Originally Posted by RooFlyer
...stating the one way old fuel fine, but then saying the reduction for return!
The figures on the table are accurate, and the percentage reductions clearly reflect the changes at a high level.
Thanks
Red Roo, but that's an odd response to the point I was making.
The point I was making (first noted by NM) was that the 'old' and 'new' fuel surcharges in columns 1 and 2 were for
one way journeys. The third/fourth columns, showing $ reductions and % reductions are for
return journeys. I don't think anyone has said that the figures are inaccurate or have reflected on what level they were at, so I don't know why you posted that.
(But it sorta reminds me of the Answers posted by Qantas after they took on board Questions submitted (by Ansett?? I think) to Lesley Grant, after one of the Qantas AFF lunches. I recall then a number of the "Answers" had little to do with the particular Question !)
A sincere compliment I can give your marketing division is that they are very good at presentation of otherwise unpalatable issues and generally making a $%*& sandwich for customers sound gourmet:
* Increase in profit (for the industry) expressed as a single, solitary dollar per passenger (sob), not % (16%) or, heaven forbid, $millions;
* Old/new figures presented as one way; but "savings" expressed as twice that by using return figures;
* Don't include some facts of great interest - such that fuel surcharges to Europe/Middle East ('Emirates routes') aren't changing at all!
* No link to a complete table (such as presented by brettmcg up-thread) so even the lazy media would be able to see the true story.
Their talent is wasted at Qantas; Joe Hockey should recruit them to sell the last budget.