Priority boarding on QF domestic - what is the story?

[ComeFlyWithMe]

No T&C's can override Law and IMHO, this constitutes several breaches of various Federal and State Acts that QF has gotten away with for far too long. Im taking them to VCAT to challenge this and other issues that QF expect you to cop on the chin, but if the situation were reversed, they'd throw the book at you. I am not very partial to double standards.

Good luck to you! We shall await the outcome with baited breath, and the slight increase in award seat availability when QF cancel your QFF membership.

 

[Downwind]

Good luck to you! We shall await the outcome with baited breath, and the slight increase in award seat availability when QF cancel your QFF membership.

Seeing as though you know everything and are the master of logic and reason, On what grounds do you suggest they might do that?

Having said that, I wouldn't put it past them, but let them try......I'd love to see them justify cancelling a members account all because they had the gumption to challenge QF's "allegedly" illegal conduct.

If youre not willing or able to back up your assertion, why bother posting? Or are you simply being proactive and inflammatory for the hell of it?

You may be a sheep and accept the scraps QF throw your way, but I am not and will not. I expect and demand every benefit be provided in its entirety and where it is not provided, I expect to be compensated. Why is this so difficult for you and QF to understand?. QF don't cut me any slack, so why should I cut them any?

 

[medhead]

On the contrary, since the start of this thread I have seen a marked improvement in PB, and while still not 100% consistent, the presence of RedRoo would suggest that they actually do care and want to improve.

I think the frustration is pretty clear at this late stage of the thread.

Surely others have seen improvement over this period?

As one of many that initially raised this issue all those years ago. I can say I've seen improvement in delivery. I'm certainly not going to get too excited by some people coming to this issue now and suddenly jumping up and down. The very fact that Qantas have done anything at all in response to AFF bringing up PB as an issue, clearly suggests that they are doing something about it. The fact that they are taking such a long time is disappointing but there are some pretty obvious reasons why this is so slow - e.g. staff motivation and training.

BTW Red Roo, I'm happy to come on board and help with the staff training, or even just to review and revise the PB process. I have some pretty good on the ground experience.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

BTW Red Roo, I'm happy to come on board and help with the staff training, or even just to review and revise the PB process. I have some pretty good on the ground experience.

You've been a cat-herder? :shock:

 

[Downwind]

As one of many that initially raised this issue all those years ago. I can say I've seen improvement in delivery. The very fact that Qantas have done anything at all in response to AFF bringing up PB as an issue, clearly suggests that they are doing something about it. The fact that they are taking such a long time is disappointing but there are some pretty obvious reasons why this is so slow

im interested to know if you genuinely believe that QF are doing something to improve the situation as a direct response to AFF? If so, why is it taking so long?
If they genuinely cared, this should and could have been nipped in the bud in a matter of weeks and NOT the years it has taken to partially fix it.

 

[medhead]

What I think is irrelevant. The published record on AFF provides the written demonstration of a response by qantas. Just because it is slow does not mean nothing is happening.

 

[Downwind]

What I think is irrelevant. The published record on AFF provides the written demonstration of a response by qantas. Just because it is slow does not mean nothing is happening.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you'd rather keep mum, that's ok too.

The only response I see is a basic acknowledgement of specific instances, advice that management is being informed and a very negligible improvement in the provision of published benefits. I don't see any changes that lead me to believe QF is making any genuine effort, and even if I were to give them the benefit of the doubt, the years they have taken to achieve the very little they have, leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

AA certainly does employ a s**t load of ground staff during the busy hours of the day.. But QF can't use that as a legitimate excuse for their failings..

FA's shouldn't feel intimidated if it is a stated policy of the company!

AA pay their ground staff $10.00 an hour so they can afford to have a lot of staff at the gate. Their boarding process starts off with 2 gate agents to process the initial flow of Premium pax then when the initial wave has subsided the gate agent goes back to the counter & the remaining one stays on the general boarding side & is supposed to call across those in the PB lane or you may just be ignored entirely.

I've certainly experienced/witnessed plenty of AA PB fails so they shouldn't necessarily be held up as a shining example of how it should be done.

Also the new boarding process of QF having only 4 F/A's on a 738 (only therefore only one doing the boarding) on off-peak flights cannot be compared to AA who never have a single person boarding.

I've seen it once. But not on Thursday night in BNE when there were several people in front of me who knew they were in the wrong lane (I heard them comment and just laugh about it - one even said "oh well, I'm Silver, I should be allowed here") and were let through no questions asked.

I'm not making excuses for this guy as he knew that he shouldn't have been using the PB lane, however there are people who genuinely think they are entitled to use the PB lane as it can be confusing when it's a different scenario for:

a) Premium checkin: J/WP-OWE/SG-OWS/PS-OWR/QP
b) Premium security: J/WP-OWE/SG-OWS
C) Lounge access: J/WP-OWE/SG-OWS/QP
d) Premium boarding: J/WP-OWE

 

[JohnPhelan]

I expect and demand every benefit be provided in its entirety and where it is not provided, I expect to be compensated.

Ah yes - the "culture of compensation" rears its head again. :evil:

 

[Downwind]

Ah yes - the "culture of compensation" rears its head again. :evil:

Would you care to explain why it shouldn't?

I would like to think I'm a fair and reasonable person, and am a give and take sort of guy, with a slight preference of giving rather than taking. IMHO, QF is the polar opposite. If a passenger doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, they get slapped with any number of penalties but when the shoe is on the other foot, you're lucky to get an acknowledgement let alone an apology.
I've missed red e deal flights due to accidents that have closed the motorway. Was that my fault? No. Was it QF's? No. Did I lose my flight? Yes. When qantas have a mechanical, is it my fault? No. Theirs? Unsure, but certainly more theirs than mine. Why should I suffer a loss, when they don't repay the courtesy? A more tangible example for you was a flight to Dfw via syd. Mechanical delay meant we were lucky to make the flight, but couldn't claim about $600 of GST. Why should I be out of pocket for their issue?
If they cut me some slack, I repay the favour, if they want to throw the book, expect it to be thrown back just as hard. The difference of course being that me not meeting my obligations is generally not my fault, but is my responsibility, but when qf don't meet theirs, they claim it's neither their fault nor their responsibility when in actual fact, it is.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

End rant.

 

[straitman]

What I think is irrelevant. The published record on AFF provides the written demonstration of a response by qantas. Just because it is slow does not mean nothing is happening.

Agreed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you'd rather keep mum, that's ok too.

The only response I see is a basic acknowledgement of specific instances, advice that management is being informed and a very negligible improvement in the provision of published benefits. I don't see any changes that lead me to believe QF is making any genuine effort, and even if I were to give them the benefit of the doubt, the years they have taken to achieve the very little they have, leaves a lot to be desired.

Change at a rapid rate is something that large companies just can't manage to do unfortunately.

Ah yes - the "culture of compensation" rears its head again. :evil:

No comment needed other than let's not go there please.

Would you care to explain why it shouldn't?

End rant.

Because the topic is QF priority boarding which most people think has improved considerably and that QF is now (belatedly) working at getting right. No comment on the rest of the rant as it is OT :!:

 

[Berlin]

b) Premium security: J/WP-OWE/SG-OWS

Is there a separate thread somewhere on THIS not working either? At least during rush hour in Sydney Domestic, it hardly ever does. Often the queue in the "premium" security is longer than in the others and for a very obvious reason, not unlike the PB issue: It doesn't get policed and I would guess about half of the people in that queue shouldn't have access to it :evil:

 

[Danger]

While I agree Qantas has made significant inroads since the start of this thread, I think it would pay for us to remember that (domestic) priority boarding was a published benefit (and, from memory, without any footnote exclusions), long before AFF took up the cause and made a stir. And I think we'd all agree that, back then, even when it was published, it simply wasn't happening.

Improvements are great. An improvement to the domestic long haul J meals is an improvement, for example. But I would argue that improving on nothing is, well, not really an improvement so much as it is implementation.

Again, though. Well done, Qantas, for how far priority boarding has come . . . since AFF took up the good fight.

 

[medhead]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you'd rather keep mum, that's ok too.

The only response I see is a basic acknowledgement of specific instances, advice that management is being informed and a very negligible improvement in the provision of published benefits. I don't see any changes that lead me to believe QF is making any genuine effort, and even if I were to give them the benefit of the doubt, the years they have taken to achieve the very little they have, leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not keeping mum about anything. I'm sure you're more than capable of using the forum search function. But here is a few hints. You joined us in April 2013. If you go back to the Original Post (OP) in this thread, made in May 2011, you will see a quote from Red Roo from November (I assume 2010). That quote clearly explains that in response to complaints on AFF, Qantas is going to introduce domestic priority boarding. That quote comes from another, I assume (again) much larger, thread that raised the issue of the missing priority boarding for domestic flights. I'll leave that as your challenge to find the thread. In that other thread you'll probably see the bits about Red Roo telling us that Qantas will conduct a trial of priority boarding, again that is called a response.

Anyway, it is not just my opinion, the written record is clear. There is a history and it is false to claim that the only response is basic acknowledgement and passing on to management.

 

[Downwind]

Ah yes - the "culture of compensation" rears its head again. :evil:

FWIW, I don't think the compensation ought to be anything substantial. A thousand or two FF points should do it.
I appreciate that QF run the risk of exacerbating the problem if the person perceives their offer to be inadequate, but there is a very simple solution to this. Provide the product you say you will. That is by far my preference......

 

[drewbles]

On the contrary, since the start of this thread I have seen a marked improvement in PB, and while still not 100% consistent, the presence of RedRoo would suggest that they actually do care and want to improve.

I think the frustration is pretty clear at this late stage of the thread.

Surely others have seen improvement over this period?

I do agree though that QF had zero need to re-invent the Wheel.

VA quite clearly copied the AA method, and guess what? IT WORKS!

QF simply needed to implement the same, and enforce it. It's not rocket science. Heck, a quick 15 minute briefing to the crew is all that's required to 'educate' them, with reminders for a few weeks in the pre-flight briefing about it.

Expensive roll-up banners? non-clear delineation of priority vs non? It does appear they're trying to do something differently when there is no reason to do it.

I'll quite my ranting now though, as it's clear Red Roo/QF is just interested in good/bad feedback about *their* process, not on how to improve the process to fix the issue.

 

[drewbles]

I've certainly experienced/witnessed plenty of AA PB fails so they shouldn't necessarily be held up as a shining example of how it should be done.

Out of the 100+ flights i've had with AA, i've never had one PB fail. Sure, they have more ground staff and a lot more flights, but that's a pretty high hit rate IMHO.

Although 99% of my flights are out of major ports, some aren't and even they work fine.

 

[Downwind]

If you go back to the Original Post (OP) in this thread, made in May 2011, you will see a quote from Red Roo from November (I assume 2010). That quote clearly explains that is response to complaints on AFF Qantas is going to introduce domestic priority boarding. That quote comes from another, I assume (again) much larger, thread that raised the issue of the missing priority boarding for domestic flights. I'll leave that as your challenge to find the thread. In that other thread you'll probably see the bits about Red Roo telling us that Qantas will conduct a trial of priority boarding, again that is called a response.

Anyway, it is not just my opinion, the written record is clear. There is a history and it is false to claim that the only response is basic acknowledgement and passing on to management.

As one of the initial complainants, I was interested in your opinion on the entire matter but you replied that what you thought didnt matter and I was fine with that.

I have little interest in reading 2600 posts that deal with how and why domestic PB was created and implemented. If it was due to the complaints on AFF, I'm impressed.
My issue is that it is a benefit that is advertised and not provided consistently. I would have thought the "trial" would have been their opportunity to test various forms of PB and settle on a workable model that they were happy with and confident they could provide.
So whilst there may be a history, it's immaterial to my argument and I stand by my assertion that all I see from Red Roo, on behalf of QF, is a basic acknowledgment and forwarding to management. But NOTHING seems to really be changing. After 2+ years, this should be bedded down and running smoothly, why it isn't is for QF to answer,but we never get an explanation as to why this is such a bid issue. If they wish to continue to publish it as a benefit, I expect, as an eligible member, to access it.

There has been an improvement, but IMHO, it is woefully inadequate.

 

[Anna]

My suggestion to improve PB and the misuse of the PB line would be -

- special boarding call for those needing assistance & families with young children (as is done now)
- special boarding call for J, WP and OWE
- general boarding call starting with "welcome to QF flight no. xx_".

In my experience people are generally respectful of special boarding calls - barring the occasional person who apparently does not have English as their first language. The boarding scrum happens when the general boarding call is made. People don't stop to listen to the instructions, they just all push forward as soon as they hear "welcome to QF flight no. xx_", and they don't care whether they are in the correct lane or not.

If they did a special boarding call for J, WP and OWE it would take about 1 extra minute to clear the eligible people waiting at the gate and it would immediately make it obvious if there was anyone still standing in the PB lane that they are not entitled to it. Those people could then very simply be directed to the other lane. Then the PB lane would be cleared for the other eligible people who are in the QP and who choose to walk to the gate after boarding starts rather than wait for boarding at the gate to get the best access to overhead locker space.

 

[ChasingDaylight]

Do keep us updated with how you go with VCAT Downwind. When do you propose to lodge?