Qantas Fare Increase - 28 July 2010

[dajop]

You have AirAsia, QANTAS, Thai, Malaysia, Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Air, Cathy Pacific, Virgin Atlantic, and British Airways to a lesser

Not too mention the lesser competitors including Vietnam, Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Korean, Asiana, JAL, Garuda, Air NZ, Air Mauritius and codeshare to Asia/own metal from Asia competitors such as Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, etc. Then at the front of the plane there are those that have competive combo fares including the likes of Swiss, Finnair, Lufthansa etc.

 

[gilby08]

Not too mention the lesser competitors including Vietnam, Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Korean, Asiana, JAL, Garuda, Air NZ, Air Mauritius and codeshare to Asia/own metal from Asia competitors such as Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, etc. Then at the front of the plane there are those that have competive combo fares including the likes of Swiss, Finnair, Lufthansa etc.

But there is no competition at all..

 

[simongr]

I say screw the Qantas shareholders (and BHP, Rio Tinto, etc) as they have market share approaching monopoly levels. Why doesn't the government take a baseball-bat to them like they did to Telstra?

The government owned Telstra it doesnt own QF, BHP or Rio (although how two competing separately owned mining companies can be called a monopoly is somewhat confusing for me).

The solution to consumer issues is not for yet more bloated and wasteful government intervention. If you don't like the price dont fly on Qantas - if you can't bear to be without your points or status then suck t up and pay the price that you are actually willing to accept.

 

[Smackbum]

The government owned Telstra it doesnt own QF, BHP or Rio (although how two competing separately owned mining companies can be called a monopoly is somewhat confusing for me).

It may have escaped your notice (or maybe you are a teenager) but the government owned Qantas from 1947 to 1993. The reference to BHP and Rio was regards their shareholders, who apparently are far more important people than the public (or the Prime Minister for that matter). I was just lumping them into the "screw you" bucket for topical reasons.

The solution to consumer issues is not for yet more bloated and wasteful government intervention. If you don't like the price dont fly on Qantas - if you can't bear to be without your points or status then suck t up and pay the price that you are actually willing to accept.

This is the nub of the matter - like many many others I have some golden handcuffs firmly attaching me to Qantas due to the lack of choice when it comes to loyalty programs. The trick is how and when to break them, and I think that for me that time is coming soon. I have reduced my points to near zero due to an upcoming trip with the family and I will probably retain Gold for next year on current SC's as it is.

I suppose Virgin joining Star Alliance is out of the questions, but if it had a slightly better network then that would seal the deal.

 

[medhead]

Why doesn't the government take a baseball-bat to them like they did to Telstra?

It was hardly a baseball bat, more like a feather and that only happened after the head amigo wiped his hand up his sweety bumcrack and rubbed it in the government's face. Or perhaps it was a stinkfist - whatever telstra had it coming.

The government owned Telstra it doesnt own QF, BHP or Rio (although how two competing separately owned mining companies can be called a monopoly is somewhat confusing for me).

Keating will be happy to know that you've forgotten that the ALP sold Qantas.
More seriously those 2 mining companies are a good example of near monopoly, but only in select markets. Not that I really understand the relationship to qantas. But anyway, I also don't see the problem with a near monopoly, e.g. the WA iron ore market, because they sell into a global market and there is decent worldwide competition.

 

[dajop]

The reference to BHP and Rio was regards their shareholders, who apparently are far more important people than the public

It always amuses me these days around the distinction between the shareholders and the public. Although the ownership of companies such as BHP is not evenly distributed amongst the "public", the vast majority of the "public" (at least the employed or retired members of the public) are indeed shareholders in the company, a small number directly, but the vast majority through superannuation funds. Not saying you are one, but many who don't like companies making profits, are also the first to complain when the value of their super takes a dive (yes I have been guilty of this too at time, depending on the company!!) ....

 

[simongr]

It may have escaped your notice (or maybe you are a teenager) but the government owned Qantas from 1947 to 1993.

Thanks for the condescension. Just not sure how any of this is relevant to the modern day. Yes the govt owned QF in 1993. They could have drafted legislation enshrining some form of competition at the sale but they didnt. Not you want the govt to "smash up" a non-govt owned entity. personally I would prefer to see them not supporting overseas owned companies like Ford, General Motors and Toyota where all profits from government subsidies are repatriated to foreign shareholders.

This is the nub of the matter - like many many others I have some golden handcuffs firmly attaching me to Qantas due to the lack of choice when it comes to loyalty programs.

You have a choice - you could fly cheaper like the majority of flyers - but you want the fringe benefits. You just don't want to pay for them. Were you posting about public interest or self interest - its hard to tell.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Why did they even announce this?

Seriously, would anyone really notice an increase?

 

[JohnK]

Seriously, would anyone really notice an increase?

Definitely. As I book and pay for my own flights it would not be hard to notice a fare increase from $98 -> $101.

I wonder if Qantas is actually going to increase the airfares by 3% or round up the increase to the nearest dollar.

 

[oz_mark]

Why did they even announce this?

Seriously, would anyone really notice an increase?

They generally do, I suppose to allow any incomplete bookings to be completed or face the price increase.

 

[wandering_fred]

I would venture that the O class fares MEL/SYD-PER have gone up a great deal more than 3% in the last year. The current E class are more than I paid for O class last year.

Obligatory SYD-centric remark: WA is only appreciated for its $$ contribution to the eastern states.

Fred

 

[medhead]

Just not sure how any of this is relevant to the modern day. Yes the govt owned QF in 1993. They could have drafted legislation enshrining some form of competition at the sale but they didnt. Not you want the govt to "smash up" a non-govt owned entity. personally I would prefer to see them not supporting overseas owned companies like Ford, General Motors and Toyota where all profits from government subsidies are repatriated to foreign shareholders.

Now that you mention legislation enshrining competition I think the parallels between qantas and telstra are remarkably similar. 2 monopoly government enterprises sold off without establishing real competition within about 5 years of each other.
what this has to do with prices rises puzzles me.

Ohh and it would seem that I am a shareholder in Ford, GM and Toyota. Thanks Dajop. I don't mind my shareholder funds being spend to employ australian workers, even with the government subsidy. :shock:

 

[YQY]

Why did they even announce this?

Seriously, would anyone really notice an increase?

+1

95% of my travel is funded by my employer and 3-4% inflation is built into our contracts. I'm sure other corporate FF's would be in the same situation.

 

[Smackbum]

+1

95% of my travel is funded by my employer and 3-4% inflation is built into our contracts. I'm sure other corporate FF's would be in the same situation.

Cool. So if you don't mind could you please send me a cheque for $100 to cover my fare increase because apparently you (or your employer) won't notice it. I, on the other hand, do.

 

[JohnK]

Cool. So if you don't mind could you please send me a cheque for $100 to cover my fare increase because apparently you (or your employer) won't notice it. I, on the other hand, do.

The issue is hardly anyone cares about the self funded traveller (or commuter for want of a better word) as there precious little employers pay for flexible airfares and business class airfares where possible.

For someone like me who does approximately 70-80 domestic flights a year the airfare increase is likely to cost ~AUD240. Sure not a big deal and there are alternatives (although not necessarily cheaper once all is taken into consideration) but unfortunately no competition.

 

[YQY]

Cool. So if you don't mind could you please send me a cheque for $100 to cover my fare increase because apparently you (or your employer) won't notice it. I, on the other hand, do.

No one's forcing you to fly Qantas. There are other alternatives available ie Jetstar, Virgin Blue, Tiger, Air Asia etc. The point i was making was that Qantas derive most of their profit from corporate flyers and most corporates factor in inflation in to their travel budgets - and they pass on the cost to their customers. This is a fact of capitalism.

Additionally sale, red e-deals etc fares are subsidised by business and flexible fares bought by the corporate sector. So in fact they are covering part of your fare.

If you want more social welfare - go live in Cuba!

 

[Smackbum]

No one's forcing you to fly Qantas. There are other alternatives available ie Jetstar, Virgin Blue, Tiger, Air Asia etc.

I tried putting Sydney to Edinburgh into the booking engines of all of the above but was stymied by the fact that they don't fly there. V Oz could get me to London (via Melbourne and Johannesburg) and then back (via LA and Brisbane) for $6700. Well that's an improvement!

The point i was making was that Qantas derive most of their profit from corporate flyers and most corporates factor in inflation in to their travel budgets - and they pass on the cost to their customers. This is a fact of capitalism.

Did you read my post? I am talking about a self-funded trip to the UK with QF/BA to link in with award flights. My choices in this instance are limited to 1. You may not notice that your employer pays 3% more for their airfares but people who fund their own travel do. The fact that you do not care is noted.

If you want more social welfare - go live in Cuba!

Pure Capitalism is as debauched as Pure Socialism. There needs to be a balance. That is why there is legislation designed to prevent the excesses of both - like the emergence of monopolies or cartels. It is arguable that the Qantas groups' 65% share of the domestic market is not a sign of good capitalism.

 

[JohnK]

No one's forcing you to fly Qantas. There are other alternatives available ie Jetstar, Virgin Blue, Tiger, Air Asia etc.

Sorry to inform but Jetstar and Tiger are not realistic alternatives and Virgin Blue is still very amateurish. I have had 5 flights with them in the last 2 weeks and my impression has not changed.

Additionally sale, red e-deals etc fares are subsidised by business and flexible fares bought by the corporate sector. So in fact they are covering part of your fare.

Why do people love putting down the self funded traveller?

Not meaning to offend but that statement is absolute rubbish and comes across as a DYKWIA attitude from someone who has no idea what it is like to earn a living far away from home and having to cover all their costss. Just think that the people purchasing the cheap airfares are keeping the aircraft schedules the way they are today. Have only flexible and business class airfares and then see how many travel.

Try working for a BFOD company and spend a bit more time on the airlines you claim provide an alternative and see how long you enjoy your job and travel....

 

[anat0l]

Why do people love putting down the self funded traveller?

Not meaning to offend but that statement is absolute rubbish and comes across as a DYKWIA attitude from someone who has no idea what it is like to earn a living far away from home and having to cover all their costss. Just think that the people purchasing the cheap airfares are keeping the aircraft schedules the way they are today. Have only flexible and business class airfares and then see how many travel.

I don't understand your argument in response to YQY. I also don't think YQY was specifically bagging self-funded travellers in any way, let alone those who travel on a BFOD policy.

 

[YQY]

I tried putting Sydney to Edinburgh into the booking engines of all of the above but was stymied by the fact that they don't fly there. V Oz could get me to London (via Melbourne and Johannesburg) and then back (via LA and Brisbane) for $6700. Well that's an improvement!

Did you read my post? I am talking about a self-funded trip to the UK with QF/BA to link in with award flights. My choices in this instance are limited to 1. You may not notice that your employer pays 3% more for their airfares but people who fund their own travel do. The fact that you do not care is noted.

To be honest - i only read your response to my post - my apologies. I wasn't aware you had posted above.

It's no that i don't care - it's a matter of needs vs wants.

I have needs such as a roof over my head, education, health care etc. And i'm sympathetic to people who have no access or cannot afford the above.

I also have wants, I want to own a BMW X5 3.0D SE - but i can't afford it (mortgages, kids etc take higher priority). That particular model has also gone up in price lately. Do i complain about it? No! - i drive a cheaper vehicle.

I see travel as a want for most of the population ie it's not going to kill you if you don't travel or can't afford to travel on Qantas. I can't understand why there are complaints about a want. It's like a two year old having a tantrum about wanting a lolly.

Not meaning to offend but that statement is absolute rubbish and comes across as a DYKWIA attitude from someone who has no idea what it is like to earn a living far away from home and having to cover all their costss. Just think that the people purchasing the cheap airfares are keeping the aircraft schedules the way they are today. Have only flexible and business class airfares and then see how many travel.

Try working for a BFOD company and spend a bit more time on the airlines you claim provide an alternative and see how long you enjoy your job and travel....

JohnK - I wasn't putting down self funded travelers. I meant without the high margins on first, business and flexible economy class - Qantas would not be able to provide economy sale fares, lounges etc. In fact, without J and F - Qantas would be like Virgin Blue.

If you had looked at my posts in Your Travel in 2010 thread - you would realise most of my travel is in Y - even when i fly OS - no F,J or PE ever. Yes, the company i work for is a bit more flexible with travel than your company. However I love my job and my travel.

I'm sympathetic that you need to travel to put a roof over your head and you cover the costs of travel.