Qantas brand badly tarnished

[aikman]

AJ said Qantas is heading towards a record profit this year. Fares remain high. The reality is thay any brand damage is obviously not scaring away the majority of passengers. Stockholm syndrome perhaps?

 

[encryptededdy]

Anecdote 1 - relative who hasn’t flown QF for some time on an SYD-MEL dinner flight suggested the three pastries in a box were hardly “dinner” more like a snack. (QF are good at creating high expectations, their marketing team is arguably the best in Australia, but they seem to fail in meeting those expectations )

Anecdote 2 - from my sister who before this year had never flown j. Now has on UA and QF to US in separate trips - comment was UA was more comfortable and better overall experience.

Valid, although I would argue QF hasn't gotten worse in these aspects over the last few years (maybe compared to a long time ago). To me, it feels like Qantas is very much back to it's 2019-level mediocrity. Therefore, I feel it's a bit surprising to see it drop so much compared to last year. Maybe people just gave them lots of slack last year due to covid? Or maybe it's a few high profile service failures that are engrained in everyone's minds?

On a more general note though, I feel like if you only fly airlines in this part of the world (like many of my friends do), then Qantas is pretty decent. I've taken a few friends on their first CX and JL (Economy) flights recently and they were all pretty surprised that the food was actually good, compared to their usual experience with QF/NZ/JQ.

I do remember a friend recently flew United Polaris SYD-SFO and remarked that they preferred the food on Air New Zealand. I thought this was their first time flying business class, so I clarified whether they meant compared to AirNZ economy - they told me that they thought they served the same food in all classes, and that they preferred NZ economy food over United's J .

How SQ manages to pull off these awards leaves me slightly scratching my head. Maybe compared to US carriers? But post covid SQ has had a noticeable decline in things like food.

Yeah agreed. SQ is a good airline, but IMO the main thing they have going for them is consistency. Other than that, I don't think they have the "best" of anything. I see they won best Business Lounge in Asia, which is also a bit head scratching. Cathay and Qatar (Premium Lounge) are both meaningfully better imo.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Im am genuinely surprised that people are surprised that QF have dropped the number of places they have. And it’s not just Skytrax surveys that suggest the trust in the brand has dropped.

Remember the vast majority of pax rating an airline are not WP’s sitting back and enjoying the F lounge.

Anecdote 1 - relative who hasn’t flown QF for some time on an SYD-MEL dinner flight suggested the three pastries in a box were hardly “dinner” more like a snack. (QF are good at creating high expectations, their marketing team is arguably the best in Australia, but they seem to fail in meeting those expectations )

Anecdote 2 - from my sister who before this year had never flown j. Now has on UA and QF to US in separate trips - comment was UA was more comfortable and better overall experience.

There are also a number of posters on here who have suggested the AA experience domestically for years a poor cousin of QF - now is better than QF.

These are all just anecdotes, but they do add up And that’s without getting into baggage handling or offshore call centres.

Well.. you see… several times I’ve forgone the meal in business class to have the three pastries from the back! Nothing like a yummy sausage roll! And the chicken panini are absolutely delicious! High is salt, fat and sugar of course, but yummy. And washed down with a [mini] bottle of wine or two or a beer.

Compared to the competition QF is miles ahead. Plus of course fast and reliable wifi and a huge entertainment selection. I can’t really fault QFd economy.

I have always liked AA first. But I find QF much more polished these days. Including faster service in the cabin, and some meals have been pretty good lately!

 

[Mr H]

Well.. you see… several times I’ve forgone the meal in business class to have the three pastries from the back!

Back in the day, British Midland offered silver and gold card holders a complimentary snack and drink in Y. I was sat in J an offered the take-it-or-leave-it hot breakfast of an omelette. I don't eat eggs so I refused it. I asked whether I could get the complimentary snack from Y based on my status. I was told no. That deal was only for Y pax.

 

[Zanzara]

Back in the day, British Midland offered silver and gold card holders a complimentary snack and drink in Y. I was sat in J an offered the take-it-or-leave-it hot breakfast of an omelette. I don't eat eggs so I refused it. I asked whether I could get the complimentary snack from Y based on my status. I was told no. That deal was only for Y pax.

I saw that a couple of years ago when M&S pay on board was introduced on BA for Y. Guy sat across from me didn't want the Club Europe food and asked for a Bacon sandwich from Y. It was provided, but the cabin crew member whipped out the credit card reader and BA insisted he pay extra for it. A meal was included in business class.

 

[encryptededdy]

I saw that a couple of years ago when M&S pay on board was introduced on BA for Y. Guy sat across from me didn't want the Club Europe food and asked for a Bacon sandwich from Y. It was provided, but the cabin crew member whipped out the credit card reader and BA insisted he pay extra for it. A meal was included in business class.

Yeah quite a few carriers confusingly do this. I know VA started doing this some time ago (charging business pax for food from the BoB menu, even if you reject the loaded business meal), not sure if they went back on it or not.

 

[AIRwin]

they told me that they thought they served the same food in all classes

Caviar in Economy?!

 

[OATEK]

If the Skytrax ratings are based (at least in part) on surveys of the travelling public, have any Frequent Flying members of this forum been asked to complete one of these surveys?

 

[downgraded]

If the Skytrax ratings are based (at least in part) on surveys of the travelling public, have any Frequent Flying members of this forum been asked to complete one of these surveys?

I vaguely thought from previous advertising a few years ago that when Skytrax was running its survey anyone was able to go to their website and submit a survey for a flight. Could be completely wrong on that of course.

 

[Vic]

Yep, and I apply as much weight to that vacuum as I do the vacuum of space. Not that I can suggest any alternate method for such rankings. I don't thick there is a truly independent and realistic process for such measurements.

What is your opinion of the Michelin Star system as a ranking system? In the context of independent or an alternative to skytrak process. Is that a realistic way for airlines, do you think?

I'm not ignoring the fact that Michelin must need good income to cover their expenses. Maybe the expense side for anonymous inspections of airlines would make it unrealistic.

 

[Mr H]

What is your opinion of the Michelin Star system as a ranking system? In the context of independent or an alternative to skytrak process. Is that a realistic way for airlines, do you think?

I'm not ignoring the fact that Michelin must need good income to cover their expenses. Maybe the expense side for anonymous inspections of airlines would make it unrealistic.

Rating a restaurant is so much easier since they basically offer one product: meals. Just go and try three meals on different occasions and see what you think.

Airlines offer a variety of different services: longhaul, shorthaul, overnight, daytime, first, business and economy classes, lounges, spas, limousines, customer service, refunds, meals, seats, etc. What is important for one passenger may be irrelevant for another. One part of the service may be excellent while another part is non-existent. Service will vary greatly from day to day. That's why it is a bit of a fool's errand to try to rank airlines at all, but it would be even less meaningful if done on a very small sample of experienced mystery customers.

 

[Vic]

Rating a restaurant is so much easier since they basically offer one product: meals. Just go and try three meals on different occasions and see what you think.

Airlines offer a variety of different services: longhaul, shorthaul, overnight, daytime, first, business and economy classes, lounges, spas, limousines, customer service, refunds, meals, seats, etc. What is important for one passenger may be irrelevant for another. One part of the service may be excellent while another part is non-existent. Service will vary greatly from day to day. That's why it is a bit of a fool's errand to try to rank airlines at all, but it would be even less meaningful if done on a very small sample of experienced mystery customers.

Well, Michelin employ 1000s of inspectors who go to 100s of restaurants.
It seems to me the main (only?) impediment to implementing the same ranking approach to airlines is money. I completely agree the financial cost would be massive to normalise all the factors your mention for airline rankings, and to buy the airfares.

 

[NM]

What is your opinion of the Michelin Star system as a ranking system? In the context of independent or an alternative to skytrak process. Is that a realistic way for airlines, do you think?

I'm not ignoring the fact that Michelin must need good income to cover their expenses. Maybe the expense side for anonymous inspections of airlines would make it unrealistic.

I have never looked into the Michelin Star rating system, so I am unable to make any comment about it or compare it with any other rating system. I think I have only ever eaten at one Michelin Star restaurant, but I have flown on many of the airlines included in the Skytrax "analysis".

 

[dajop]

Rating a restaurant is so much easier since they basically offer one product: meals. Just go and try three meals on different occasions and see what you think.

Airlines offer a variety of different services: longhaul, shorthaul, overnight, daytime, first, business and economy classes, lounges, spas, limousines, customer service, refunds, meals, seats, etc. What is important for one passenger may be irrelevant for another. One part of the service may be excellent while another part is non-existent. Service will vary greatly from day to day. That's why it is a bit of a fool's errand to try to rank airlines at all, but it would be even less meaningful if done on a very small sample of experienced mystery customers.

Yes, and pricepoints are important too, which also complicate the analysis.

Go to an expensive high-end restaurant and you might pay $300 for your meal. Guess what, the diners at the table beside you are probably would also be paying $300 for the same meal. Likewise at a cheaper restaurant, you might be paying $60, so would the person sitting beside you.

Pay $300 for a flight on a "premium" carrier, and the person sitting on one side of you might be paying $100 for the flight and the person on the other side might be paying $500. Meanwhile someone on the same route , same day, same time on an LCC might be paying $300, sitting next to people paying $150 and $60. It's entirely predictable that the person paying $60 on the LCC might rate it higher than the person paying $500 on the premium carrier.

 

[NM]

[Mod Comment]
Several off-topic posts have been removed from this thread. Please discuss the topic, which is "Qantas brand badly tarnished".
[/Mod Comment]

 

[encryptededdy]

Also, I suspect restaurant quality is generally more consistent than many airlines (such as QF). You'd probably need to "sample" it a lot more times.

Additionally, I can't imagine there's much to judge for some economy flights. If anything, hard data such as delays and baggage loss % is probably more important than actually sampling the product for e.g. short haul economy flights.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Also, I suspect restaurant quality is generally more consistent than many airlines (such as QF). You'd probably need to "sample" it a lot more times.

Additionally, I can't imagine there's much to judge for some economy flights. If anything, hard data such as delays and baggage loss % is probably more important than actually sampling the product for e.g. short haul economy flights.

And restaurants have to consistently produce good or excellent food AND service to get Michelin stars. QF would fail under such a regime.

 

[Peasant]

For me, one of impacts of a 'tarnished brand' is that passengers start paying close attention to issues. It's hypersensitivity and I'm a case in point.

I flew back from HND to SYD a couple of days ago. Upon boarding, the cabin was filthy and hot, with non-functioning entertainment. The CSM announced a delay as the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU) was defective, meaning a ground cart was needed to provide the engines with an air-start. Needless to say, the delay kept rolling as they struggled to start the engines. Likewise on arrival, we were further delayed while they had to keep the engines running for several minutes before they could connect to ground power. And there's another hour added to the block time.

In-flight, it's difficult not to notice just how worn out the A330s are. The windows are scratched, the overhead compartments have yellowed, the in-flight maps don't work and the toilets look... well...past their prime. We won't mention the lack of wifi, but everything feels old, grimy and greasy. The crew generally try their best, but have only limited resources at their disposal.

In SYD, we were sharing the baggage carousel with a heavily delayed QF42 that had suffered a technical delay of more than 3 hours out of Jakarta. They then spent a further 90 minutes awaiting their bags as they weren't able to open the cargo door, again, due to an aircraft defect on an elderly aircraft.

The optics are bad: everything is so dilapidated that it's difficult to have any level of confidence in the reliability and integrity of the operation.

Why was I on QF? Very simple. I couldn't get a seat on SQ, NH or JL for days either side. As a fairly patriotic Australian, I find the whole situation very sad and regrettable.

So, back to Skytrax and QF's position at #17. What's my view? The substantial slide is probably the result of perception quickly accelerating to match the reality of the last few years. They've probably deserved a lower spot for a number of years, but with the plethora of operational issues that have affected reliability in the last year or so, passengers have become hypersensitive to the degree they no longer cut the airline much slack. And that's why their reputatational issues have become such a risk to their brand.

 

[AIRwin]

I couldn't get a seat on SQ, NH or JL for days either side.

You can also try CX or CI next time?

 

[MELso]

For me, one of impacts of a 'tarnished brand' is that passengers start paying close attention to issues. It's hypersensitivity and I'm a case in point.

I flew back from HND to SYD a couple of days ago. Upon boarding, the cabin was filthy and hot, with non-functioning entertainment. The CSM announced a delay as the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU) was defective, meaning a ground cart was needed to provide the engines with an air-start. Needless to say, the delay kept rolling as they struggled to start the engines. Likewise on arrival, we were further delayed while they had to keep the engines running for several minutes before they could connect to ground power. And there's another hour added to the block time.

In-flight, it's difficult not to notice just how worn out the A330s are. The windows are scratched, the overhead compartments have yellowed, the in-flight maps don't work and the toilets look... well...past their prime. We won't mention the lack of wifi, but everything feels old, grimy and greasy. The crew generally try their best, but have only limited resources at their disposal.

In SYD, we were sharing the baggage carousel with a heavily delayed QF42 that had suffered a technical delay of more than 3 hours out of Jakarta. They then spent a further 90 minutes awaiting their bags as they weren't able to open the cargo door, again, due to an aircraft defect on an elderly aircraft.

The optics are bad: everything is so dilapidated that it's difficult to have any level of confidence in the reliability and integrity of the operation.

Why was I on QF? Very simple. I couldn't get a seat on SQ, NH or JL for days either side. As a fairly patriotic Australian, I find the whole situation very sad and regrettable.

Your experience was similar to mine on QF36 from SIN to MEL a couple of days ago on an A330 - it too needed a ground cart to start (meaning the IFE wasn't available until in the air) and had to keep the engines running upon arrival, the seats were disgusting (the red fabric of the economy seat backs were basically black where the touchpoints were, and there was a lot of pilling on the base), the recline on my seat was broken (meaning I had to hoick it back into place while standing up) along with the magazine holder which flopped down, the bathroom and ambiance dated, the cabin lighting poor and there was no wifi. At least the crew and food were okay.

I hadn't flown Qantas internationally since 1986 (this was an award flight rebooked from JQ). After this, I won't book with QF again internationally unless there's no other option. (By contrast, the SQ flight I took a couple of days ago was on a comfortable, clean A350 with modern entertainment and wifi.)

A decade and a half of underinvestment in the fleet to boost profits (and Mr Joyce's bonus) is coming back to bite Qantas in the bum...