QF9 turnback 8/9/18

[Mogul]

I'm assuming everyone here saying QF needs a spare aircraft lying around just in case have a spare car sitting in their garage just in case.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm assuming everyone here saying QF needs a spare aircraft lying around just in case have a spare car sitting in their garage just in case.

In fact no one here is saying that QF need a spare aircraft lying around just in case .

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because it's a rather unsuitable aircraft for domestic...

Just for discussion, why is the 787 unsuitable for domestic? It already flies domestic to and from PER. And many other airlines operate the same aircraft type (787) on much shorter routes (for example Tokyo-PVG/PEK, BKK-HKG etc etc).

 

[Must...Fly!]

Just for discussion, why is the 787 unsuitable for domestic? It already flies domestic to and from PER. And many other airlines operate the same aircraft type (787) on much shorter routes (for example Tokyo-PVG/PEK, BKK-HKG etc etc).

If you can sell 42 business and 28 premium economy seats and turn a profit, maybe you should start an airline! The domestic workhorses are 12J/162Y (B737) or 28J/243Y (A330, with a bit of mix between the dom/intl fleet) for a reason - the B787 is way too premium heavy, and there's no point in having a mixed fleet of them, because then they become entirely unsuitable for the journeys they have been tasked with (the ULH area of QF operation)

 

[Melburnian1]

In fact no one here is saying that QF need a spare aircraft lying around just in case .

Agree, but as the B787 fleet expands, one might expect that on some days (omitting maintenance that's scheduled) there will be a spare.

For instance in the last couple of years at times the A388 12-strong fleet has had a 'spare' (in theory) on Tuesdays to Thursdays inclusive, with the 'spare' typically being in SYD.

 

[juddles]

My only addition to this thread is that I suspect that Qantas have a lot of people to whom their working, professional, lives are devoted to such contemplations and ideas as bandied here. Domestic 787's, spare crew, spare aircraft, etc etc. But they need to actually make decisions that work. In financial and practicable reality. And they do.

 

[RooFlyer]

My only addition to this thread is that I suspect that Qantas have a lot of people to whom their working, professional, lives are devoted to such contemplations and ideas as bandied here. Domestic 787's, spare crew, spare aircraft, etc etc. But they need to actually make decisions that work. In financial and practicable reality. And they do.

Well, I guess they work, until they don't and they have hundreds of pax stranded and knock-on effects across their network affecting hundreds more and costing everyone, including Qantas, time and money. Sure, Qantas would have done the sums and concluded that they could wear such knock-ons and costs of such, at their anticipated frequency, and good on 'em.

I'm on the other side of the coin - the passengers, whose wasted time and money Qantas doesn't have nearly as much concern about. I dare say that if we had something like EU261 operable in Australia, Qantas may magically find a new 'financial and practicable reality' that works for them.

 

[juddles]

Well, I guess they work, until they don't and they have hundreds of pax stranded and knock-on effects across their network affecting hundreds more and costing everyone, including Qantas, time and money. Sure, Qantas would have done the sums and concluded that they could wear such knock-ons and costs of such, at their anticipated frequency, and good on 'em.

I'm on the other side of the coin - the passengers, whose wasted time and money Qantas doesn't have nearly as much concern about. I dare say that if we had something like EU261 operable in Australia, Qantas may magically find a new 'financial and practicable reality' that works for them.

But Rooflyer, firstly, yes, hundreds of flyers were affected. These things happen. But that is but "hundreds" out of the almost 60,000,000 pax that fly QF each year. As for it costing Qantas time and money, yes, it does. But they have clearly weighed this all up and do the best they can to avoid this. Spending a hundred million to prevent a million dollar loss is financial suicide for any company, let alone an airline.

Qantas should not "care" about anything to do with pax. That is not their job. Their role is to run a company. Any ideas contrary to this implies a perception that an airline is a charity, a public service.

 

[juddles]

..... I dare say that if we had something like EU261 operable in Australia, Qantas may magically find a new 'financial and practicable reality' that works for them....

and they would then have to do something like Ryanair (?) where they added a surcharge on every ticket to pay for that "EU261" cost...

 

[RooFlyer]

Qantas should not "care" about anything to do with pax. That is not their job. Their role is to run a company. Any ideas contrary to this implies a perception that an airline is a charity, a public service.

Another word for 'pax' for an airline is 'customers'. Re do your sentence using 'customer' rather than 'pax' and let us know what happens.

 

[mannej]

I keep seeing EU261 being mentioned around here, however unless someone is advocating EU261 adaptation in Australia 99% of the posts I see are people mentioning about how hard the airlines make it to claim EU261. As much as I see the value in EU261, I question why the airlines complicate the process when the guidelines should be fairly clear?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Qantas should not "care" about anything to do with pax. That is not their job. Their role is to run a company. Any ideas contrary to this implies a perception that an airline is a charity, a public service.

But isn’t this contrary to your sentiments elsewhere? In other threads you have implied that running an airline is a complex business and passengers should make allowances for that... and for the difficult circumstances faced by airlines in delivering their services (basically the passenger shouldn’t expect or demand too much).

If the airline is running as a ruthless business, shouldn’t passengers be in the same sand pit? Passengers shouldn’t care what difficulties the airline faces. Passengers should expect what’s advertised and promised (for example the meals), and should be entitled to any and all compensation owed to them (for example EU261).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I keep seeing EU261 being mentioned around here, however unless someone is advocating EU261 adaptation in Australia 99% of the posts I see are people mentioning about how hard the airlines make it to claim EU261. As much as I see the value in EU261, I question why the airlines complicate the process when the guidelines should be fairly clear?

The airlines have spent a lot of time arguing about what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the main ‘get out’ clause for EU261. The courts have spent a lot of time narrowing the definition of extraordinary.

The consumer is winning though.

 

[mannej]

The airlines have spent a lot of time arguing about what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the main ‘get out’ clause for EU261. The courts have spent a lot of time narrowing the definition of extraordinary.

The consumer is winning though.

You believe that the consumer may be winning, yet the stories of airlines playing hardball (BA were mentioned here by a member) are still fairly common.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You believe that the consumer may be winning, yet the stories of airlines playing hardball (BA were mentioned here by a member) are still fairly common.

Oh, for sure. I’d say most airlines would put up a pretty good fight. Our most recent claim took aver a year, but the sum total of time was probably just two or three hours. Not bad for the payout (€600). If you want to spend even less time you can go to one of the claim specialists. You lose 30% or so, but it’s still an easy €400 (for long haul).

The consumer is ‘winning’ in the sense that the courts are narrowing the definition of extraordinary circumstances. And broadening the interpretation of EU261 to include, for example, connecting flights outside of the EU (where in initial inbound caused a missed connection).

Airlines would have included just about everything as an extraordinary circumstance.

 

[Mark213]

Airlines would have included just about everything as an extraordinary circumstance.

And have knock on effects included ad-infinitum.

 

[juddles]

At the end of the day there is a balance, or lack of so. Private airlines like Qantas are businesses. They exist to make money for their shareholders. But IMHO to try to make money out of airlines is a mugs game - in general extremely unprofitable. Qantas has had a respite, earnings up, but still in debt. Massive cost savings, changes of focus, etc. Yes, they are in a customer-oriented service. But my point is that the customers are not their bottom line, their figures are. Talk about "putting in fat" ignores the stark reality that they are only barely surviving (hence the debt)

It always gets back to the same sentiment, in my opinion, that airlines get treated, get felt, differently. There is much compassion for farmers, but not for airlines. farming is far more profitable, your local corner store or Bunnings or Maccas makes much more profit. But travellers expect something akin to charity from airlines....

 

[juddles]

Another word for 'pax' for an airline is 'customers'. Re do your sentence using 'customer' rather than 'pax' and let us know what happens.

Yes, the pax are customers. Those people that search the internet and mainly choose on price alone. They compare their expectations to what international airlines offer. Which is valid. As in any thing. Maybe Australia should not have an airline, and leave it to third world countries who's cost base is less and who's staff are used to serving?

 

[stm1sydney]

The great thing about free market capitalism (as opposed to socialism) is that both juddles and MEL_Traveller/RooFlyer are correct.

 

[dajop]

Qantas has had a respite, earnings up, but still in debt. Massive cost savings, changes of focus, etc. Yes, they are in a customer-oriented service. But my point is that the customers are not their bottom line, their figures are. Talk about "putting in fat" ignores the stark reality that they are only barely surviving (hence the debt..

The debt itself isn't the problem, right? They'll always be in debt. It's their ability to service the debt that counts. This ability has definitely improved over the last couple of years. Debt isn't a sign of "barely surviving", earnings and cash flow as proportion of such debt are.

Still they aren't in a position to have 20 staff sitting around PER waiting for something to happen, and low density (high premium cabin) 787's flying back and forth MEL & SYD, "just in case". The disruption this thread has discussed at length is probably relatively minor in the grand scheme of airline related disruptions! Many airlines have similar issues, just that AFF members aren't so passionate about them.