Well all I can say is that they are learning I for my part have been educating my friends and colleagues about the devaluation of QFF and the cough QF is doing and many have now opted to shift airlines.
Whilst QF may not care about loyal FFers and rather chase the mum and dad once a year flyer for the perceived higher yield and less cost to service in terms of lounges etc. They forget that the majority of Loyal customers that they have and are currently peeing off, hol a certain level of influence with in their circle of family and colleagues. I would hazard a guess that a good number of these Loyal FFers are now revising what they recommend with a push to BFOD based on price, convenience and connections. I would further suggest that in many cases this may NOT be QF. As one of the affected customers I have certainly been doing this and have helped book many people on other airlines and alliances.
QANTAS THE UNAUSTRALIAN AIRLINE
The writing seems to have been on the wall for some time.
My simple question has always been this... when deciding attendance at loyalty lunches, why the need for 'three questions you would like to know about [Qantas cash/simpler and fairer/etc]'? Surely the communications about each product should be prepared in advance in such a way that we, as consumers, don't need to ask three questions? Shouldn't the information already be there?
As potential influencers of travel, why is communication, at a strategic level, not always forthcoming to us? Good communication with stakeholders is partly about identifying strategic issues and resolving them.
The airline representative says they are not there to replace official Qantas channels. But tell me... which official channel do I call to ask whether my elderly parents will encounter an agent who knows how to though-check bags via SYD, or one that will tell them they need to collect their bags in SYD and struggle, with luggage, to the international terminal by train? A simple 'thanks for raising the issue, we have briefed all our check-in staff on through-check' was all that was needed.
And we know the airline representative can take action and liaise with other departments when they want. Accor Cousin is an example. So why not for other aspects?
Which official channel do I write to to ask whether my flight will be catered with sufficient food and beverage? Surely that's a strategic issue? And a consideration that will affect our ability, as the influencers of travel, on how we advise others.
I get a bit confused. Why is an airline telling me when I should know something important such as the removal of First class to Hong Kong? Why are they deciding when I can make alternative arrangements that suit my needs? Why are they telling me something is simpler and fairer? Why are they telling me I can't discuss the potential removal of safety equipment (apparently any discussion around the removal of life rafts is 'scaremongering'). Why are they telling me I have to accept the 93 reasons to fly, but can't question anything else?
They mooted public assistance at one stage, but addressing issues that will actually get passengers flying?
