QF vs CX

[JohnK]

When QF get the service right they are top class, but when they fail they are ordinary

Are you referring to onboard service or general service?

In my experience CX can be awful when it comes to customer service and service recovery. Includes both HKG customer service staff and First lounge reception staff.

Qantas is much more consistent.

I don't bother rating cabin service as it's not that important for me to worry about and all airlines have good and bad crews. I know which crews I would rather have though because as you say when they get it right they are fantastic. The rest don't come close.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

While I agree that airfare pricing exAustralia is not customer friendly - that applies for all airlines and all classes. But I will also maintain that until QF starts to offer PEY/Y+ (or whatever it is called) they will never have a superior offering to CX. Unless they never offer red eye flights Australia <> Asia. :shock:

I'm not convinced PE is the answer for QF. Based on my insight and living in HKG one major challenge facing QF into HKG is the market.
QF is taking Australians to Hong Kong with very few onward codeshare agreements.
CX takes Australians to Hong Kong, China, Asia, Europe, NA - while also bringing HK & mainlanders to Australia.

QF tried to lock down frequent flyers by making points/sc earn on anything other than QF# unattractive - but the very nature of this means the majority will be pushed AWAY from QF.

CX will always have more flights, more seats and more power on these routes but Qantas tends to resonate more with our culture.


I think QF is doing well considering (JQ HK is a downer for them as it would have opened more QF# opportunities) but at the end of the day even if the products are 100% identical CX will always out perform QF on this route by number of pax.

QF knows this and can adjust accordingly.

 

[knasty]

I still think a major differentiator is frequency ie. Much more time of day choice with CX and more chance of recovery for tech issues etc.

 

[wandering_fred]

I'm not convinced PE is the answer for QF. Based on my insight and living in HKG one major challenge facing QF into HKG is the market.
QF is taking Australians to Hong Kong with very few onward codeshare agreements.
CX takes Australians to Hong Kong, China, Asia, Europe, NA - while also bringing HK & mainlanders to Australia.
...

Those items contribute and couple with QF's major reluctance to hand pax off to OW partner airlines to complete journeys. Yet they happily do so with EK. But I wander.

exSYD QF seems to do better (well less angst on AFF and FT) to HKG when the A380 (or 747) is regularly available. Those are the two planes with better seating in general (and PEY). In other words, when QF choses to compete (fleet limitations acknowledged as an issue - but does QF management see this as an issue?) it can succeed. This (imho) has been demonstrated with SYD-HKG. QF choses to limit its competitive efforts from other cities. PER and ADL being the extreme examples with no QF service.

Still happily wandering

Fred

 

[clazman]

Are you referring to onboard service or general service?

In my experience CX can be awful when it comes to customer service and service recovery. Includes both HKG customer service staff and First lounge reception staff.

Qantas is much more consistent.

I don't bother rating cabin service as it's not that important for me to worry about and all airlines have good and bad crews. I know which crews I would rather have though because as you say when they get it right they are fantastic. The rest don't come close.

General service from checkin through to onboard service

 

[Groundfeeder]

But I will also maintain that until QF starts to offer PEY/Y+ (or whatever it is called) they will never have a superior offering to CX.

We have chosen CX PE for BNE - HKG - FCO ret on the basis that QF and SQ do not (currently) have PE from BNE. Didn't like the requirement to get to SYD or MEL to get PE offerings, and besides we didn't want a 14hr flight to the Sandpit with the ME airlines. We get a daylight flight to HKG via Cairns (my second home!!) and taking a stopover to break the journey to/from FCO in HKG. SQ don't run to FCO from SIN on a daily basis despite that route being a strong preference for us. Separately, it's good to see CX back on a more direct HKG/FCO route than before where they skirted the Ukraine via Poland before turning south.

 

[maninblack]

CX is a consistent product

QF products vary across the fleet

When QF get the service right they are top class, but when they fail they are ordinary

CX is consistent ex AUS but after that they have 4 different J products. Also the A330 J suite is considerably smaller than on the 77W.

 

[JohnK]

General service from checkin through to onboard service

And you rate CX higher than Qantas? We must be looking at different things as I cannot see it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And you rate CX higher than Qantas? We must be looking at different things as I cannot see it.

Which class? In economy, I don't think there's much in it. Probably QF wins (and almost certainly so if Platinum or above with bulkhead seats, a shadow, business class headsets, amenity kits, snacks, PJs and other perks).

But in other classes, I think the consistency of product gives CX the edge. QF clearly wins on a good day, but it's an expensive gamble when you fork out for a ticket and there's a not insignificant chance the crew might be having an off day

 

[JohnK]

Which class? In economy, I don't think there's much in it. Probably QF wins (and almost certainly so if Platinum or above with bulkhead seats, a shadow, business class headsets, amenity kits, snacks, PJs and other perks).

But in other classes, I think the consistency of product gives CX the edge. QF clearly wins on a good day, but it's an expensive gamble when you fork out for a ticket and there's a not insignificant chance the crew might be having an off day

I hardly ever fly economy with CX. I have flown mainly business with them short-haul Asia and I find the service inconsistent, the aircraft configurations even more inconsistent and service recovery poor.

But that could just be me and my luck.

 

[OATEK]

I hardly ever fly economy with CX. I have flown mainly business with them short-haul Asia and I find the service inconsistent, the aircraft configurations even more inconsistent and service recovery poor.

But that could just be me and my luck.

I first flew with CX in 1990, and have done a number of return Y flights to Europe since. I flew J with them this year for the first time. My experience has been great service, very god food apart from the Congee breakfast, and never had any service issues. Perhaps my good luck!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I hardly ever fly economy with CX. I have flown mainly business with them short-haul Asia and I find the service inconsistent, the aircraft configurations even more inconsistent and service recovery poor.

But that could just be me and my luck.

Might be you have been unlucky

By far my most common route is HKG-PVG and the international configuration for seating almost always sticks which is a huge advantage. It's been many years since I've done a regional configuration even to BKK or SIN. When I was jetting around with regional aircraft it was during the Asia financial crisis.. fares were cheap and business cabins empty: service was great!

 

[QF029]

I hardly ever fly economy with CX. I have flown mainly business with them short-haul Asia and I find the service inconsistent, the aircraft configurations even more inconsistent and service recovery poor.

But that could just be me and my luck.

Perhaps you could outline some of these shortcomings?

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Which class? In economy, I don't think there's much in it. Probably QF wins (and almost certainly so if Platinum or above with bulkhead seats, a shadow, business class headsets, amenity kits, snacks, PJs and other perks).

But in other classes, I think the consistency of product gives CX the edge. QF clearly wins on a good day, but it's an expensive gamble when you fork out for a ticket and there's a not insignificant chance the crew might be having an off day

Great post and bang on the money.

I've literally switched from QF to CX over the past 12 months and have maybe 30 sectors on CX this year. Overall service is better on CX as the standard levels go between 80% and 90%. There's certain things I've picked up on like if the ISM is Hong Kong local they will always intro to emerald and first choice of meal. Also the attitude of HK people is different to Aussie and this will reflect in crew attitudes and service levels. HK is efficient in general and therefore so are the crew. Even more so if you're lucky enough to have a crew that is on the fast track program to manager level where they are sucking up to all premium pax.

On the flip side QF varies from 50% to 110% satisfaction mainly dependant on the attitude of the crew on the day. Agree it's a gamble. But then again you have QF intl vs domestic.

I've not had a chance to do any service recovery with CX but I would imagine it in line with HK culture and that's that it doesn't exist. Nothing wrong with that and so my expectations in that area are low and I therefore make the best of every situation at the time.

John you also have 4 different aircraft configs ex bkk so selecting the right flight can significantly benefit you..

 

[raleyoz]

(and almost certainly so if Platinum or above with bulkhead seats,

This is no longer a benefit and the very reason I had opportunity to make this comparison,
For those that are interested http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/showthread.php?t=68747

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is no longer a benefit and the very reason I had opportunity to make this comparison,
For those that are interestedPassing of a good relationship

True. I'd forgotten about that! So that pretty much gives douze points to CX with their free premium seating for all elites.

But the rest of the perks on QF for plats+ possibly skew perception.

 

[eosphoros]

But in other classes, I think the consistency of product gives CX the edge. QF clearly wins on a good day, but it's an expensive gamble when you fork out for a ticket and there's a not insignificant chance the crew might be having an off day

You are right. CX is consistent. In respect of their hard product, it is consistently good. But their soft product is consistently average and by the book. The majority of the crew act in a strangely wooden trained manner. I find it cold and unwelcoming. The one exception was a purser who was on an HND-HKG sector I once flew. But that might have been because I was only one of two in the F cabin.

Whilst QF service can be ordinary, I find that when it is ordinary, it is equal to CX's consistent service. Even then, their ordinary service comes from the fact that they may be having a very busy/bad day and are simply acting as ordinary humans do (rather than executing in order what the service manual requires). But I find that it is very rarely ordinary.

I will say that the frequency to HKG is ordinarily why I fly CX. It is simply more flexible.

 

[JohnK]

John you also have 4 different aircraft configs ex bkk so selecting the right flight can significantly benefit you..

Understood but sometimes there is no choice as one needs to consider onward connections first not aircraft configuration.

 

[Kaiser]

Can't comment on CX, but have always been happy enough with QF Y BNE-SIN-BNE. WE generally go for the pair of seats up towards the back and found them to be ok. Service was timely and pleasant - although I'm easily pleased with a mango Weiss bar haha.

 

[Pat2065]

I am committed to QF in my heart but I really prefer to fly CX. I only travel in J class and find the QF seats uncomfortable (even the newest seats) and they are not totally flat - there is still a small angle which I really notice. On CX, the seats are much more comfortable and I like the privacy of the herringbone configuration, especially when travelling on my own. CX food is not as good as it used to be but mostly OK. I think QF J class food is better.