So anyway I think it's not deliberate per se but a consequence of lack of proper investment (both dollars and desire) in things like IT, customer service agents and their tools etc for years and it's ever more coming home to roost
It becomes deliberate when, after years and years, and with the problems well known, the investment keeps being withheld. That's saying "look, the planes are full - screw 'em".
- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points* - Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide - Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped
It becomes deliberate when, after years and years, and with the problems well known, the investment keeps being withheld. That's saying "look, the planes are full - screw 'em".
I agree that's fair when the issues are known. Of course what I don't know is how fixable those are and how realistic it is to be able to do so.
I'll give a real world example of what I mean.
A certain company has a application suite that supports a vital function. It's old. I mean.. really old. It's so old that the vendor (a very large IT company) doesn't generally support the version these days. Anyway the problems and issues have been well known for years by all the staff and effects on staff and customers have ever increased due to this very old software being used for a core business function. So why isn't anything done, or wasn't it done before things got so bad? Well, back in the day when the product was fully supported and current there was a lack of desire by management to do certain upgrades and keep it up to date - because they saw finance as a critical function, and did not want the downtime involved with doing these upgrades. Only the most vital patches, or those required for business functions (like new financial year updates and the like) were applied but in general it was left alone as much as possible because "it works and we don't want to change things." As the years went on, things started get difficult for various reasons and management then decided it was too expensive to do a full upgrade, then they wanted to see what others were doing in the space so again waited, and last I heard they'd spent 18 months with a project to implement changes via a lot of custom code changes on top of the old softrware, which was a massive failure and was scrapped and some insane cost. After various changes in management it was finally decided to actually look into a proper full replacement, but that meant a cost that there just was not even close to the budget for, let alone a large implementation time to migrate to - which would affect everyone. As far as I know they are still on the old system fighting fires and flailing around - and this was all driven by management while the IT folks had been pushing for years for proper upgrades and support....
My point is not to specifically say QF is the same, or that these issues are driven by specific decisions, but it may well be a situation where things have become such a hodge podge in the back end systems and integrations that a cost to do it all right(in $$$ and specialist resources) may be just ridiculous, let alone disruptive. I have no inside idea.
Just looking in from the outside it seems QF is dealing with many legacy applications, trying to integrate bigger platforms like SalesForce in and trying to get them all to play nice together. This kind of thing can be a nightmare with old API's, interfaces and legacy stuff (for example the 18 month project that went nowhere i mentioned above).
in the sense that decisions made going back years may have led to current problems and considering this to be deliberate - I see the point, but I think of it more as possibly shortsighted rather than deliberately running down core functionality. I'd say things like call centre outsourcin and changes going back from the days when BNE was moved to HBA and then the outsourcing to offshre - those were deliberate choices on cost grounds for sure and everyone's reaping the consequences.
so yeah I suppose kind of deliberate but more in terms of the consequences rather than the goals driving those decisions.
Yes. Here's another analogy. I worked in international investment banking for 10 years. A greedier pack of so-and-sos you'll never meet. Our weekly meetings focussed on how many 'bars' a deal was worth and how big the bonus pool might be.
YET the business constantly invested - big bucks. In IT, in people, in back-end systems, in training, in perks etc etc. Tim Tams in the tea rooms!!! The business was successful, the greed was fed and the clients/customers happy. A bit of (extra) investment by the Qantas board in people, IT, back-end systems would make the world of difference to its staff and customers.
Every time I have had a booking change, be over the phone or via the web, at some point I have received an email from QF, usually with the subject "Confirmation and E-Ticket Flight Itinerary..."
The PDF contains the ticket numbers.
Unless and until you receive this, in my experience, it hasn't been ticketed. Whilst CMT can be useful, in my recent experience it's not necessary, as the emails have come as soon as it's been ticketed. When they didn't come, I knew something was wrong and called the call centre.
We are acutely aware of the income differential between the associates of the rooms and the secretaries.
We pay above award and have linked wages to CPI for going on 12 years.
All accrued leave is 100% covered by a separate account and the staff aware - and are comforted that in the event of a windup their benefits are covered.
Just looking in from the outside it seems QF is dealing with many legacy applications, trying to integrate bigger platforms like SalesForce in and trying to get them all to play nice together. This kind of thing can be a nightmare with old API's, interfaces and legacy stuff (for example the 18 month project that went nowhere i mentioned above).
I have worked in a company that also neglected its IT for many years. And then decided to make some of those upgrades because it become untenable. It takes years to untangle that mess, but if you don't get started you'll never get anywhere.
Will it be expensive for Qantas? Yes. But, as always when it comes to critical systems that allow them to perform their core functions (flying people from A to B), it will be much better to invest in that change now than to have to fix it later. And yes, I know they are already in the later part of that equation for an earlier decision-making process, but it still applies.
I have worked in a company that also neglected its IT for many years. And then decided to make some of those upgrades because it become untenable. It takes years to untangle that mess, but if you don't get started you'll never get anywhere.
Will it be expensive for Qantas? Yes. But, as always when it comes to critical systems that allow them to perform their core functions (flying people from A to B), it will be much better to invest in that change now than to have to fix it later. And yes, I know they are already in the later part of that equation for an earlier decision-making process, but it still applies.
No, that resend function seems to mainly send the original e-ticket. It is rare that it sends a revision - it is unreliable enough that I have given up using it
I realised I hadn't tried this function in a while
I clicked the resend itinerary button for an international booking that had a change and re-ticket. It took over three hours, but I received the updated E-Ticket Itinerary & Receipt and not the original one. I do want to note though, that when it was re-ticketed I got a PDF e-ticket and not a manual ticket with no formatting and courier font.
Just looking in from the outside it seems QF is dealing with many legacy applications, trying to integrate bigger platforms like SalesForce in and trying to get them all to play nice together. This kind of thing can be a nightmare with old API's, interfaces and legacy stuff (for example the 18 month project that went nowhere i mentioned above).
It may affect more airlines sure - I totally understand. the old school GDS's are at the core.. but let's face it, many of the other big legacy carriers have figured out their cough far better than QF and work far better when it comes to integration and usability. I can't think of a single major legacy airline, using such platforms, that I've encountered to any kind of the same degree the issues we have come to know and not love* with QF.
And that's the point. I'm not saying other carriers have backends that are duct tape on top of spit on top of 1980's technology .. but whatever is going on, for me as a customer they just, in the main, work. Perfect? no. Pretty good ... yep.
And when things have hit a snag, like my AA flight credit I mentioned earlier, which I couldn't use online (because, I think, it was a cancel of a fare booked with another flight credit and the multiple entries in the PNR probably broke the front end), the phone agent had no problems sorting it out in a timely and friendly manner - the first call. And this was an outsourced call centre (MNL)
And that's the other side of this coin as I think I may have written earlier. How many reports on threads here of phone agents either not knowing or being able how to do seemingly simple things, or needing to refer to another area, or whatever. So you have a web system that can be difficult, but on top of that, poor support (for most bar the people who can get onto a good agent - the few that seem to be offshore, and of course AKL and HBA).
of course other customers of other airlines have issues. Of course. Trawl through FT or even AFF and people relate stories, so I'm not saying oh QF is the worst and everything else is like Starbucks at LAX, but it does feel that QF have gotten themselves into a real pickle of a situation through a series of, in hindsight, poor decisions.
(Remember was it a few years ago QF promised all these amazing ... enhancements... to the app and self service as justification to remove service desks in airports and lounges? only a few of these seem to have been implemented, and I'm not too sure how they are working - eg: flow forward, rebooking on disruptions, etc). Yes, covid got in the way, but programmers can work from anywhere....
(* there are minor exceptions where these work in our favour of course IYKYK)
I did think Q might be improving a couple of weeks ago.
I had a 5 minute arrival change on an AY flight on my OWA and Q were only 7 minutes behind CMT in notifying me. But then yesterday CMT advised me of changed departure time of the only Q flight on my whole itinerary SYD - CGK. It only took 14+ hours for Q to notify me!
All reticketed though according to CMT so I had better not be too critical.
But then yesterday CMT advised me of changed departure time of the only Q flight on my whole itinerary SYD - CGK. It only took 14+ hours for Q to notify me!
I think QF ticketing is getting hammered right now due to the NH summer schedule being finalised.
I have had changes to pretty much every booking I have during this period.
All changes have worked in my favour which is great - I took the opportunity of changing a HNL-SYD for a different date (originally was a WP release, as there's no U/X availability at all on that route in Oct 23) and was changed no problems. Also, as QF104 has been rescheduled slightly earlier, it allows me to connect to BNE same day (I originally had a SYD-OOL connected booked for the following morning), so now saves me an overnight stay in SYD.
That's a commercial decision, not a technology one. Don't conflate the two. US airlines are streets ahead of Qantas on technology (even if they do have the same underlying GDS's to deal with, I guess they throw enough resources at it to work around the main problems).
Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!
