Qantas: 'one of the worst airlines in the free world'

[straitman]

Coming from this that I don't know what an 'Aviation' perspective is... but GA is consistently rated in the top for its first and business class product (although first is largely being withdrawn now). Not relevant here but they also have an excellent economy class product compared their Australian competitors on flights to Bali - full service with lots of legroom. If you are in any doubt about GA's first class please see here:

• Review: Garuda Indonesia First Class 777-300ER London To Jakarta - One Mile at a Time
• Review: Garuda 777-300ER First Class Jakarta - Amsterdam - Live and Let's Fly

Airlineratings gives GA 7 stars. The highest available. Garuda Indonesia - Airline Ratings Same category as Qantas.

Some of AA's flagship lounges (OW Sapphire gets entry) are far superior to QF clubs, including champagne, tequila stations, bloody mary stations, varied and interesting buffets. But granted that's not all lounges. Their 'regular' clubs have cheese and olives and soups compared to our sliced (processed) ham and a camembert wheel. Same same.

I don't have any issues working with any of the AA or UA agents I've come accross. Calls answered either instantly or within a minute or two. And agents that consistently know what they're doing. Which is a marked difference from the 'general' line in Australia where it's often us that have to guide agents to get the correct outcome.

MEL_Traveller,

Last time I looked Garuda is on a no fly list for many multi national companies. The company I worked for had them on such a list for Aviation Safety and Aviation Safety Cultural reasons. The company has a huge Aviation Advisory section to audit and report of Aviation Safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with comfort reviews and all to do with safety.

Re the lounges, we all have different experiences and thoughts on what is good or better and I do not agree with you.

Re call centres, I quoted my most recent experience of a couple of days ago and nothing more.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

MEL_Traveller,

Last time I looked Garuda is on a no fly list for many multi national companies. The company I worked for had them on such a list for Aviation Safety and Aviation Safety Cultural reasons. The company has a huge Aviation Advisory section to audit and report of Aviation Safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with comfort reviews and all to do with safety.

.

The airlineratings link is 7 stars for safety. That puts GA near the top of a list where many other airlines have not achieved the same.

At the end of the day I guess all ratings are largely subjective. Thankfully there just isn't sufficient accident, crash or fatality data to prove these ratings one way or the other.

I wonder too, how much of putting Garuda on a 'no-fly' list is just bravado. Or the thought that in order to maintain credibility they have to put a certain airline on the list otherwise no one will take them seriously.

 

[mattm199]

His TRs are a terrific resource, we’ve piggybacked on many of his experiences.... and will do so again with this Tassie report. Have a few bookings on our current trip due to his reports.

He’s toned down a fair bit over the years .... there use to be a “girls of xyz” in his reports.

I take lots of photos for TRs (not the same quality as his - I prefer convenience of a phone camera over quality) but I go out of my way to avoid people and inappropriate comments.

The lounge was disgusting and deserved comment. Handheld Dyson’s are cheap and effective!

I'm sure I've seen a Dyson come out in the Sydney lounge when it's not too busy. Maybe having the QC crowd in meant there wasn't a chance to clean as much as usually.

 

[straitman]

The airlineratings link is 7 stars for safety. That puts GA near the top of a list where many other airlines have not achieved the same.

At the end of the day I guess all ratings are largely subjective. Thankfully there just isn't sufficient accident, crash or fatality data to prove these ratings one way or the other.

I wonder too, how much of putting Garuda on a 'no-fly' list is just bravado. Or the thought that in order to maintain credibility they have to put a certain airline on the list otherwise no one will take them seriously.

I'll go with the multinationals who spend their millions on their expert audits and spend much larger on their travel and aviation operational budgets. I know some of the auditors and was involved for a while and can assure you there is non of the bravado you mention.

I'll also go with my personal training experiences where such companies have falsified crew experiences and where the culture is 'you must not challenge the captain'

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'll go with the multinationals who spend their millions on their expert audits and spend much larger on their travel and aviation operational budgets. I know some of the auditors and was involved for a while and can assure you there is non of the bravado you mention.

I'll also go with my personal training experiences where such companies have falsified crew experiences and where the culture is 'you must not challenge the captain'

Are these audits recent? A lot seems to have changed in the last few years.

I guess a lot of this depends on the facts... who are the multinationals, and why are they doing the audits.

The thing that seems so counter intuitive with most of these ‘no fly’ airlines is the potential to miss out spectacular experiences for the one in ten million chance there could be an accident... but happily drive to and from the airport to pick up an airline on the ‘fly’ list

 

[straitman]

Are these audits recent? A lot seems to have changed in the last few years.

I guess a lot of this depends on the facts... who are the multinationals, and why are they doing the audits.

The thing that seems so counter intuitive with most of these ‘no fly’ airlines is the potential to miss out spectacular experiences for the one in ten million chance there could be an accident... but happily drive to and from the airport to pick up an airline on the ‘fly’ list

The audits are annual but with ongoing Aviation Advisor oversight.

Multinational oil companies who transport many people to/from areas of the world and who let many contracts at various levels from airline operations, to leasing of aircraft and helicopters world wide.

If you don't want to be convinced there is nothing I can say that will convince you, however that is the reality of the situation. As I said it is nothing to do with how comfortable a lounge or aircraft seat is or how fancy an aircraft cabin is.

 

[Lynda2475]

Garuda is on the no fly list of at least 3 companies ive worked for, one which was a risk management and insurance specialist due to its safety record specifically maintenance shortcomings and history of fatal crashes - the last major one only 11 years ago.

Corporate risk ratings look at root cause of crashes so cuases due to pilot error (reflects poorly on training) and poor maintenance get worse score than if fatality found to be a result of aircraft design.

Given the OP has clarified his review was in relation to first class he really should amend his title to say so, as claearly safety and service levels in other classes dont matter to him. Further there are no are first class domestic flights sold in Australia.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hey there SFO777,

I have a couple of comments to make. And I state from the outset I am torn with respect to your apparent first thread, and also your appearance here. I agree and disagree with much.

I fly a "fair bit", and I agree that Qantas is not perfect, and as any other airline, can fail - especially after what you seem to describe as a **** day. I get that. We have all sufferred cough days. And we also forgive posts that are flavoured by that experience on the day.

But I want to help you by attempting to explain a few things you seem to have failed to grasp in a cultural sense. Let me explain....

(and for the record, in true Australian spirit. I recognize that these are just my opinions and I certainly make no claim to speaking for even the neighbours dog, let alone all my fellow Australians )

Yes, you touched a "nerve". But I suspect it is not what you think it to be. It is not about "attacking our national flag carrier". This is a simple yet very important concept. Australians are not 'nationalistic" like many other countries. We do not beat our chests and yell "Australia is the best". Your audience here in AFF are frequent flyers, and I don't think I have ever come across a single poster who is blindly nationalistic. some love Qantas, but others love Virgin. But that love has nothing to do with national pride. We are far more relaxed about such things.

In Australia, when you first post in a forum, or introduce yourself to a new crowd ( a new group of people), we value modesty far more than self-aggrandizement. You state you make your comments as a "double One World Emerald", as if that may impress or give you credit.To educate yourself more about Australia, please look up the meaning of the expression "whoopty doo", and how we use it here

Yes, we are a smaller nation than the USA, but you will find in our small forum people that make your travels look like a pauper's weekender.

The alleged title of whatever of your posts was seems to refer to Qantas being the "worst of the free world". Yet you say that you also hammer the major English and Yank carriers. Can you please tell me what are those amazing carriers that are the best in the "free world"? I would assume by those terms you will not be including the middle-eastern carriers? Please share who those free airlines are.

Again, this forum, and Australia, are tiny compared to comparitive forums and audiences in the USA. You express the success of your "click-baiting". That is a tad less acceptable here than in the USA.

I do like that you appeared here. I hope it is not just a single post. Just remember that here you are talking to an albeit smaller group, but you are not talking to a bunch of peasants that will hang off the every word of a "double Emerald" - Aussies despise pretentious people. If you want to do that, get involved in the other travel forums and social media tailored to half-wits - we carry our fair share in this great country - but they are not here

And if we ever needed an example of how a minority of Aussie's deal with tall poppy syndrome, this would be it.

Note that the OP came to this forum after being relentlessly attacked, in absentia. Not coming here for advice.

FWIW, the 'world's worst airline' does not appear in any title of the trip reports posted either on the OP's personal blog, or FT. So not 'click-bait' in that sense.

 

[serfty]

Garuda was rives from the EU banned list in 2009.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The audits are annual but with ongoing Aviation Advisor oversight.

Multinational oil companies who transport many people to/from areas of the world and who let many contracts at various levels from airline operations, to leasing of aircraft and helicopters world wide.

If you don't want to be convinced there is nothing I can say that will convince you, however that is the reality of the situation. As I said it is nothing to do with how comfortable a lounge or aircraft seat is or how fancy an aircraft cabin is.

And perhaps for that specific purpose they may be some value to these 'no fly' lists. If you have a hundred of your staff on a single aircraft the liability in the event something goes wrong would be huge.

I probably consider that somewhat different from the Aviation perspective of regular travellers - where the risk in driving to the airport, or taking a taxi at our destination is going to far outweigh any chance of being involved in an accident.

 

[RooFlyer]

Look I couldn't take lounge criticism seriously from any American looking at their paucity of travel sophistication. They are still catching up to the rest of the world in that regard.

Sorry, I think that's a pretty bizarre statement, unless you are being facitious. How on earth does a perceived lack of national travel sophistication nullify the opinions, backed up with photographs, of an evidently very well traveled person?

I have travelled to the USA very often over the years ( trip reports with pics and commentary supplied) and I have never seen a lounge in the state shown in the FT post.

The FT piece did have some errors and hyperbole, but those without sin in that regard , cast the first stone, eh?

 

[RooFlyer]

The audits are annual but with ongoing Aviation Advisor oversight.

Multinational oil companies who transport many people to/from areas of the world and who let many contracts at various levels from airline operations, to leasing of aircraft and helicopters world wide.

If you don't want to be convinced there is nothing I can say that will convince you, however that is the reality of the situation. As I said it is nothing to do with how comfortable a lounge or aircraft seat is or how fancy an aircraft cabin is.

Do those audits and no flies regret to domestic or international Garuda? I wouldn't like to fly with them domestically but no problems with international. same policy of the mineral exploration company I used to work for.

Like others have said, multinationals can be very conservative ( I've worked for a couple) and audits always can find some issues. Any such report can then be used to derive a 'no fly' policy ... For better or worse.

The FT OP is getting pilloried for some hyperbole in his headline. Let's accept that was what it was. The horrible state of the lounge was fact, as far as we could see, and not an isolated incident.

Maybe I could do an audit and declare a ' no dirty lounge' policy.

 

[zenyattamondatta]

And if we ever needed an example of how a minority of Aussie's deal with tall poppy syndrome, this would be it.

Agreed. That sort of “this is how we do things in Australia” nonsense is as ugly as the right-wingers in Melbourne yesterday.

It was a well-enough written review and refreshingly free of humblebrag faux modesty. Which is more than can be said for many others.

 

[andye]

My impression is that a good proportion of the Australian public values safety exceptionally highly when evaluating an airline.
No doubt QF are pleased about this as it is a powerful marketing tool in a world where many people are frightened despite the statistical improbability of a crash.
As I understand things, Garuda has changed considerably but it is possible that the safety culture might not reach the standard expected by QF.
I personally don't think safety would enter my own ranking of an airline's F J or Y product (but still might affect my willingness to fly)

PS:I also don't think SFO777 is obliged to change anything-its his blog written somewhat in the FT style. Enjoy or not. Agree or disagree

 

[straitman]

Do those audits and no flies regret to domestic or international Garuda? I wouldn't like to fly with them domestically but no problems with international. same policy of the mineral exploration company I used to work for.

Like others have said, multinationals can be very conservative ( I've worked for a couple) and audits always can find some issues. Any such report can then be used to derive a 'no fly' policy ... For better or worse.

The FT OP is getting pilloried for some hyperbole in his headline. Let's accept that was what it was. The horrible state of the lounge was fact, as far as we could see, and not an isolated incident.

Maybe I could do an audit and declare a ' no dirty lounge' policy.

Several things whilst we are right out here in OT land.

Garuda is one airline not just domestic or international. Splitting can lead to all sorts of consequences and levels of misunderstanding.

As Chief Pilot for this part of the world for a (the) largest multinational I was responsible and was scrutinised to the nth degree because they were particularly harsh to their own operations. We always passed with only very minor issues if any. Some of the findings from various other operations had to be seen to be believed.

I fully relate to the hyperbole comments but just as the OP has the right to make his post so do people have the right to respond. Maybe both sides need to reflect.

I probably consider that somewhat different from the Aviation perspective of regular travellers - where the risk in driving to the airport, or taking a taxi at our destination is going to far outweigh any chance of being involved in an accident.

I agree and that's a line I use often. Having said that though I'm not about to go on a flight (or anything else) where I perceive that the risk is significantly higher than the alternative. Remember that risk management is about both risk and consequences.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...where I perceive that the risk is significantly higher than the alternative. Remember that risk management is about both risk and consequences.

And that's the $64,000 question... what are the alternatives? To Bali we can fly Air Asia, Malindo (= Lion Air), Qantas (on their 30 inch pitch 737 - no thanks, regardless of how safe they are), or Jetstar. The question is whether GA's A332/3 can factually be deemed 'no fly' against JQ's 787 where the cabin crew are expected to work there and back in a single shift and are so tired they claim their safety function could be seriously imparied?

For domestic operations GA may in fact be safer than their counterparts in some cases, or taking the bus.

Is 'no fly' actually 'no fly' or just 'put it last if there are better alternatives'?

 

[straitman]

Is 'no fly' actually 'no fly' or just 'put it last if there are better alternatives'?

No fly!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No fly!

So from a commercial passenger perspective within Indoesia that only leaves private jet? And similarly fro example from KUL to DPS we'd need to fly via Singapore or Hong Kong, or again take a private jet?

For us regular folk the 'no fly' list to this degree seems unworkable (Agree if you were a minimg company you'd charter your own plane.)

 

[love_the_life]

And if we ever needed an example of how a minority of Aussie's deal with tall poppy syndrome, this would be it.

Note that the OP came to this forum after being relentlessly attacked, in absentia. Not coming here for advice.

FWIW, the 'world's worst airline' does not appear in any title of the trip reports posted either on the OP's personal blog, or FT. So not 'click-bait' in that sense.

I found much of the OP’s review informative and interesting and do agree with some of his observations on QF but the bit I took issue with was his line about finally arriving on one of the worst airlines in the free world. I did not feel that the issues he had would have put QF in this category. IMO he undid all the good work in the report with that line. YMMV and obviously for many it does.
Dang....again.

 

[andye]

So within Indoesia that only leaves private jet? And similarly fro example from KUL to DPS we'd need to fly via Singapore or Hong Kong, or again take a private jet? (assuming we can find one that meets standards?)

From a commercial passenger perspective the 'no fly' list to this degree seems unworkable (Agree if you were a minimg company you'd charter your own plane.)

Surely DPS-SIN-CGK on SQ would be the FF way to go