Qantas 'the flying dog': poll ..... Are they right?

[kamchatsky]

Finally, the truth (from customers) has come out!


Qantas 'the flying dog': poll - National - smh.com.au

___________________________________________________________

Qantas 'the flying dog': poll

• Email
• Print
• Normal font
• Large font

May 29, 2007 - 8:08AM

Australia's national carrier Qantas has been voted worst international airline in a consumer survey.


The survey of 4,000 subscribers to consumer magazine Choice also found Qantas' low-cost subsidiary Jetstar to be the worst domestic airline.
Singapore Airlines was voted top international airline ,while minnow Regional Express was the favoured domestic operator.
Choice asked subscribers to rate airlines for value for money, booking processes, convenience, the check-in procedure, inflight service, including food and entertainment, as well as seat comfort, leg room and cleanliness.
Qantas scored 63 per cent compared to Singapore Airline's 78 per cent.
On the domestic front, Qantas fared little better with a 67 per cent rating, with consumers labelling the service "arrogant and aloof", while Jetstar scored just 62 per cent.
One respondent described Jetstar staff as "uniformly surly, unhelpful and most definitely unwelcoming".
Regional Express won a survey-high rating of 79 per cent followed by Virgin Blue with 71 per cent.
"Virgin Blue staff attempt to make what is a reasonably unpleasant experience flying with a no-frills service, light-hearted and enjoyable," one respondent said.
One possible reason Qantas may have fared so poorly is that people may be more critical of their national carrier, the magazine suggested.
Travellers said they continued to fly with Qantas to earn frequent flyer points even though they rated the airline significantly lower than average.
AAP

 

[shillard]

Subscribers to CHOICE magazine?

Now there's a representative sample.....ahem.


Nothing more to be said, really. Go look up the "Gloria Jeans" thread under the "top gripes" section of www.notegoodenough.org

That will tell you all about CHOICE subscribers.

 

[Sequel]

They mightn't be the worst, but there are definately better airlines to fly (which I do when I can).

 

[simongr]

I wonder how much of this poll is connected to the APA bid...

I also wonder what benchmarks the subscribers are using - how many other airlines are they comparing against. I wonder if China Air, Air Pakistan, RyanAir, AA were even on the list...

I am not surprised that JQ was worst domestic airline - it is the most no frills airline domestically so how can it compete with DJ and QF.

 

[kamchatsky]

Well, read all the reader's comments .... That would tell you the story. And yes, some really bad experiences .....

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: News Blog

 

[simongr]

I have issues with someone rating an airline when they can even get the competitor's names correct:

It is not only bad but worst...
The in-flight staffs are notoriusly yes very arrogant and unhelpful. I'd prefer to fly with Singapore Airline, British Airline or Cathay Airline....

I am guessing english not their first language. A lot of other simply stupid comments as well - a lot of petulant people have spat the dummy it seems...

 

[Happy Dude]

I have issues with someone rating an airline when they can even get the competitor's names correct:

and then:

I also wonder what benchmarks the subscribers are using - how many other airlines are they comparing against. I wonder if China Air, Air Pakistan, RyanAir, AA were even on the list...

You mean "can't get the competitor's names correct" and "China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines", don't you?

Anyhoo, I took Shillard up on his offer and viewed the "Gloria Jeans" thread on notgoodenough.org, and I'm struggling to see any reference or relevance to CHOICE or it's readership. There is a click-on link to CHOICE's website but seeing as though they are both consumer advocate outlets, that would appear to be reasonable.

I doubt you'd find a more balanced group of people to survey than CHOICE readership. The whole point of CHOICE is to provide unbiased appraisal of goods and services. It's an independant, not for profit organisation whose readers have nothing whatsoever to gain from positive or negative feedback.

Whether or not they fly as frequently as some of the membership here is a different issue, but you'd expect the respondents to have some basis for comparison. Rather damningly, the SMH blog entries, most likely from a larger population sample than CHOICE readership, appear to support the outcomes of the survey (even if there are a few typos in most of them, right Simongr?).

 

[simongr]

and then:

You mean "can't get the competitor's names correct" and "China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines", don't you?


(even if there are a few typos in most of them, right Simongr?).

Busted - badly busted....

I read through about 3 pages of the blog and some of the ranting and grandstanding made me doubt the veracity of the complaints. Things like "I fly 140K miles a year and on one fligth QF staff were obnoxious and I will never fly them again" from someone who claimed to be Platinum - I am guessing a call to the Platinum desk might have helped - and if you were such a frequent flyer why would need to ask what the check in time was - and then not get there on time.

There are a lot of comments like "Qantas is the worse/worst airline" - which is meaningless to be in terms of adding anything to explain what the basis for judgement is.

The problem with surveying the quality of an airline - even for a relatively high volume flyer like me (I dont necessarily class myself as frequent) - is that for a start I only fly a small number of airlines and then I dont fly the same route multiple times on different airlines. Also in Oz people have little choice to base a lot of comparison on.

I am sure that you are correct that they are a reasoned and balanced group - I am just not sure that their opinions, if they are average travellers, will be based on sufficient evidence.

 

[SeaWolf]

I'd agree that it's probably not representative of general flyers, but neither is this forum. Most of the people here who fly QF are Gold/Platinum and are flying in the pointy end of the aircraft. Most of the passengers on QF are Bronze (if in QFF at all) and are flying cattle class, the experience for these people is very, very different.

I've only flown QF once (PER-MEL), but I was treated rudely by two members of the cabin crew on that flight and it has certainly soured my impression of QF.

 

[shillard]

Loads of mindless QF-bashing on the website of the Socialist Morning Herald.

 

[simongr]

I think for the definitive answer on this we need to go to google fight and there it is obvious that Qantas beats the pants off VirginBlue

 

[SeaWolf]

I think for the definitive answer on this we need to go to google fight and there it is obvious that Qantas beats the pants off VirginBlue

Ahh, but not if we have Qantas vs. Virgin Blue with a space between the words:
Google Fight : Make this fight with googleFight qantas VS virgin blue

 

[kamchatsky]

Loads of mindless QF-bashing on the website of the Socialist Morning Herald.

Does QF deserves a bashing? Well the comments seems to indicate so. Oh yes, I think it is called democracy.

Currently there are more than 300 comments in SMH. Looks like a lot of people agrees with the survey:

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: News Blog

 

[simongr]

Not all of the comments are negative - obviously an overwhelming majority are but who is going to leap in and defend the airline? Not a great proportion of the public..

 

[kamchatsky]

Qantas Empire strikes back!

Qantas rejects 'flying dog' tag - Travel - smh.com.au

___________________________________________

Qantas rejects 'flying dog' tag

May 29, 2007 - 11:50AM





Qantas has dismissed an Australian survey that rates it the worst international airline.
The survey of 4000 subscribers to consumer magazine Choice also found Qantas's domestic service was outshone by all rivals except its low-cost subsidiary Jetstar.
However, Qantas has cited a larger, international poll as proof its customers are satisfied.
The national carrier would not comment directly today on its poor marks in the Choice survey, preferring to draw attention to better showings in specialist airline polls.
"Qantas has been named one of the world's top airlines in the Skytrax world airline awards for the last two years," a Qantas spokesman said.
"Skytrax surveys more than 13 million travellers each year and Qantas was ranked second in both 2005 and 2006.
"The Qantas Group flies more than 34 million passengers a year and our customer satisfaction ratings have never been higher."
Choice asked its subscribers to rate airlines for value for money, booking processes, convenience, the check-in procedure, in-flight service (including food and entertainment), seat comfort, legroom and cleanliness.
Subscribers voted Singapore Airlines top international airline and small airline Regional Express the favoured domestic operator.
Qantas scored only 63 per cent, compared with Singapore Airlines' 78 per cent.
On the domestic front, Qantas fared little better, with a 67 per cent rating. Consumers labelled its service "arrogant and aloof".
Jetstar scored just 62 per cent, with one respondent describing Jetstar staff as "uniformly surly, unhelpful and most definitely unwelcoming".
Regional Express won the survey's top rating of 79 per cent, followed by Virgin Blue with 71 per cent.
"Virgin Blue staff attempt to make what is a reasonably unpleasant experience flying with a no-frills service light-hearted and enjoyable," one respondent said.
One possible reason Qantas may have fared so poorly in the survey is that people may be more critical of their national carrier, the magazine suggested.
Some travellers said they continued to fly with Qantas to earn frequent flyer points, even though they rated the airline significantly lower than average.
Redundancies to blame: union
Meanwhile, the flight attendants union says the figures do not reflect the industry.
"The survey, to me, bears no resemblance to demonstrable hard facts. If service was bad, you wouldn't have record numbers of people travelling with Qantas, you wouldn't have the highest levels of profits ever, and the highest share price ever," Michael Mijatov, secretary of the Flight Attendants Association of Australian, International division, said.

"In relation to negative comments regarding cabin crew, we believe this is not due to poor service or poor attitude on behalf of the cabin crew but to inadequate numbers of cabin crew on the aircraft. The service procedures laid down by airlines are not matched by adequate crew numbers on the aircraft."
Mr Mijatov said the number of crew on an international 747 had fallen from 16 to 15 as Qantas launch wave after wave of redundancies while Singapore Airlines retained its staff.
In October last year, 500 Qantas cabin crew were made redundant; a further 150 are expected to be lost in a redundancy round that closed last Friday.
Mr Mijatov said despite stretched numbers, there was a great sense of pride in working for Qantas and this was reflected in the standards of the crew.
"Qantas provides significant resources for training of its cabin crew to insure that its crew are amongst the best in the world," he said. "It's highly competitive - there are vastly more applicants than positions, always. And Qantas has the opportunity to pick out the best individuals."
Mr Mijatov conceded that Qantas's crew was older than other international crews, but said this resulted in better experience rather than a lack of zeal for the job.
AAP and Erik Jensen

 

[shillard]

Does QF deserves a bashing? Well the comments seems to indicate so. Oh yes, I think it is called democracy.

Currently there are more than 300 comments in SMH. Looks like a lot of people agrees with the survey:

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: News Blog

Pah, you kick the term "democracy" around like it's a good thing.

Democracy = 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I think you'll find at least one comment in there (around the 300 mark) that isn't too enamoured of the survey....

 

[d15.in.oz]

Democracy = 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Yes, that may produce an obvious outcome in the lower field, where one vote has one value… but then in the upper field, where sheep & wolves’ interests are equally represented, lamb is successfully vetoed from the menu!

 

[JoshOohAah]

and then:



You mean "can't get the competitor's names correct" and "China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines", don't you?

Actually, (if we're going to go there) I think he must mean, "can't get the competitors' names correct"!

 

[bambbbam2]

I think the service for Y passengers, international especially, is "surly" and the crew are "arrogant". Whether this is specific to QF, or rather that Australian's simply aren't good at customer service, I don't know.

 

[shillard]

Yes, that may produce an obvious outcome in the lower field, where one vote has one value… but then in the upper field, where sheep & wolves’ interests are equally represented, lamb is successfully vetoed from the menu!

Ah, but if applied to an Australian election the sheep would be excluded on preferences, and all three would end up eating detergent.