Are other airlines also as bad as Qantas?

[coco50]

It actually reminds me of a remote country pub some years ago where the publican proudly stated "we have both sorts of wine here: red and white". He was not being ironic.

Why is it so hard to get an answer to a simple question? I like to know what I am intending to drink and 'red or white' is far less relevant than variety, region and winery. It's not rocket science to know the names of the wines, even if written on a piece of paper: I would be quite happy with that. Not a big ask especialy in premium classes.

If QF really want to avoid passenger confsuoion and differentiate between entrees and main courses then they should call them by the correct names: entree and main course. Referring to plate sizes just indicates which dishes would be better for the really hungry. Before someone writes that entree means something else in the USA, our cousins from the LOTPAF can learn some real English and embrace the joys of learning how others do things.

Surely the FA could have said 'I'm sorry these are both main courses but if there is one left over after the other pax have chosen I can bring you both. Which is your preferred choice?'

I think that the tepid gunk (can't really call it food and it is not served at a safe food handling temperature) in the awful cardboard boxes on DXB-LHR sectors in J are completely unacceptable. Other airlines mange real food on real plates with a table cloth, cutlery and a cloth napkin on 7 hour flights, even overnight ones. Another example of a QF 'enhancement' that just degrades the whole premium experience.

Qantas, it is not that hard to provide a premium service in a premium cabin: knowledgeable, professional staff, proper cutlery, crockery and glassware accompanied by tablecloths and cloth napkins. Simple!

For every journey (to quote an airline)

Seems vastly different to the China and cutlery we had in F on BA from DXB - LHR. Also only us and another couple in F. More FAs than pax!

 

[franjelley]

that is all very well and cute to say, but some people buy premium travel for health reasons, arthritis,etc . I am quite horrified by this thread, having just bought my first ever qantas business class ticket to hong kong. I had no idea the compensation rules were so dreadful. I am life time Gold with UA and am used to extraordinarily good customer service. I need to brush up on the QF rules in case things go pear shaped.

My take on the matter is don't book premium travel with Qantas and you won't be disappointed.

The worst that can happen to a downgrade from economy is to be put in the hold. On some of the flights I've had that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Oh and I understand about the stance of not accepting a transfer from QF to JQ flight. How does anyone even think this is a like for like comparison? You may as well accept a trip in a kayak across the Bass Strait.

 

[Anna]

I am life time Gold with UA and am used to extraordinarily good customer service

If you think UA give good customer service you should be fine with QF

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If you think UA give good customer service you should be fine with QF

I have had nothing but good experiences with UA when it comes to IRROPS. 6 hour weather delay at a small outstation delaying flights to Chicago (not UA's fault) and they busted their gut to get me from the USA to Europe via any means possible... half a dozen hubs, half a dozen carriers including AA, BA and even SQ (NYC-FRA). All in my original ticketed cabin. This was a non-UA issued award seat with UA only operating the first 45 min connecting flight.

It's a different situation to Australia. 'We will accommodate you on another one of our services at no additional cost' (big deal) or refund (to effectively leave you stranded).

 

[Anna]

I have had nothing but good experiences with UA when it comes to IRROPS

My irrops experience with UA on a weather delay in SFO was "we will fly ex SFO when the weather clears. It may be several days". My booking was PDX - SFO - SYD.

It was only after extreme arguing by me that I needed to get back to work that they agreed to fly me from PDX to LAX and then back to Aust ex LAX on the day after my original booking. And that was in J. If I hadn't been persistent I would have been left for days, with no accomm offered because the delay was at SFO not PDX where I was.

 

[TomVexille]

I have had nothing but good experiences with UA when it comes to IRROPS. 6 hour weather delay at a small outstation delaying flights to Chicago (not UA's fault) and they busted their gut to get me from the USA to Europe via any means possible... half a dozen hubs, half a dozen carriers including AA, BA and even SQ (NYC-FRA). All in my original ticketed cabin. This was a non-UA issued award seat with UA only operating the first 45 min connecting flight.

It's a different situation to Australia. 'We will accommodate you on another one of our services at no additional cost' (big deal) or refund (to effectively leave you stranded).

I'll agree with this. UA handled out IRROPS infinitely better than QF. We were flying LAX-SFO (in F) and they offered to either book us on our choice of AA or DL within an hour of our scheduled departure. QF on the other hand stuck us on JQ, and repeatedly changed our flight from the one we had accepted as there were no other options apparently to the point that when we arrived back at the airport the next day we had missed our flight. I know who wins as far as service n the ground goes.

I suspect that since the big 3 US airlines are all over ten times the size of QF (fleet wise), and coupled with the weather variation, the opportunity for IRROPS is significantly greater, which means that they probably have more practice with it.

 

[Flying mermaid]

that is all very well and cute to say, but some people buy premium travel for health reasons, arthritis,etc . I am quite horrified by this thread, having just bought my first ever qantas business class ticket to hong kong. I had no idea the compensation rules were so dreadful. I am life time Gold with UA and am used to extraordinarily good customer service. I need to brush up on the QF rules in case things go pear shaped.

Qantas when it is good is very good and I would think you will have an enjoyable trip. Our family has had a bad few years though and there has been very inconsistent service recovery.

I have been travelling in either F or J with Qantas since 1989 and I have seen big changes at all levels - none of them good. However price is also a factor with fares much cheaper (inflation adjusted) than they used to be. So I guess you have to expect a lowering of quality.

As far as compensation goes, until Australia legislates as other countries have done, we will continue to see rip off compensation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

However price is also a factor with fares much cheaper (inflation adjusted) than they used to be. So I guess you have to expect a lowering of quality.

I totally disagree! Aircraft are larger and far more fuel efficient. Extra seats (per square metre) have been installed in most cabins. These allow healthy profits (as we have seen with many airlines recently). There is absolutely no need to 'accept' a lowering of quality. Many airlines do not drop quality. Why accept it from others?

(Nothing wrong with lowering of quality if the airline specifically advertises that - but there's little excuse to not deliver a product as advertised.)

 

[prozac]

... However price is also a factor with fares much cheaper (inflation adjusted) than they used to be. So I guess you have to expect a lowering of quality.

Also when airfares were comparatively more expensive 30-40 years ago fewer people traveled by air. I did alot of air travel in 747 aircraft through the 70's and they were invariably half empty. Far less routes and aircraft flying then too. Now most flights on comparable routes are near as dammit full.

 

[mannej]

I totally disagree! Aircraft are larger and far more fuel efficient. Extra seats (per square metre) have been installed in most cabins. These allow healthy profits (as we have seen with many airlines recently). There is absolutely no need to 'accept' a lowering of quality. Many airlines do not drop quality. Why accept it from others?

(Nothing wrong with lowering of quality if the airline specifically advertises that - but there's little excuse to not deliver a product as advertised.)

That is quite selective is it not in what you are referencing?

Considering the seat pitch in J and F has increased wouldn't that suggest your comment about more seats per square metre in most cabins not particularly truthful? It is probably only true for the Y cabin only.

 

[JohnK]

that is all very well and cute to say, but some people buy premium travel for health reasons, arthritis,etc . I am quite horrified by this thread, having just bought my first ever qantas business class ticket to hong kong. I had no idea the compensation rules were so dreadful. I am life time Gold with UA and am used to extraordinarily good customer service. I need to brush up on the QF rules in case things go pear shaped.

Totally understand your point re health reasons. I don't mean to scare you but this was one of the tamer threads. One the bright side it doesn't happen that often.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That is quite selective is it not in what you are referencing?

Considering the seat pitch in J and F has increased wouldn't that suggest your comment about more seats per square metre in most cabins not particularly truthful? It is probably only true for the Y cabin only.

Y cabin, but also PE - double the fare (in most cases) for only 1.5 times the floor space.

Business class as well to some extent. There are new ways now to cram in more full flat seats than traditional full-forward arrangements. But even 'old skool' - CX put 22 full flat seats on their 747 upper deck compared to just 18 for QF.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Also when airfares were comparatively more expensive 30-40 years ago fewer people traveled by air. I did alot of air travel in 747 aircraft through the 70's and they were invariably half empty. Far less routes and aircraft flying then too. Now most flights on comparable routes are near as dammit full.

I know - wasn't it nice! I did a fair bit of flying in the 70s as well and I am not sure whether I am remembering it through rosy glasses or not, but it was quite comfortable and good service in economy!

 

[por930]

I know - wasn't it nice! I did a fair bit of flying in the 70s as well and I am not sure whether I am remembering it through rosy glasses or not, but it was quite comfortable and good service in economy!

FM, you were remembering when you were younger, and just flying was great...but I think in those days, service was better. Maybe it was the era of "hostesses", when they too were having a great time, rather than the flight attendants who now see it just as a job

 

[katiebell]

I know - wasn't it nice! I did a fair bit of flying in the 70s as well and I am not sure whether I am remembering it through rosy glasses or not, but it was quite comfortable and good service in economy!

It was better: In Y no slimline seats (i.e. they had padding), greater pitch, often able to get 3 empty in a row; food came on trays; 3 meal services on longer sectors; food on trays; etc.

The only downside (for me at least) was smoking allowed on board (not easy when allergice to it). At lease BA had non-smoking Y on the upper deck of B747s so extra space with the underwindow bins and with feet up a good sleep. It was also possible to vist the flight deck back then...

J may not have had lie flat beds so J is now better in some ways but the food standards continue to deteriorate.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I have been travelling in either F or J with Qantas since 1989 and I have seen big changes at all levels - none of them good.

None of them? Really?? You prefer the recliners in the 1980's style F then? And no flat beds in J ??

 

[juddles]

I remember as a kid travelling long haul and although I loved the excitement of travelling I also remember some not so fun parts. Try flying around the world as a child when the entire entertainment system consisted of giving you a colouring-in book and some pencils! If they had a movie, it was on a tiny screen shared by all, with the sound sent through tubes to your ears, and it cost extra for that service.

But it was indeed exciting - partly so because it was SO DAMN EXPENSIVE, even in economy, that very few people ever get the chance to fly. That was the reason for all those empty seats. And with no marvelous internet it was impossible for airlines to manage yields by doing special sales and so forth.

I think the airline industry is incredible - they have tirelessly strived to make everything more efficient in the desperate need to lower per-pax costs. But yet they compete against each other at the same time with quality hard product.

I now manage to cross the Pacific in an amazing flat bed seat, with awesome inflight services, for about the same price as it used to cost to go in that noisy, bumpy plane in economy.

If you want to compare seats now and then, and take into account the actual price, then that old Economy seat should be compared to at least a modern PE seat, or even more fairly a modern lower-end J seat.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

One reason for the poorer food is that the J & F menus have a lot of dishes in common: i.e. pay F eat J (with extras). In years gone by the menus for J & F were compeltely different.

Another QF enhancement for every journey!

EK do exactly the same. Go compare F and J menus... you can do that on the ek site.

 

[prozac]

I know - wasn't it nice! I did a fair bit of flying in the 70s as well and I am not sure whether I am remembering it through rosy glasses or not, but it was quite comfortable and good service in economy!

Not rosey glasses Flying Mermaid. I recall half empty in 1976 DXB-DEL and then QF DEL-SYD so few passengers I moved across the aisle to 6 empty centre seats when I was ready for a nap. Another 747 trip LH JNB-NBO-FRA I counted 5 other passengers in Y.

 

[Anna]

In 1986 I went to Europe in Y. Chose a window seat, and still had plenty of room to get out into the aisle without making the other 2 pax in the row stand up. Paid $1,200 for the fare then and could probably still get a fare to Europe for $1,200 now if I looked for it. Not sure of the relative value of $1,200 30 years ago and now.