What do Australians think of Qantas?

[kangarooflyer88]

I stumbled across this article on Crikey where readers wrote in to share their experiences and thoughts on Qantas with a number of interesting points shared, from the cozy relationship Qantas has with the government despite the fact that they are a private company whose mission is not necessarily to serve the national interest, wait times on customer service, baggage issues, service failure (including seating a passenger on a broken business class seat for a long haul flight down to SCL and the monopolization the group has in SA.

What do you think? Are these criticisms warranted? What do you hope the incoming CEO of Qantas, Olivia Wirth should prioritize to fix its reputation?

-RooFlyer88

 

[Kerrodt]

Vanessa Hudson is the incoming CEO of Qantas. Not Olivia.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Vanessa Hudson is the incoming CEO of Qantas. Not Olivia.

Well that's the last time I consult Qantas chairman Richard Goyder for advice

Qantas chairman's embarrassing blunder introducing new CEO

Qantas chairman Richard Goyder on Tuesday made a shocking blunder when he announced at a press conference the airline's new CEO as Olivia Wirth instead of Vanessa Hudson.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Kerrodt]

Well that's the last time I consult Qantas chairman Richard Goyder for advice

Qantas chairman's embarrassing blunder introducing new CEO

Qantas chairman Richard Goyder on Tuesday made a shocking blunder when he announced at a press conference the airline's new CEO as Olivia Wirth instead of Vanessa Hudson.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I thought you might have been Richard Goyder under the username @kangarooflyer88 all this time

 

[evanb]

It depends on what people's expectations are. The proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" applies. The public want cheap flights, however they also want a high quality product that's on time and reliable. But a high quality product costs money to deliver - there is a trade-off.

Australia's wages are (rightly) higher than many comparable countries and the plethora of connecting options between here and its major markets. Quality products and long term cheap prices need fuel efficient aircraft that cost a huge amount to acquire and maintain. Qantas are not receiving huge subsidies (direct or indirect) to acquire those aircraft like some of their competition. I don't think that Qantas's relationship with the government is any more cozy than other companies of similar size or relative contribution to the country (this isn't a Qantas specific issue).

Are the criticisms valid or warranted? Maybe, maybe not. Customers who have poor experiences will always be more vocal or outspoken than those that do not, but I don't think that of the issues with Qantas in recent years are dissimilar to many other airlines around the world. Recent experiences in Europe and the US suggest that Qantas are performing decently compared to their peers.

Where one sees something of a vendetta is how people are looking to jump on them. For example, the recent coverage of the Qatar or Turkey situation pins everything on Qantas when they are far from the most significant (maybe not even at all significant) beneficiary of the decision, while entirely ignoring the broader diplomatic context in which these decisions exist within.

 

[Rich]

I stumbled across this article on Crikey where readers wrote in to share their experiences and thoughts on Qantas with a number of interesting points shared, from the cozy relationship Qantas has with the government despite the fact that they are a private company whose mission is not necessarily to serve the national interest, wait times on customer service, baggage issues, service failure (including seating a passenger on a broken business class seat for a long haul flight down to SCL and the monopolization the group has in SA.

What do you think? Are these criticisms warranted? What do you hope the incoming CEO of Qantas, Olivia Wirth should prioritize to fix its reputation?

-RooFlyer88

It is not much of an article, just a bunch of complaints and comments. Many are fair complaints but there would probably be similar stories with other airlines. Others are meh, like the person who took 15 flights and the only delayed one was QF. Big deal.
The article didn't prove anything.

 

[evanb]

It is not much of an article, just a bunch of complaints and comments. Many are fair complaints but there would probably be similar stories with other airlines. Others are meh, like the person who took 15 flights and the only delayed one was QF. Big deal.
The article didn't prove anything.

Someone having a poor experience is always going to be more vocal than someone having a good or even excellent experience.

 

[RooFlyer]

Well that's the last time I consult Qantas chairman Richard Goyder for advice

Qantas chairman's embarrassing blunder introducing new CEO

Qantas chairman Richard Goyder on Tuesday made a shocking blunder when he announced at a press conference the airline's new CEO as Olivia Wirth instead of Vanessa Hudson.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So the Beetoota Advocate has taken over the Daily Mail? @TheRealTMA why didn't you alert us?

But thank-you @kangarooflyer88 , that made my day. . But as for Crikey - the Betoota Advocate probably runs that too. I wouldn't spend too much time regarding what it publishes.

 

[RichardMEL]

What do Canadians think of Air Canada?

Really, as noted above, a bunch of anecdotes and comments don't mean much except to back up a generalisation imo. It's like go to QF's friendface pages and read the vitriol which is most comments to just about anything they post. Why's that? people who have an unremarkable experience, which is probably 80-90% of the customers, will almost certainly forget it and not note it. We'll ALWAYS remember negative experiences in life much more than positive ones - doubly so for interactions with corporate entities or even be influenced by other things (for example, those who have an issue with QF because they have an issue with Joyce personally or even potentially on a political or ideological level - and as they say.. mud sticks).

And the internet world basically becomes personal soapboxes (just look at AFF ) in most ways. Who bothers to say "Flew Melbourne to Sydney today and the flight was fine." nobody. And, it's far easier to complain and whine (and be annoyed - justified or not) than it is to even show appreciation for when things go well. A lot of people (yes, this is a generalisation too) find it easy to tell people when they screw up and complain, but find it really difficult to actually acknowledge when they do a good job - or even better than good job. I tr to make it a policy of mine to note when good things happen. I don't mean folks doing the job they're paid to do, but exceptional experiences, or where clear effort has been made and things have worked. For example, last month I was caught up in a nightmare operations breakdown at SFO - and throughout the United system - that was massively bad. Yep, I had some bad things happen, I was very much inconvenicned.. but I also had agents on the phone and at gates work their *@#)@* off for myself and others that I witnessed first hand (including one magician at LAS after midnight in particular who saved my behind). Not only did I want to thank those people but I also noted in commubnication with the compoany about the poor issues, to specifically mention the instances where these things happened and to acknowledge good things.

So anyway my point being that more often than not you'll usually hear the bad experiences. I'm not saying, by the way, that QF don't deserve the complaints at all - we all know many of the common issues where QF shoots themselves in the foot half the time and have impacted thousands through the issues (eg: ticketing issues, prior bag handling, website glitches, etc etc etc). However, we need to take it all on board with the understanding that you're going to usually hear more bad than good about ANY particular company and in this instance QF.

* I'm well aware that AC, in the main, has a similar if not worse general reputation in Canada.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

It depends on what people's expectations are. The proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" applies. The public want cheap flights, however they also want a high quality product that's on time and reliable. But a high quality product costs money to deliver - there is a trade-off.

Generally the lower the price, the more reliable and on-time the service should be. After all, delayed flights cost airlines tons given its knock on effects on the route network, the fact they have to pay crew to do nothing, etc. Remember, some of the most profitable airlines are the low cost carriers of the world like EasyJet and RyanAir. They operate a reliable on-time service because doing otherwise would prove expensive (remember they have to pay EU261 for delays).

It is not much of an article, just a bunch of complaints and comments. Many are fair complaints but there would probably be similar stories with other airlines.

I am inclined to agree with you that whoever came up with the ol' adage, the grass is greener on the other side, needs to get their eyes checked. It's not greener, it's simply a different tinge of yellow. But I think when we look at AFF and the article linked there is certainly some agreement in areas where things can be improved. For instance, there is no reason why customers should sit on hold for hours on end, particularly to deal with an issue that can only be addressed by phone.

Someone having a poor experience is always going to be more vocal than someone having a good or even excellent experience.

You are correct there. Overall, flying Qantas and to some extent JetStar, I don't mind the experience. But my travel experience is likely different from the average Australian consumer who flies maybe once or twice a year. I've built in delays and other issues as part of my game plan and have contingencies to deal with it (i.e. lounges). I know who to call when things go sideways, and I'm well versed on the airline policies to figure out how to extract the most that I can from the airline for the inconvenience caused.

The purpose of customer feedback isn't to pat yourself on the back. The purpose is to identify the areas for improvement, and in that regard Qantas isn't doing a great job. These issues aren't novel. They haven't sprung up over the last couple of weeks. These have been ongoing for months, years and in some instances even decades (i.e. partner award IRROPs).

What do Canadians think of Air Canada?

Generally negative as well, but the environment over there is different so you can't make a comparison. The Air Passenger Protection Rights means airlines like Air Canada have to pay up when they delay your flight. My Dad received $1000 from them due to him arriving in Edmonton 10 hours later than scheduled. If Qantas paid you $1000 for delaying your flight by more than 9 hours do you think that might change your perspective on them? This of course points to the fact that Australia needs to overhaul its air passenger rights legislation to be more in line with EU, Canada and probably the United States in a few months.

-RooFlyer88

 

[drron]

Back in the early noughties I was a loyal QF flyer and had lifetime QP. However in 2002 our son move to the USA and stayed for 7 years. First 2 years in Philly and then 5 in NYC. We travelled there 2 to 3 times a year and were accustomed To J. QF J fares BNE to JFK were a bit over $9000 return along with an awful connection in LAX.
On the other hand JAL flew BNE - JFK via NRT at $6000 return in J. The service was much better and never missed a connection in NRT despite a 100 minute time between flights. Also twice a year JAL would have a sale for seniors ( over 60 ) when it was 2 for 1. Sorry but I really couldn't justify the QF extra costs. As well the JAL BNE - NRT flight left an hour later than the QF BNE - LAX flight. But JAL got into JFK an hour before the QF LAX - JFK flight landed.

There was another problem. JAL was not a member of OW then. I could get QF points for the BNE - NRT sector but not on to JFK. However I could get AA miles for both sectors so joined up. By early 2006 we both had enough AA miles for J awards NRT - LAX. now in 1996 we had a QF around world award in J. but got downgraded from J to Y on the JFK -LAX sector but on this first experience on AA we were upgraded to F at no extra cost. It was then I switched to Advantage as my primary program. Now back then all miles earnt with AA counted towards status and you got LTS at 1 million miles and LTP at 2 million miles. The rumours were strong that that would come to an end. I managed to get to 2 million miles in 2010 just a few months before the enhancements. However getting those points we got several system wide upgrades so would buy J tickets on AA but fly F NRT - DFW. Service was excellent so soon after we took our last QFi flight.

So that Crikey article is not saying anything new.

 

[RooFlyer]

Who bothers to say "Flew Melbourne to Sydney today and the flight was fine." nobody.

Sorry, picking a one-liner out of a post that I generally generally with. Who says complimentary things? We (AFF) do! Goodness, even I (as a QF management critic these days) have found nice things to say. And the QF fans here always put up a nice background chorus. But yes, negative experiences usually find louder voice than positive ones. However, the airlines (and other service providers) in part invite this themselves. Airlines advertise a blissful time, comfy flat beds, lovely meals etc etc - so we then EXPECT them to deliver a wonderful experience - its what we've paid for - even if we know we won't get the flat beds and Champagne. It'll be lovely!

So on platforms like Trip Advisor, I narrow my eyes, blur out the detail and see what comes out en-masse.

But in the case of Crikey, its just cough.

 

[TheRealTMA]

So the Beetoota Advocate has taken over the Daily Mail? @TheRealTMA why didn't you alert us?

Well spotted! Careful what you read!

NFI Roo!

 

[dajop]

It depends on what people's expectations are.

Absolutely, but also remember the airline has a significant influence over creating people's expectations. I think QF offer a reasonable-mid level offering, that's perfectly acceptable. My issue is that they create an aura through their marketing, and the spin they use in communications that creates a higher expectation than they can consitently deliver.

 

[33kft]

Criticism is warranted, but holy hell do aussies go at it like a dog with a bone. I get it, Qantas are out of favour, your delayed flight still isn't newsworthy.

 

[moa999]

And worse.. Bad Qantas stories seem to get clicks, so it gets overhyped by our click-baity media.

Not to say Qantas is by any means perfect, at times they run imo way too tight a schedule with their airceaft which means delays can continue for days.

But compared to your average Western country airline (with higher wages, regulation and staff tenure) I think it holds up pretty well.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Back in the early noughties I was a loyal QF flyer and had lifetime QP. However in 2002 our son move to the USA and stayed for 7 years. First 2 years in Philly and then 5 in NYC. We travelled there 2 to 3 times a year and were accustomed To J. QF J fares BNE to JFK were a bit over $9000 return along with an awful connection in LAX.
On the other hand JAL flew BNE - JFK via NRT at $6000 return in J. The service was much better and never missed a connection in NRT despite a 100 minute time between flights. Also twice a year JAL would have a sale for seniors ( over 60 ) when it was 2 for 1. Sorry but I really couldn't justify the QF extra costs. As well the JAL BNE - NRT flight left an hour later than the QF BNE - LAX flight. But JAL got into JFK an hour before the QF LAX - JFK flight landed.

There was another problem. JAL was not a member of OW then. I could get QF points for the BNE - NRT sector but not on to JFK. However I could get AA miles for both sectors so joined up. By early 2006 we both had enough AA miles for J awards NRT - LAX. now in 1996 we had a QF around world award in J. but got downgraded from J to Y on the JFK -LAX sector but on this first experience on AA we were upgraded to F at no extra cost. It was then I switched to Advantage as my primary program. Now back then all miles earnt with AA counted towards status and you got LTS at 1 million miles and LTP at 2 million miles. The rumours were strong that that would come to an end. I managed to get to 2 million miles in 2010 just a few months before the enhancements. However getting those points we got several system wide upgrades so would buy J tickets on AA but fly F NRT - DFW. Service was excellent so soon after we took our last QFi flight.

So that Crikey article is not saying anything new.

What an eye opener! I think you could reasonably make the argument of many airlines enhancing their frequent flyer program and perhaps their service to some extent. A lot of people on this forum would point the blame of QF's decline on Uncle Alan, but as you clearly noted, there were issues long before he became CEO. It's a whole bunch of factors that make people want to choose OAL over Qantas like better routing, better pricing, better customer service, etc. And the thing is not all of these are easily fixable. They require strategy on the part of QF to identify the partnerships and routes that can help them create a competitive global network. It means having the courage to go in and challenge the customer service culture which I think many would say is incompetent to put it charitably to downright hostile. Every time I had to call up United Airlines for instance to get something sorted, the agents were friendly, and could either resolve my problem right away or in the instances they can't provide me with information as to why it can't be resolved (i.e. you're #2 on the upgrade list to SYD right now, I can't force the upgrade through but I would think you stand a good chance to clear the upgrade given we've got 5 open seats in business). Most importantly I waited no more than a couple of minutes to get through and get my issue resolved. And that's because United have invested in customer service. When I call United I know I'm either getting someone from the US or Manila, both of which do a very good job indeed at providing service (although as a Canadian I'd obviously prefer talking to the Yank).

I am going to say something that may likely surprise many people on this forum: despite me holding Gold status now for a number of years through flying, and now on my way to World Platinum, I've never flew Qantas international (and no I don't consider domestic trips on QF to NZ as international, if you think it qualifies you should get your head check). The closest I've got was JQ to HNL which surprisingly was uneventful. My first official international trip with them will be to DFW in October on an AA codeshare. In other words most of my status and most of my experience has been predominantly flying JQ and QF domestically. I have flown United everywhere, domestic in the US and Canada, internationally, domestic to international, international to domestic. I've had IRROPs with them in Chicago and they took real good care of me. I've had many many connections with them and very few have been missed indeed due in large part to the operational performance they have. There are things I can do with a $90 United ticket that I can't do on a red e-deal fare Qantas ticket such as being able to switch the departure time of my flight free of charge within 24 hours of departure of the flight. I've used that perk a couple of times and found it handy.

Absolutely, but also remember the airline has a significant influence over creating people's expectations. I think QF offer a reasonable-mid level offering, that's perfectly acceptable. My issue is that they create an aura through their marketing, and the spin they use in communications that creates a higher expectation than they can consitently deliver.

Correct and when the CEO says they are the best in the world you have to set your expectations accordingly.

 

[encryptededdy]

But compared to your average Western country airline (with higher wages, regulation and staff tenure) I think it holds up pretty well.

I think I generally agree with this. Qantas is mid, but it is what it is.

And for what it's worth, they do some things better than their competitors who are generally regarded as superior. This is not to say Qantas is a better airline than the others mentioned, but there are things to keep in mind.

For instance, Qantas has a very consistent Business Class product across their entire long-haul international fleet (with the exception of that one un-refurbished A380 currently making the rounds...). If I'm flying to Japan from Melbourne, I'm confident I'll get a direct-aisle-access lie-flat seat, whereas both ANA and JAL have actually subbed in 2-2-2 787-8s on that route from time-to-time.

Also, the lounge access policy for families with children is much better.

What really did grind my gears last year was just the comments from Alan Joyce and co. regarding customers (see the whole "match fit" thing), and their seeming inability to accept that Qantas has flaws. Maybe I don't follow the news in other places as much, but I just don't feel like the leadership at most other western carriers are anywhere near as arrogant (or at least seemingly arrogant) about their own performance.

 

[evanb]

Generally negative as well, but the environment over there is different so you can't make a comparison. The Air Passenger Protection Rights means airlines like Air Canada have to pay up when they delay your flight. My Dad received $1000 from them due to him arriving in Edmonton 10 hours later than scheduled. If Qantas paid you $1000 for delaying your flight by more than 9 hours do you think that might change your perspective on them? This of course points to the fact that Australia needs to overhaul its air passenger rights legislation to be more in line with EU, Canada and probably the United States in a few months.

Many an Australian would love to see some sort of EU261 protection in the market, however how much are they willing and able to pay for it? At first thought, one might expect it to be a significant deterrent for airlines or an incentive for them to do a better job, but one should consider the unintended consequences.

Firstly, in concentrated markets where the supplier has pricing power, if all suppliers are subject to the same cost structure they will simply pass it on to customers. So the first unintended consequence is higher ticket prices. Ultimately, we would be socialising the costs of these delays.

Secondly, EU261 specifically has conditions, for example that no compensation is due if the airline cancels the flight 14 days or more before. So you may book a flight 11 months in advance for your dream holiday and get a great deal only for the airline to cancel the flight 14 days out and give you a refund. Your alternative booking is now expensive and you are due no compensation. Effectively, it incentivises an airline to proactively cancel rather than run some flights. It simply becomes algorithmic with regards to the penalties, and risk averse airlines will simply cancel.

Thirdly, EU261 does not apply if the flight is cancelled due factors outside of their control, i.e. weather (or sometimes maintenance issues). Many of the most egregious delays are often subject to these conditions.

I think that these sorts of protections can and do make passengers feel like they have more protections, but they also create unintended consequences that they may not see or may not see until they impact them.

 

[evanb]

Absolutely, but also remember the airline has a significant influence over creating people's expectations. I think QF offer a reasonable-mid level offering, that's perfectly acceptable. My issue is that they create an aura through their marketing, and the spin they use in communications that creates a higher expectation than they can consitently deliver.

It's a competitive marketplace, they are trying to attract people. I don't know a major/successful airline that doesn't do this. One could come up with countless examples, like Emirates really pushing luxuriousness in their marketing, only to find middle seats and angled flats in business class. It's not a critique on Emirates, but ultimately that airlines are competing for business and trying to attract people, and this includes marketing.

Honestly, I find QF a little better than mid-level, but it may be influenced by the routes that I fly. I find their business class hard product more consistent than EK, and often better. They offer me more convenient and often shorter schedules into CGK & MNL, although not always to BKK & HAN (so I often go with TG or SQ for those). And I find them much the same as UA (my alternative) to the US.

There are many things that they could improve on, but I could say the same about most of my alternatives. Having spend the last 20 years traveling a huge among internationally for work, and at times being quite concentrated on DL, UA, BA, and LH group, I find QF quite nice.