Building a stronger Qantas

[ozmille]

I wouldn't mind seeing the ad we are talking about. If it is the same one as in SYD then it is definitely a MK1 taken from an angle to make it look flat

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Mel, would you call this false advertising? (Found off theqantassource)

View attachment 4011

The ad you have copied is static doesn't change) but if it is similar to the banner then it does state it is in partnership with Etihad. Or is there another angle you wanted to consider?

So you haven't seen the ad, yet you are talking about "big fines"? They advertise "skybed" so they have a photo of a skybed! it isn't misleading at all. So as you say it is "puff".

Going on what was posted, it was said it was a MkII skybed... based on that it sounds as if it is misleading. If I saw the ad and it in fact looked like a MkI then there would be a different outcome.

Once again so many people are jumping to defend Qantas. (perhaps with an eye on luncheon coming up!! )

Product puff is not misleading... but it relates to statements such as 'drink ABC as part of an amazing life', or showing a mouthwash where your mouth explodes with freshness. No one expects that to happen... it is product puff. Showing a 16cm high burger is also product puff (but note you are still getting the same amount of ingredients in your somewhat sad and flattened burger). however, showing a container of chips - bursting and overflowing - but actually receiving half that amount when served - could well be misleading (and in fact if you point out your half empty packet at MacD's or BK then they always take it back and fill it up properly for you!!)

Someone had to make a decision to approve that advertisement, or if the ad agency chose the picture, then no one actually went out and realised the picture was wrong. Or worse still, someone actually believes the route is operating with a MkII skybed. Perhaps the same person thinking about increasing award levels because all seats in biz class on 747s and A380s are now completely horizontal?

Easily fixed by slapping a caveat on the bottom saying 'refurbished fleet from 2013' or whatever.

 

[nlagalle]

Going on what was posted, it was said it was a MkII skybed... based on that it sounds as if it is misleading. If I saw the ad and it in fact looked like a MkI then there would be a different outcome.

What was said was the images looked like a skybed mk2, the ad (which i have seen) only advertised it as a skybed.

Once again so many people are jumping to defend Qantas. (perhaps with an eye on luncheon coming up!! )

Or perhaps not assuming straight away that they have done wrong perhaps?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What was said was the images looked like a skybed mk2, the ad (which i have seen) only advertised it as a skybed.



Or perhaps not assuming straight away that they have done wrong perhaps?

But that is the point For the test of misleading advertising there does not need to be any intent to do the wrong thing! It is an objective test, and the company responsible for the misleading statement can be acting quite innocently. That however is no excuse under the act.

So it says skybed... but if they show a MKII then that is saying something about the product being offered. If that product is not offered then there might be a case for it being misleading. Some

people posting on this board clearly thought it WAS a MKII... so insider AFF knowledge aside, there will be tohers out there who might be confused...

 

[mannej]

The ad you have copied is static doesn't change) but if it is similar to the banner then it does state it is in partnership with Etihad. Or is there another angle you wanted to consider?

No reference to Etihad at all on the ad. By your definition it is misleading and I am entitled to make a complaint.

I don't think people are sticking up for QF here, more you state you haven't seen the add, yet you make comments such as it is so misleading etc etc. I tend to agree with nlagelle on this one.

 

[harvyk]

Some excellent examples. Proving a loss is difficult and I would be very, very surprised if the law was as straight forward as having to do so in order to provde misleading or deceptive conduct. Again, though, I'm not crying foul or making a big deal out of the ad; I merely posted information for the point of discussion.

A loss could only really be proved if VA offered a fully flat (non sloped) bed on the PER-SYD route.

The problem is that a person who prefers to fly J in a skybed mkII would have most likely still booked the service even if QF said skybed mk I only. In the case of BA vs AA on a transatlantic there are many bed type options, thus they would need to be a little more careful in how they presented things. Given however the only bed type option on the PER-SYD route is the QF 747 it's highly likely that a person who wanted to book a skybed would do so regardless of mk I or mk II. Basically to really be caught on the wrong side of false advertising laws especially for a minor thing, your advertisement needs to influence someone to do something they wouldn't have had they known the truth.

IMHO QF would only fall into real problems if VA introduced a flat bed option on the PER-SYD route and they then kept that ad showing a fully flat horizontal bed.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Agreed. But, correct me if I'm wrong, don't the ads talking about the A380 specifically say something like 'available on selected services operated by the A380'? The ad in question specifically refers to skybeds being available on the 747 service and the indication is a horizontal skybed. Again, there is no caveat. Indeed, they can't provide anything (such as 'selected 747s') because as yet they don't have any offering this product, nor, I suspect, will we ever see one doing regular domestic ops.

I know that some people would have had a better than expected J seat on the MEL-SYD run in the last few days when a A380 was put on to clear the backlog. Imagine landing a F or J seat on the A380 during a Domestic run, from a SYD-MEL 737 J seat to a A380 F/J...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A loss could only really be proved if VA offered a fully flat (non sloped) bed on the PER-SYD route.

The problem is that a person who prefers to fly J in a skybed mkII would have most likely still booked the service even if QF said skybed mk I only. In the case of BA vs AA on a transatlantic there are many bed type options, thus they would need to be a little more careful in how they presented things. Given however the only bed type option on the PER-SYD route is the QF 747 it's highly likely that a person who wanted to book a skybed would do so regardless of mk I or mk II.

IMHO QF would only fall into real problems if VA introduced a flat bed option on the PER-SYD route.

You do not, of course, need to show any loss to make a complaint to the relevant authority and them to take an action if they agree with you. A misleading advertisement is misleading. You keep taking about loss, but that is only if you take a private action. You are not taking a private action in this case. DJ could make a complaint against this if they wanted to.

 

[harvyk]

You do not, of course, need to show any loss to make a complaint to the relevant authority and them to take an action if they agree with you. A misleading advertisement is misleading. You keep taking about loss, but that is only if you take a private action. You are not taking a private action in this case. DJ could make a complaint against this if they wanted to.

Yes I keep talking about loss as that is usually the measure that most things go by, you'd probably find that gov't regulators are unlikely to go after a company if they do not expect consumers to be fooled into spending more than they otherwise would by an advertisement and \ or do something they otherwise wouldn't and \ or waste their time (all are examples of loss, don't think that losses are
monetary only). What the ACCC FAQ states is you can take private action against a company to recover any losses you have suffered, it makes no real difference to them, as an action by them is unlikely to recover any losses made by you, it's just an action by them doesn't cost you anything.


Lets take this out of the airline arena for a second.

If I offer you "Product A" for $99 in an advert, you would need to be able to purchase "Product A" for no more than $99. Now if I discribe "Product A Version 2" or show a picture of "Product A Version 2", provided that "Product A" and "Product A Version 2" are not that different (which compared to say compared to a convertable J, skybed mkI and mk II are not that different), it does not need to be for $99, you just have to make sure it is a product you have available. For example, they would not be allowed to show a skybed mark I coloured red unless they actually had them in their fleet.

So in the above advertisement you would need to have Product A (being base model) available for $99 and you would need to have Product A Version 2 available in stock. (It's how car companies can show luxury models in their ad's for "only" $19,990).

I will admit some of my knowledge is a couple of years out of date, but a few years back when I was running my own business I looked into this very carefully, I was planning on holding a store at a series of expos, I was also running a competition to go with it. Last thing I wanted as a start up was to have made an expensive mistake and get on the wrong side of regulators.

 

[amaroo]

One type of skybed over the other for what is a short flight wouldn't bother me.....including the redeye.

We should all be happy that there are now options for a flat/sloping seat on this sector.

IMO, first time flyers wouldn't know the difference between the two & would be smiling no matter what they were sitting on and experience flyers know that MII does not exist on anything other than an A380 at the moment.

I've been disappointed more than once that the scheduled A380 I was booked on was cancelled & replaced with 747 - I got over it and enjoyed the flight anyway.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

harvyk - apple cannot take out an advertisement and say 'ipad 32GB 3G wi-fi -$499' and show an ipad 2 if the price only applies to an ipad1. I do not even need to be buying an ipad to make a complaint about that. I'm not suffering loss, even my time on that one.

As for cars, I know nothing about cars, but i do know that when I see adverts they say 'from $19990' or 'European Model Shown' or 'extra package shown for additional charge' or words similar. If i saw a car advertised without any disclaimers then i would expect to be able to buy the car, as shown, for the price stated.

The colour of the skybed is irrelevant. They could show it in pink if they wanted to. you are buying the seat as a service. (different if you bought a lounge chair and it was shown in black but you unwrapped it at home and it was in pink.)

 

[samiam]

So......

.... when is the Qantas "A New Spirit" teaser campaign going to reveal how the company is Building a stronger Qantas?

(Subtle on-topic segway - bush legal has driven me nuts)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

(Subtle on-topic segway - bush legal has driven me nuts)

Actually the issue around advertising is very much on topic for building a stronger qantas.

There are dots there to be joined... and the pattern is worrying:

• We have a PR department which suggests people play 'I spy' via tweet when they have been on hold for nine hours during the ash incident

• the black face issue.

• a campaign based on 'safety first' for the ash cloud.. yet the airline continued to run code shares and place its passengers on other airlines (per the NZ press release)

• A proposed 'RED Q' name which failed to even do a simple internet search to discover that 'Q' could be an offensive term in the market in which the new airline will operate.

• complaints by foreign JQ staff of working long hours with no right of recourse (I believe QF has now taken firm action over this)

• Then we have the latest ACTU press release asking for a statement of QF's knowledge of the stripping of workers' rights in Fiji. (I have not seen if there has been a response to that yet, only the initial ACTU release.)

All of these are PR issues, none of them were unforseeable, all of them are around building brand and a stronger Qantas. The last two are an attack on the ethics of the airline. The advertising issue is linked to that... if it is indeed a MKII skybed in the ad, why?

wounded kangaroo is right... somebody call the RSPCA.

 

[nlagalle]

harvyk - apple cannot take out an advertisement and say 'ipad 32GB 3G wi-fi -$499' and show an ipad 2 if the price only applies to an ipad1. I do not even need to be buying an ipad to make a complaint about that. I'm not suffering loss, even my time on that one.

As for cars, I know nothing about cars, but i do know that when I see adverts they say 'from $19990' or 'European Model Shown' or 'extra package shown for additional charge' or words similar. If i saw a car advertised without any disclaimers then i would expect to be able to buy the car, as shown, for the price stated.

The colour of the skybed is irrelevant. They could show it in pink if they wanted to. you are buying the seat as a service. (different if you bought a lounge chair and it was shown in black but you unwrapped it at home and it was in pink.)

OK I have just seen the billboard again arriving at MEL just now. It is definitely a mk1 skybed which is clearly sloping. And it just advertises skybed

So no big fines for "false advertising"

 

[Oneworldplus2]

While on this topic, Sunday Herald Newspaper today (SYD), there was also an ad featuring the Skybed. However, there was also a * which stated that not all flights had the Skybed on East Coast - PER sectors.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

OK I have just seen the billboard again arriving at MEL just now. It is definitely a mk1 skybed which is clearly sloping. And it just advertises skybed

So no big fines for "false advertising"

I can only go by what danger posted in his/her post regarding Perth airport.

if that is a picture of a mark II sky bed, as reported at Perth airport, then potential fines if it comes to the attention of the authorities. if it's mark I then no problems (which has always been the case)

 

[nlagalle]

I can only go by what danger posted in his/her post regarding Perth airport.

if that is a picture of a mark II sky bed, as reported at Perth airport, then potential fines if it comes to the attention of the authorities. if it's mark I then no problems (which has always been the case)

I dare say they will be the same ads. No point re-inventing the wheel.

Again they'd be hard pressed to fine them, it's a skybed in the pic.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I dare say they will be the same ads. No point re-inventing the wheel.

Again they'd be hard pressed to fine them, it's a skybed in the pic.

in agree. but given the certainy that at least one poster thought it was a mark II, I wonder if they are in fact different ads? maybe someone can snap a pic of the Perth ad next time they are out there? it does seem unlikely they would be different... unless they used different branches of the agency in east vs west coast...

 

[Simo]

Can we move on from this as it is totally off topic.

The thread was started to help to build a stronger Qantas not about Mk1 or M2 skybeds in a billboard.

 

[mannej]

Can we move on from this as it is totally off topic.

The thread was started to help to build a stronger Qantas not about Mk1 or M2 skybeds in a billboard.

Well, it is not entirely off topic. If you look at the point of my post referring the New Spirit adds, it is very relevant. Advertising the new MkII skybeds in the West is in my opinion a bit disappointing, considering that there is one route out of Perth that uses a 747, and currently it is one of the elder sisters of the 747 fleet.
People moan about consistency. You put MkII skybeds on the 747's, why not put them on your international 330 fleet to ensure the product consistency from one aircraft to another. They are around the same age, so you would think they are going to be around for a while, why not achieve consistency on a variable that you can control?