I'm going to say my last bit then let this go. you seem incapable of grasping some concepts and that's a pity.
I'm not saying QF should do exactly what EK does, I was simply giving an example of similar length of service which is also treated as Domestic by QF that can be done much better at a much lower price.
Irrelevant. Two different markets totally. I don't understand you insist on saying flights of similar lengths but lower price in the DIFFERENT markets should be equalled... moreso when you're comparing a service sold as and marketed as International FIRST with Domestic Business. What part of this is not obvious?
And to my reading you exactly WERE saying QF should be compared to EK's service on AKL-MEL.
You are defending QF and keep avoiding the real issue of charging an outrageous price and providing poor value in return. It's completely irrelevant how many pay and how many use points and it's a very poor excuse to make to explain why they provide rubbish service. Anyway not everyone have elite status that can guarantee a seat using points. In fact I had to call the P1 team to secure a seat in J on PER-MEL for an SG just last last week.
You're accusing me of defending QF when my entire argument has been about your analogy with a totally different market and airline (and class of service!!). I've said multiple times that a) I wasn't defending QF and b) I did not consider the posted meal to be great given the stage length and the supposed marketing hype about the transcon product(as others above have also commented on).
I'm not excusing the pricing charged. It's apparently what the market will bear (for those very few who pay full J). VA wouldn't be much different on the route (and THAT is your reasonable comparision in terms of price, produce and service, not a trans tasman or any other).
I only brought up the point about points upgrades and the like because, frankly, most people on domestic sectors DO upgrade to J. The fact that you had to call in a favour to secure an upgrade seat either suggests a larger number of higher elites on the flight already grabbing U space, or actual (gasp) paying passengers (that almost certainly wouldn't be at your quoted $1800 fare given corporate discounts, I fares and the like). The more paying passengers, of whatever sort, is good for QF to make money. Isn't that the goal (for them) - this point of course has absolutely nothing to do with the service aspects offered (or not).
I was not abusing you, I don't know why you say that and I was not comparing only the service, but also the price. It seems that according to your logic it's ok for an airline to charge a high price and provide bad service because people can just use their points. I don't know how many pay for J fares (do you have access to the airline info that you would like to share?) but I'm sure some do and probably more would if the service was better.
See points above.
1. You're suggesting I've been defending QF here when I don't believe I have.
2. Again you're harping on product and price, and your original argument was to compare to EK's F trans-tasman service. As I have written several times, and again above, that argument is not relevant in my point of view
The general point of the price paid for service covers a number of factors in my view - some people under corporate contract are forced to fly with either QF/VA (and in that case, price is not relevant as it's not out of their pocket!) and they have to put up with what they get (and one could argue that QF and maybe VA-but I know nothing of VA's service/product - though I suspect it is generally a bit better from what I've seen - but anyway perhaps, specially with PER routes there's a bit of still riding on the resources boom with a lot of that traffic both FIFO and related stuff). For those of us who pay with our own dime, we will find our own ways to find a value for what we get that we find acceptable - and that particular spot is going to be different for everyone. Personally I have a threshold rate/SC that I work to as a general rule and make decisions based on that.
The reality is if nobody purchased those full fares (and no, I have no idea re QF's yield or how many they sell at particular levels given that is highly prized company confidential information) then, in general, the market would bring the fares down to push demand.
I feel it is generally accepted though that, as in the USA, as is here that there is relatively small actual paid J (full) traffic. There will be exceptions of course, but in general I reckon the number of paid for J (and I mean full J, or "normal fares" as opposed to sale fares, which even I have been known to purchase
) is relatively small. Happy to be corrected.. but I imagine anyone with that kind of information would then have to kill me !
It seems basic economics to me that price is going to be governed by demand and supply. Any company will also try and extract the maximum revenue they can get(away with) for a product... and if your demand is > than your supply, that will push the price up, and vice-versa - in general.
I'm also thinking of other examples of high demand routes, but also thinking of the key target customers and how they push demand and price. By example, I've noticed consistently SYD-MEL/BNE have very high (relative) J prices(excepting sales) because they are key corporate markets. Same with CBR in the sense that they have a captive audience if you will of pollies and public servants (and guess who will pay for those flights, though prob very few public servants get paid J!!!).
Anyway that's all I'm going to say on this topic. All I wanted was apples and apples, not apples and oranges(and Dom)
