QF-EK broken promises

[medhead]

The mans's salivating over Giant tortoise too!

Well, Stephen Fry said it was good. The fact that back it up was apparently it took over 100 years to get one back to england for classification, because they were so good the ship's crews kept eating the samples. It must be good! Well at least better than salted beef and weevil bread.

 

[Pushka]

@Pushka, Sorry I don't follow you, care to be more elaborate ?
Re. Airline, so many of them are going bad to worse, but you have to give them credit if they deserve it.. Re. transit points, it is so important due to time and emergency and the fun part of the transit point.
I am not sure about your comment about security, it is not lack of security that is a issue, it is the religious police that is a issue.

The OP said the security in Dubai was poor.

 

[siri]

@Pushka
"The OP said the security in Dubai was poor."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, My point is opposite, meaning it is a bad police with no respect to rule of law..

 

[marks]

Yes, QF's alliance partner does offer a nice product.

I'm actually amazed that QF wanted to showcase EK superior services to its most high value customers. The lounges, service, aircraft and the return of the pre-dinner beverage in economy travel. The direct boarding access for the lounge is eye opening surprise for a lot of long term QF pax.

And don't they love polished timber in their lounges & aircraft....

Cheers.

 

[katiebell]

I stand by my comment Pushka (although I never said it was directed at you).

I'm sure you would agree that there is way to much "fanboi-ism" that goes on across many many threads on AFF where too many people "won't hear a bad word about EK/QF/VA/JQ/Fred Perry/the 77W" or whatever their fanboi-link is - and who simply attack OPs for even daring to suggest that their favourite airline/seat/person/thing might not be everyone's cup of tea.

There's certainly plenty of that behaviour in this thread - that's why I called it out.

The OP has plenty of material to be critiqued on - but they are 100% entitled to not like EK for whatever reasons they choose.

My OP is about what QF no longer offers since the tie up despite AJ stating we would get the better of what QF & EK offered. Nothing to do with the EK product or whether or not anyone likes EK. Just what QF no longer offer despite AJ's statements of giving pax the better option.

BTW J defintely had 3x32kg bags and WP had an extra 1x32kg bag in any class

 

[junbugging]

AJ's statements of giving pax the better option

... in some cases via EK. Part of the point of an alliance is that you let someone else pick up the slack.

 

[dfcatch]

My OP is about what QF no longer offers since the tie up despite AJ stating we would get the better of what QF & EK offered. Nothing to do with the EK product or whether or not anyone likes EK. Just what QF no longer offer despite AJ's statements of giving pax the better option.

BTW J defintely had 3x32kg bags and WP had an extra 1x32kg bag in any class

On European routes? Are you sure?

The "piece" system was only used for domestic and for routes to and from The Americas.

 

[greenfish]

My OP is about what QF no longer offers since the tie up despite AJ stating we would get the better of what QF & EK offered. Nothing to do with the EK product or whether or not anyone likes EK. Just what QF no longer offer despite AJ's statements of giving pax the better option.

BTW J defintely had 3x32kg bags and WP had an extra 1x32kg bag in any class

The baggage allowance changes were announced before the alliance commenced. Economy pax with no status had some wins - single bag with a 23Kg limit expanded to 30Kg total, no limit on number of bags, but it was a reduction for most others:

The link below confirms the numbers that Katiebell quoted:

Qantas flyers get bigger baggage allowance

 

[BD1959]

... in some cases via EK. Part of the point of an alliance is that you let someone else pick up the slack.

No. "Match" was the term used.

AJ: Our two airlines will, of course, retain their distinct style and identity, but we will match key customer benefits.

AJ: Where there is a difference in customer service, we’ve agreed to make the higher benefit our standard.

Nothing there about letting EK pick up the slack!

Regards,

BD

 

[TheRealTMA]

My OP is about what QF no longer offers since the tie up despite AJ stating we would get the better of what QF & EK offered. Nothing to do with the EK product or whether or not anyone likes EK. Just what QF no longer offer despite AJ's statements of giving pax the better option.

BTW J defintely had 3x32kg bags and WP had an extra 1x32kg bag in any class

I seem to remember that with QF and other airlines for European flights from the 70's, we had 20kg in economy and some 32kg in J.

Why does anyone, apart from very special occasions, need 100kg of luggage? I'm trying to get below 18kg for 4 weeks in Europe flying F!

Is it not that for QF (and EK and others) that the baggage allowances are essentially universally agreed between all airline alliances?

 

[medhead]

No. "Match" was the term used.

AJ: Our two airlines will, of course, retain their distinct style and identity, but we will match key customer benefits.

AJ: Where there is a difference in customer service, we’ve agreed to make the higher benefit our standard.

Nothing there about letting EK pick up the slack!

Regards,

BD

Interesting quotes. Since EK don't fly trans pacific, then I guess not offering CD is a match?

I seem to remember that with QF and other airlines for European flights from the 70's, we had 20kg in economy and some 32kg in J.

Why does anyone, apart from very special occasions, need 100kg of luggage? I'm trying to get below 18kg for 4 weeks in Europe flying F!

Is it not that for QF (and EK and others) that the baggage allowances are essentially universally agreed between all airline alliances?

It doesn't matter that no one in their right mind would take 100 kg. I think we just need to acknowledge [-]his right to be a woman if he wants[/-] someones right to take 100 kg if they want.

 

[dvb2000]

After the recent announcement of yet another QF enhancement on EK flights I started thinking of all the other things that either failed to happen or have been withdrawn after AJ's grand announcement that the EK-QF partnership would bring us the best of both airlines

Having flown both Qantas and Emirates, I'm GLAD Qantas flights are becoming less and less. You can't even get basic things like WIFI on Qantas, and their in flight and ground service is atrocious, so many times I've been delayed for hours or days by Qantas, for nonsensical things which just don't affect other airlines "apparently", and they don't care.

Actually I thought AJ said they would be running less flights to Europe with the Emirates hookup?

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Interesting quotes. Since EK don't fly trans pacific, then I guess not offering CD is a match?

My industry insight paints an interesting picture around trans pacific and the amount of traffic EK picks up ex AU/NZ which flows onto USA.

 

[TheRealTMA]

My industry insight paints an interesting picture around trans pacific and the amount of traffic EK picks up ex AU/NZ which flows onto USA.

Yes I believe there's quite a few who us EK. We've used EK to NY, SEA and YYZ. Actually cheaper on EK than QF with J or F out of BNE and all the way rather than hub out of SYD with F only on trans-pacific then Alaskan etc for rest of trip. Plus avoids LAX

Unfortunately there's no code share trans-pacific so the alliance actually loses QF revenue.

 

[medhead]

My industry insight paints an interesting picture around trans pacific and the amount of traffic EK picks up ex AU/NZ which flows onto USA.

Many recent searches for awards have shown the EK to be fairly prominent on the QF website. But then EK to DXB does get CD, doesn't it?

Yes, semantics and pedantry

 

[katiebell]

Interesting quotes. Since EK don't fly trans pacific, then I guess not offering CD is a match?



It doesn't matter that no one in their right mind would take 100 kg. I think we just need to acknowledge [-]his right to be a woman if he wants[/-] someones right to take 100 kg if they want.

books papers and the duty free alcohol bought on other sectors that can no longer go in cabin bags weigh a lot. Never got to 100 kg but have exceeded the reduced limits

 

[dfcatch]

The baggage allowance changes were announced before the alliance commenced. Economy pax with no status had some wins - single bag with a 23Kg limit expanded to 30Kg total, no limit on number of bags, but it was a reduction for most others:

The link below confirms the numbers that Katiebell quoted:

Qantas flyers get bigger baggage allowance

Yes - so the weight system. Which is what it was before, before.

Like I said - they chopped and changed several times. But traditionally - non-US-International was weight-based.

 

[dfcatch]

No. "Match" was the term used.

AJ: Our two airlines will, of course, retain their distinct style and identity, but we will match key customer benefits.

AJ: Where there is a difference in customer service, we’ve agreed to make the higher benefit our standard.

Nothing there about letting EK pick up the slack!

Regards,

BD

Agreed - which is why the OP needs to take out the superfluous hyperbole - and list only the "benefits" which have been reduced.

Things like lounge access, points/SC earning, CD - these are all things that are directly and objectively assessable.

There have indeed been a number of benefit "enhancements" and QF should be called out on those.

Unfortunately - the OP confuses that argumen

 

[greenfish]

Yes - so the weight system. Which is what it was before, before.

Like I said - they chopped and changed several times. But traditionally - non-US-International was weight-based.

For the purposes of the change associated with the alliance, they changed from a combined weight and piece system to a weight only system - i.e. the number of bags doesn't matter while staying within the overall limit; the overall limit increased for non-status Y pax too.

For most QF pax, this was most likely a win compared to the pre-alliance baggage allowances, hence being spun as "Qantas flyers get bigger baggage allowance"..

 

[dfcatch]

For the purposes of the change associated with the alliance, they changed from a combined weight and piece system to a weight only system - i.e. the number of bags doesn't matter while staying within the overall limit; the overall limit increased for non-status Y pax too.

For most QF pax, this was most likely a win compared to the pre-alliance baggage allowances, hence being spun as "Qantas flyers get bigger baggage allowance"..

Yes - and for the OP it was a loss - I accept that as I prefer the piece system.

However - whilst QF did revert back to the weight system with the alliance - they were previously on the weight system for non-US travel, and even without the alliance may very well have shifted back to it to conform with most other airlines/partners.

For those that had flown for 5 mins prior to the EK alliance - they would remember that the weight system was the dominant international system.

But - they did claim the change as due to the alliance - so it's a legit grievance by the OP.