Qantas hires consultants to improve on-time performance

[Chalkie]

If I were a Qantas shareholder (I don't know whether my super fund holds QF shares, so I might be, you never know), I'd regard the use of a consultant to improve customer image as a monumental waste of money. It really is so obvious what needs to be done to improve customer image: improve every aspect of customer engagement. Some things that would could be done right now:

- return ticketing desks to airports
- improve the knowledge base and capabilities of those staffing call centres
- get priority boarding right (this will help with on-time performance too)
- improve catering - ditch Neil Perry and the idiotic "Neil's leaves" and "Neil's dressings" approach. Look to someone like SQ or AF for catering inspiration. Use proper sized plates for main courses. Offer better champagne and wine in premium cabins.
- don't make announcements about product changes years in advance
- don't make stoopid statements like "mini first class"
- keep lounges in good order and with decent offerings on the food and drink front
- make sure check-in is properly staff with knowledgable people who can problem solve and help customers who are struggling

The case for a consultant to advise on improving on-time performance is clearer. That's very business process and data driven. That is something where high quality consultants can add value.

 

[Quickstatus]

perhaps the staffing levels are too lean, and also staff's ownership and commitment to the company and customers may have eroded too much for many to genuinely care

Why would they care when a lot don't actually work for the airline directly.
What is the % of casual labour at the airline?

What are the actual causes of delays and cancellations currently for the airline?

That is something where high quality consultants can add value.

How would external consultants who may or may not run an airline help with on time performance?

Some things that would could be done right now:

Boston was called in to help overhaul the customer experience...
Did they ask the passengers who are not top tier frequentflyers?
Did they ask their coal face employees?

 

[CMA222]

If I were a Qantas shareholder (I don't know whether my super fund holds QF shares, so I might be, you never know), I'd regard the use of a consultant to improve customer image as a monumental waste of money. It really is so obvious what needs to be done to improve customer image: improve every aspect of customer engagement. Some things that would could be done right now:

- return ticketing desks to airports
- improve the knowledge base and capabilities of those staffing call centres
- get priority boarding right (this will help with on-time performance too)
- improve catering - ditch Neil Perry and the idiotic "Neil's leaves" and "Neil's dressings" approach. Look to someone like SQ or AF for catering inspiration. Use proper sized plates for main courses. Offer better champagne and wine in premium cabins.
- don't make announcements about product changes years in advance
- don't make stoopid statements like "mini first class"
- keep lounges in good order and with decent offerings on the food and drink front
- make sure check-in is properly staff with knowledgable people who can problem solve and help customers who are struggling

The case for a consultant to advise on improving on-time performance is clearer. That's very business process and data driven. That is something where high quality consultants can add value.

.....and return the option to print a boarding pass at check-in, if that is the passenger's preference.

 

[tdimdad]

- improve the knowledge base and capabilities of those staffing call centres
- make sure check-in is properly staff with knowledgable people who can problem solve and help customers who are struggling

^ These two! ^
I bet my dollar that those alone would solve 90% of the customer interface / service problems they have. Plus, ensure that IT system run rock-solid, to consistent business rules and staff have adequate access to the functions required (instead of seeing the likes of "MEL-SYD has only one flight on that day, ma'am").

All the rest is just dressing (Neil Perry or not) to make good taste even nicer.

 

[MooTime]

As stated upthread, VH committed $220Million to improve things.

Qantas are the PR machine heavy weight.
They'll say look we searched far and wide to bring in the experts to assist us.

Their hard and soft product has deteriorated so much that it's about time they listened to their own staff, especially the long term staff (if any left or not out sourced), alas they won't be doing that.

Just apologise every 6 months, see how that goes!!

 

[mbell1510]

Hopefully they take a look at the A380s... Seems like there is always some kind of hold up making them push up a little bit later than scheduled than say Singapore Airlines and Emirates in my experience.

 

[PERLHR]

Well if the consultants used for the lengthy safety video is anything to go by ..I suspect that the improvement of "on time" will fail.

Can't say I am impressed with the QF team who employ all these consultants!

 

[MelbFlyer]

I'm sure McKinsey's employees will be over the moon - get paid ridiculous amounts of money to recommend things that are Business 101.

Same goes for other "consulting" roles too - grossly overpaid for 101 work.

Honestly, they're better off hiring a bunch of us guys from AFF to do "consulting" for them, or even just getting their Social media team to read posts within this forum!

 

[UP4014]

I'm sure McKinsey's employees will be over the moon - get paid ridiculous amounts of money to recommend things that are Business 101.

Same goes for other "consulting" roles too - grossly overpaid for 101 work.

Honestly, they're better off hiring a bunch of us guys from AFF to do "consulting" for them, or even just getting their Social media team to read posts within this forum!

And no doubt there is a need to fly around to every lounge and test them as well. These guys don't do economy either.

 

[elanshin]

THe reality is this isn't just QF that does this sort of behaviour - see Government (that lot is even worse).

Consultancy does have some decent results if they're utilised properly and the task defined properly.
It's when management goes
"we need to fix this"
"alright lets hire <insert friends consultancy>"
"what do we tell them to do?"
"I don't know let them figure it out".

Consultants do generally do an ok job of coming up with some solutions, if you set them a reasonable objective with defined parameters and constraints to getting it done. Usually it's overly optimistic, but at least its plausible.

It's when it's wishy washy big overarching sweeping things that it becomes a bit of a waste of money.

 

[PERLHR]

if you set them a reasonable objective with defined parameters and constraints to getting it done

This is true but alas often is not carried out. Once consultants believe they have a free range and are not properly managed or monitored within an appropriate timeframe for results to be generated it quickly heads South.

 

[MooTime]

THe reality is this isn't just QF that does this sort of behaviour - see Government (that lot is even worse).

Consultancy does have some decent results if they're utilised properly and the task defined properly.
It's when management goes
"we need to fix this"
"alright lets hire <insert friends consultancy>"
"what do we tell them to do?"
"I don't know let them figure it out".

Consultants do generally do an ok job of coming up with some solutions, if you set them a reasonable objective with defined parameters and constraints to getting it done. Usually it's overly optimistic, but at least its plausible.

It's when it's wishy washy big overarching sweeping things that it becomes a bit of a waste of money.

Off course governments use consultants, they couldn't scratch their own a#& without assistance.

QF issues don't need to be solved by consultants.
Just throwing $$$ down the sewerage pipe.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I look forward to the glossy Powerpoint slide decks these consultants will produce. I just hope they remember to "Search and Replace" the previous clients names.

 

[UP4014]

Off course governments use consultants, they couldn't scratch their own a#& without assistance.

QF issues don't need to be solved by consultants.
Just throwing $$$ down the sewerage pipe.

Coming from a background of consulting but now in the real world, business when they have plenty of profit throw money at problems. You do it yourself when funds are tight.

I agree, turning planes around and on time doesn't need a consultant, just time observing what happens now and if you re instate that extra guy on the baggage perhaps all is good again.

 

[elanshin]

QF issues don't need to be solved by consultants.
Just throwing $$$ down the sewerage pipe.

Not necessarily. Identifying the problems is easy and doesn't need consultants for that portion. Laying down an actionable plan that addresses the issues in a cost effective manner may not necessarily be that simple.

What a good consultant really allows you to do is spend money so that your time is not tied up in solving the problem and you can move onto other problems while they come up with solutions.

In real life - who knows depends on what is actually going on behind closed doors.

 

[RooFlyer]

How would external consultants who may or may not run an airline help with on time performance?

I was in M&A/corporate advice in a couple of international investment banks for 10 years in Sydney. We had an Airlines team spread over I think three offices - something like Sydney, London, New York. There really was a lot of knowledge there about airlines and airports, having consulted to many around the world. They always had a job on somewhere.

If the guys consulting to Qantas have also have the requisite global experience across the Industry, then they may be well placed to do something constructive.

Qantas, doing it themselves, maybe able to fix the immediate problems by throwing money at them, but an experienced consultant can step back and compare it to other cases and maybe suggest an entirely different approach to fix a problem systemically.

We can only hope.

 

[RichardMEL]

What @jb747 describes is sadly, in my experience, all too common.

I've bee there myself in various forms of the "We are listening to you" (but really aren't) from management - at various organisations in various roles.

Either there's a plan in place with a desired outcome - and thus any "feedback" or "comments on proposals" are purely solicited for the purposes of show and the appearances of being an employer that consults(no pun intended) with its staff and is genuine about feedback, or there is a genuine intent to perhaps "listen" to what employees have to say, but they either don't like the feedback (usually negative ) or the feedback is sometimes impractical, no budget, etc.

And then there's the type of management (and this kind led to my departure from my last role) who don't even bother to even pretend to listen, but come in, steamroll over everyone and everything, ignore years, sometimes decades of experience in particular areas because "they know better" and have a senior role, and even when feedback is made, it's directly ignored, or even overridden. I had all of that literally. Incredibly disrespectful and a quick way to destroy employee morale and investment in a work environment where not only are the loyal employees dismissed out of hand, but actively silenced in one way or another. I'll give one example which was the last straw for me. I'm in IT, and new management decided they wished to (in theory) make things more redundant by moving some core infrastructure services into the cloud. Now, when I say "core" I mean, nothing will work without this particular item. So, with this edict in place, and all counter arguments dismissed (and not in a polite way), I drew up an implementation plan. As part of this, I planned for an on site redundancy should access to the cloud fail for whatever reason - using existing systems at at zero cost to do so (and it was pretty much set up anyway). Well, of course, the plan was rejected and there was no way, no how that this was to be a thing for the new senior management. Well, I very shortly thereafter (for various reasons, not just this) told them where they could stick it since clearly my technical knowledge and experience were of no value to these people who decided they knew better. What do you know, literally a month later. Just a month, after they'd made their own changes, the organisation's internet links were disrupted for 12-18 hours due to a provider issue out of their control. Of course, with access to the cloud lost, and no onsite redundancy capability, everything collapsed in a great big pile of whatever that orange-brown slop is they serve in SYD dom J lounge. I had to both laugh and cry - laugh because yeah, I freakin' told them so and would have potentially saved at least SOME of the pain points from the outage, and cry for everyone affected by senior management's attitudes and how it had come back to bite them on the backside (and so quickly?!). I was out, but I heard allll about it and just shook my head.

So anyway back to QF, it seems that - from the outside at least - QF's senior team is more our way or the high way types, an it would be quite interesting to know the terms of the contract with McKinsey - ie What are the objectives from the board and Senior Management for the process and required outcomes - because VH can say in public whatever she wants, but the devil is in the detail. I seriously doubt any consulting firm is being brought in for really truly constructive and positive change, but more likely to help drive the business in the direction already set out in the strategic plan for the next x years (say 2024-28) and to find ways to push this stuff through.

Now sometimes this can be good and have useful input from "fresh eyes" outside of the bubble - but more often than not the opportunity for things like this are stifled before they have a chance by terms of reference of the consultancy.

So I guess we'll see, but I expect very little out of this big $ item than will change much from the direction we already see things going.

(and final thought - this will all be about big picture items and the like rather than individual items like the check in experience, printing of BP's and so on. I expect it's more higher level concept guff like "commitment to customers" and so on with vague language but who knows about implementation and practical changes on the ground. Same with Staff - whoose treatment and support MUST be a vital component of any doover.

time will tell.

 

[tdimdad]

Consultants do generally do an ok job of coming up with some solutions, if you set them a reasonable objective with defined parameters and constraints to getting it done. Usually it's overly optimistic, but at least its plausible.

The best use of consultants I've come across has been when we've done the legwork & build in-house but used a consultant to provide information & viewpoints, be a "critical friend" to review our work, and suggest tools / templates that might work in our build. This also presumes that you have competent staff available to do the work.

I'm afraid QF may lack that competent staff to drive this (and/or willingness or skill to use what they've already got), leading QF to give too much free rein to the consultants to come up with whatever they please (i.e. rehashed PowerPoints and talking points) and implement it halfheartedly. It'd be much faster but equally effective to just go to SYD T3 and hand out $100 notes to bypassers until you've spent whatever the contract value with McKinsey is...

 

[LittleFokker]

And no doubt there is a need to fly around to every lounge and test them as well. These guys don't do economy either.

At BCG we called that "boondoggling" and it was priced into the engagement (even if not explicitly called out to the client) - The biggest boondoggler would get an award at the BCG XMAS party.

 

[flyer89]

Now I said that nicely, and they did ask, but nevertheless HR took it upon themselves to ring me to tell me my comments weren't appropriate. As you might imagine, my next comments sure weren't.

You implied that HR are people, and I just have to take exception with that premise.