Priority boarding on QF domestic - what is the story?

[Berlin]

The more I think about this the more I see it as the base answer.

Yep.

Not going to happen though, as it would require recruiting more staff.

Also yep.

 

[simongr]

QF409 this morning premium boarding banners next to the non premium lanes... First Sydney failure in a while...

 

[Anna]

PB worked well for me in ADL last night at gate 19. It's hit and miss with PB in ADL but I think more hits than misses overall.

 

[pshepvic]

Not so good in PER last night. No signs, no lane, mass queue somewhat forming into two at the front. As it was streaming around the corner we couldn't see there was no PB lane, but weren't going to go to the back again so managed to merge in without anyone complaining. I heard comments from a few people indicating that the lack of PB was pretty poor.

 

[Red Roo]

Not so good in PER last night. No signs, no lane, mass queue somewhat forming into two at the front. As it was streaming around the corner we couldn't see there was no PB lane, but weren't going to go to the back again so managed to merge in without anyone complaining. I heard comments from a few people indicating that the lack of PB was pretty poor.

I would like to pass this on. Please confirm the flight details.

 

[pshepvic]

I would like to pass this on. Please confirm the flight details.

QF584 PER-ADL. Thanks for following up.

 

[Anna]

PB worked ok yesterday at SYD for QF783. There was a very clear announcement about which line was which, and people seemed to be making an effort to get in the correct lines.

 

[Pleb Status]

QF584 PER-ADL. Thanks for following up.

A trend here as QF590 PER-ADL yesterday was not using any form of PB either (gate 14 if I recall correctly). Signs etc were available but they were stacked way over to the side of the gate area (5 or 6 metres away). As I have never seen PB enforced in any way whatsoever, the J boarding experience without the PB infrastructure was no different to when it is actually in place.

 

[Kangol]

Complete fail on QF 689 yesterday MEL-ADL.
Scrum formed just as they were announcing boarding, with a QP PS and NB in front of me. Didn't even bother to read the sign and were not turned back by the staff member scanning BPs. When I questioned her about it, the response was something along the lines of "I might as well just board them".

Red Roo, I don't know how or why QF rewards staff misbehaviour and laziness by letting those offending staff keep their jobs.
If they don't turn the wrong people back, they are not doing their job.
Yes - it clearly is a right/wrong issue as one line is for one group of passengers and the other is for the other group. Enabling their behaviour only brings the company into disrepute.

How would QF react if a pilot didn't fly the plane to the correct destination, or an FA didn't do the safety demonstration, or an exec stole money from the company? Would QF commend them on doing a bad job and maintain their employment?

I hope an offending staff member is made an example of - there is no element of them doing the right thing or ensuring that it is policed. If there is no fear of losing one's job, there is no incentive to do it properly. The proof is in the fact that PB has failed multiple times in multiple occasions.

I'm not looking forward to my next QF trip tomorrow.

Funny how some changes can be implemented perfectly but others can't.

Red Roo - I hope some measures are implemented to make sure your staff are up to scratch.
Like having an undercover person sit and watch how PB, or boarding, is being done.

 

[BD1959]

Complete fail on QF 689 yesterday MEL-ADL.
Scrum formed just as they were announcing boarding, with a QP PS and NB in front of me. Didn't even bother to read the sign and were not turned back by the staff member scanning BPs. When I questioned her about it, the response was something along the lines of "I might as well just board them".

Red Roo, I don't know how or why QF rewards staff misbehaviour and laziness by letting those offending staff keep their jobs.
If they don't turn the wrong people back, they are not doing their job.
Yes - it clearly is a right/wrong issue as one line is for one group of passengers and the other is for the other group. Enabling their behaviour only brings the company into disrepute.

I think part of the problem lies with the proactive (commendable) action of staff who call forward people out of the General Boarding queue to be scanned when the PB is empty. This, obviously, expedites the boarding process for all - including WP and J pax. However, this sets a general "mind-set" that it's really a non-problem to board non-premium in the PB lane at times impeding the Premium pax.

If you had a hard-and-fast rule that the PB lane is just that - and rammed home that message among staff with the threat of termination if they ignored - then some staff would feel uncomfortable being proactive, even when there are no premium pax in sight.

Having said that, NOT even trying in the first place (leaving the banners to one-side, no pre-boarding announcement) really should be investigated an it's nice to see Red Roo offering to do just that.

Regards,

BD

 

[oz_mark]

If you had a hard-and-fast rule that the PB lane is just that - and rammed home that message among staff with the threat of termination if they ignored - then some staff would feel uncomfortable being proactive, even when there are no premium pax in sight.
D

My own view is that doing what they can to board the plane to assist with an on time departure is the better option.

And good luck trying to terminate someone's emoloyment for it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How would QF react if a pilot didn't fly the plane to the correct destination, or an FA didn't do the safety demonstration, or an exec stole money from the company? Would QF commend them on doing a bad job and maintain their employment?

clearly these have financial or regulatory penalties. PB does not. No incentive to get it right.

 

[pshepvic]

Here's an idea if they really want two people to scan BPs, as opposed to VA's simple system that works significantly better with only 1 person scanning.

Back when they introduced the new check-in it meant that less staff were required in that area, however QF stated that no jobs were lost and the staff would be redeployed to other areas.

So how about redeploying those staff to the boarding gates. VA manages to have ground staff scan BPs, so no excuse for QF not to.

Then you can have an FA on the non-PB queue, that way it doesn't become awkward to have to turn someone away who you will have to see again on the flight.

The ground staff member could then process the PB queue, and less awkward for them to enforce the rules as that's the last time they'll see the pax.

This also solves the issue of flights with only 4 FAs on board.

The number of times I've seen ground staff sitting around chatting or doing nothing, there is certainly no shortage of people to do the work.

 

[Kangol]

clearly these have financial or regulatory penalties. PB does not. No incentive to get it right.

Are you saying that not enforcing PB which annoys some regular travellers to the point where they give their business to the competition has no financial penalty?

I'd love to hear Red Roo's direct response to this point...

 

[Kangol]

If you had a hard-and-fast rule that the PB lane is just that - and rammed home that message among staff with the threat of termination if they ignored - then some staff would feel uncomfortable being proactive, even when there are no premium pax in sight.

Good point, however I don't think that is the case. My understanding of PB is that there are 2 lanes and 2 FAs scanning BPs. If/when the PB lane is empty, the FA on that side calls over a non-PB pax to scan their BP. When a PB pax arrives, they scan them first before again calling over someone from the non-PB side.

It has been reported here that VA do this very well - with one FA, not two.

Being proactive is different to someone doing their job and turning back those who are not entitled to a benefit. eg An FA telling a Y pax to sit in their assigned Y seat, not in J.

As an aside, I recently learned about the term "at will" in the US regarding employment. It's unfortunate we don't have that here in Australia. No fear = no incentive to do the right thing = employees getting away with doing the wrong thing = company failing.

 

[tm.smile]

As an aside, I recently learned about the term "at will" in the US regarding employment. It's unfortunate we don't have that here in Australia. No fear = no incentive to do the right thing = employees getting away with doing the wrong thing = company failing.

Wow. Not a simplistic view of HR at all. Cos fear and insecurity offer good will and team morale...

 

[Standby]

Yesterday did 3rd SYD-MEL rtn daytrip in 2 weeks &am down 2pm back both full 763s. PB worked seamlessly in both directions again as the non PB queue snaked off into the distance. Maybe I'm constantly lucky. Only gripe was the way the security staff closed 1 of the 3 normal security lines at Tulla with no warning and directed those in the queue to the front of the PB line . At least the pax apologised for being steered in front of the queued PB pax.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Are you saying that not enforcing PB which annoys some regular travellers to the point where they give their business to the competition has no financial penalty?

I'd love to hear Red Roo's direct response to this point...

golden hand-cuffs maybe? I don't know how many P1s would go to the opposition just because PB didn't work half the time.

 

[BadgerBoi]

As an aside, I recently learned about the term "at will" in the US regarding employment. It's unfortunate we don't have that here in Australia. No fear = no incentive to do the right thing = employees getting away with doing the wrong thing = company failing.

Thanks all the same, but we have absolutely nothing to learn from the US as far as labour laws are concerned.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

My own view is that doing what they can to board the plane to assist with an on time departure is the better option.

Which works fine with 2 F/A's but with a lot of flights now having only one F/A PB is just one big mess.

The sole F/A is meant to stand in the general lane & call across pax from the 'PB' lane as they arrive but the trouble is the majority of WP's see no F/A in the PB lane so end up joining the general queue with ths masses as it looks like PB isn't offered.

Because it now takes longer to get everyone through a single gate reader it's not apparent until much later in the boarding process who has failed to board so the flight is more than likely going to be delayed as there is less window of opportunity to find the errant pax.