2004 Cabin Staff survey The supporting information says that it attracted more than two million (2,117,846) eligible nominations from 93 different nationalities over a 10 month period, there were detailed back-up interviews of a representative sample of respondents and, finally, data weighting was applied to provide nomination equity when evaluating airlines of different size and network. Unless that’s all a load of guff, it’s a well run survey, with reliable results.
So the question is, if QF fails to make the top 10, two years in a row, when will ALL who are resonsible for customer service get on with the job of lifting the company's game?
Last edited by Argus; 2nd Jul 2004 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
Worse than that, the Skytrax survey only rated QF 5th
in the Australia/Pacific.
Regional Ranking
AUSTRALIA / PACIFIC
1. Air Tahiti Nui
2. Air New Zealand
3. Polynesian Airlines
4. Air Calin
5. Qantas Airways
This is bad when the Australian overseas airline ranks this low.
Worse than that, the Skytrax survey only rated QF 5th
in the Australia/Pacific.
Regional Ranking
AUSTRALIA / PACIFIC
1. Air Tahiti Nui
2. Air New Zealand
3. Polynesian Airlines
4. Air Calin
5. Qantas Airways
This is bad when the Australian overseas airline ranks this low.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus whilst what you are saying about poor customer service from QF cabin staff MAY be true, it is not really fair to shoot the messenger ie. just the cabin crew in this instance.
As per Prof. James Reason's model - there is more than just one cause and there may be many failures contributing.
Perhaps looking into WHY cabin crew are not giving exceptional customer service will help establish the real reason behind a poor performance in the survey.
Poor morale is just one reason... no doubt there are many more. I think it is safe to say that QF management's attempt to move jobs offshore is not contributing to an improvement in cabin crew's morale or work ethic.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
SG
As per Prof. James Reason's model - there is more than just one cause and there may be many failures contributing.
Perhaps looking into WHY cabin crew are not giving exceptional customer service will help establish the real reason behind a poor performance in the survey.
Poor morale is just one reason... no doubt there are many more. I think it is safe to say that QF management's attempt to move jobs offshore is not contributing to an improvement in cabin crew's morale or work ethic.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
SG