This response is not intended to be iany kind of disagreement per se, more counter arguments for the sake of discussion...
I reckon there are subjective expectations - such as whether QF is a 'premium' airline, justifying its relatively high charges - and objective expectations, based on what QF promises or states you will get. Like Priority Boarding and bags; certain lounge access.
Ah, but that's another thing too. "Premium" - I do not consider high fares to automatically denote expectations of a "Premoium" brand. Any company will charge whatever they think the market will take for their product - be it the super cheap Aldi soap or your Ethiad "Residence" experience.
Or to put it another way let's say it's a big event in city X and all your hotel rooms are in high demand.. suddenly the budget Ibis or Motel 6 or whathaveyou will charge $$$$$$ but that doesn't denote a premium product. It denotes demand and limited supply.
QF charge ridonculous levels on routes like LHR, LAX etc because they figure they have a huge market share and can justify those prices, while smaller carriers will be pushed to often charge less for similar product (eg: MH)
And, if QF did not get those seats filled then they would be forced to lower prices to achieve that aim. Sales are one method but usually with some of these routes there's a pricing arrogance that must be jusified in some way by them selling enough of those fares to corporates or whoever that there's little pressure on them to pull back the pricing. Why would they when they get the yield?
And sometimes they have dominance over a market or route where they can and do gauge away (like many airlines out there).
So airline pricing is one of those weird examples where a high price doesn't always mean a high value product - it can often be ilogical and based on all sorts of things.
People may have 'unrealistic' expectations of the subjective type, if they've had the pleasure of flying airlines such as ME3, SQ etc in Business or First and then fly QF in Business of First.
In general agree.. but it can also work the other way. I've had uninspiring EK experiences (for example)... it's not always as black and white.. and there will be examples where QF may even be the better product on a route (rare I grant you).. eg: trans tasman A330 v NZ/JQ 32x series, or PER-LHR nonstop vs a connection in DXB, SIN or somewhere, MEL-SFO in 787 vs UA or one stops on other carriers like NZ
And sometimes the advantage can come down to schedule and/or frequency.
And again, that's all going to be very subjectve.
Purely on a product level alone though I agree tht absolutely there are many other options out there with superior hard and soft product.
But I don't think its unrealistic of passengers to have expectations that QF will deliver what they explicitly promise.
Frankly, if Qantas stopped or even toned down their marketing hype, and stopped over-promising and under-delivering, I don't think I could reasonably criticise their day-to-day performance.
Marketing though is a fact of life. Everyone does it and in one way or another usually promote expectation of one kind or another that aren't going to be met. I mean a few years ago EK ads were pushing the bars and showers... Say I wind up on a 777 without either.... well that's a marketing fail and an expectation not met if I did not know any better (I do obviously).
Personally I worry less about marketing hype and concern myself far more with tangibles that I am expecting to have delivered - be it published status benefits, or general service elements.
Again, not disagreeing with your points
