What's wrong with Qantas?

[jas]

Stupid question, but how do you tell the difference? I know how to check when you book if you're look at a 737 or 767... but what else are you looking for?
(if all this and more is answered somewhere else, please let me know )

 

[serfty]

The only Qantas "Next Generation Boeings" are the 73H's.

 

[Commuter]

So why is QF still mostly in the game when it seems out of touch with what constitutes a good airline?

I am only speaking of domestic flights here, but the reason why I fly QF is because the alternatives are, IMHO, much, much worse.

 

[straitman]

Qantas' ageing fleet on the MEL-SYD run worries me. I avoid the old 767s and to a leseer extent the 737-400s in favour of the Next Generation Boeings whenever I can.

Just a reminder that as a comparison to many other airlines the QF fleet is not really all that old and a major part of the fleet age is because Boeing have not been able to deliver their Next Generation aircraft:!:

 

[pauly7]

Qantas' ageing fleet on the MEL-SYD run worries me. I avoid the old 767s and to a leseer extent the 737-400s in favour of the Next Generation Boeings whenever I can.

LMAO sorry funny post.

Its well known and endlessly repeated that QF have an exceptional safety record & high standards of servicing. Of course if you read nonews or watch TT/ACA then you'll probably believe every QF plane over the age of 1 month is about to fall out of the sky....

I would much rather be in a QF group serviced aircraft that has a few years on it than a brand new aircraft operated by some other airlines I won't name here!

 

[sampson]

Last week we flew Qantas and this week we flew at our own cost on Pacificblue for about $280 each return.

Pblue has far more room - a full handspan - from knee to the back of the seat in front. What's wrong with Qantas? Their sardines are revolting.

 

[harvyk]

Last week we flew Qantas and this week we flew at our own cost on Pacificblue for about $280 each return.

Pblue has far more room - a full handspan - from knee to the back of the seat in front. What's wrong with Qantas? Their sardines are revolting.

What config plane? Having being on every plane type in the QF fleet (except the B717 regional jet) I can assure you that different planes have very different config. (In regards to seat pitch, seat design, age etc...)

 

[oz_mark]

Last week we flew Qantas and this week we flew at our own cost on Pacificblue for about $280 each return.

Pblue has far more room - a full handspan - from knee to the back of the seat in front. What's wrong with Qantas? Their sardines are revolting.

I don't know about a full handspan of difference, but having recently flown DJ is various rows, certainly some rows have more legroom than others (and I am not sure how much the -700 versus the -800 affects things). So it does vary a bit on where you end up sitting.

 

[FlyboyAl]

The topic heading for this is "Whats Wrong with QANTAS?"

After some bookings with them over the last 3 months, and after my third upgrade to J, I don't think there is anything wrong with them.

Sure, they have their bad days, or bad flights - don't we all!

I head for SFO tomorrow having paid about $1200 for a return ticket. I've been upgraded to SFO to J without asking, and without any points cost. I have no idea why, but I love it!

I went to LAX a few months ago, again, a cheap flight deal, and was upgraded to J both ways. (Have to say, that 2 of us in J was kind of weird, but that was all there were in the cabin)

I'm a lowly bronze QC member, but I feel like a Platinum.

Their phone service is fantastic, and yesterday I got a call asking if I'd like to upgrade my return home from SFO to J, but this time it will cost me 40,000 points. i was happy to use points for a change!

I even rang and asked to be moved from my upgraded isle seat to a window seat, and that was done easilly and hapilly.

I flew DJ a couple of weeks ago, and I've still got scabs on my knees from where I rubbed against the back of the seat in front. Sure the crew were ok, but the seat was not.

I've just booked to LAX again next Feb for my wife and I, and we got exactly the flights out and back which we wanted. No changing the flights by a day or 2 to get a flight with points.

I'm sure that at some time I'll have a bad experience with Qantas, but from my current point of view, they have so many brownie points in the bank, it would be hard to get upset.

It will be how professional they are when it happens which will ultimately decide if it becomes an issue.

What's wrong with QANTAS - NOTHING!

 

[Justinf]

LMAO sorry funny post.

Its well known and endlessly repeated that QF have an exceptional safety record & high standards of servicing. Of course if you read nonews or watch TT/ACA then you'll probably believe every QF plane over the age of 1 month is about to fall out of the sky....

I would much rather be in a QF group serviced aircraft that has a few years on it than a brand new aircraft operated by some other airlines I won't name here!

Glad I was a source of amusement for you.
No matter how well the aircraft are serviced, the fact remains that Qantas has the oldest fleet in the country.
No matter what its service history, I'd still rather drive an 06 Commodore than a 98 Commodore.

 

[toowongman]

Glad I was a source of amusement for you.
No matter how well the aircraft are serviced, the fact remains that Qantas has the oldest fleet in the country.
No matter what its service history, I'd still rather drive an 06 Commodore than a 98 Commodore.

That doesn't make sense. A poorly-serviced '06 will have more chance of a breakdown than a fastidiously-serviced '98 Commodore. It's easy to say that about motor vehicles, as they're usually on the surface of the earth, not flying above it.

I'd rather be on a QF 717 that's just out of a D-check than a year-old aircraft from a lesser airline.

 

[anat0l]

That doesn't make sense. A poorly-serviced '06 will have more chance of a breakdown than a fastidiously-serviced '98 Commodore. It's easy to say that about motor vehicles, as they're usually on the surface of the earth, not flying above it.

I'd rather be on a QF 717 that's just out of a D-check than a year-old aircraft from a lesser airline.

All things being equal, the debate is centering around the proposition that an older aircraft is "less reliable" than a newer one.

The difference between a 20 year old 747-400 and a 2 year old 747-400 in the airline industry is that one has flown 18 years more than the other. During those 18 years, obviously maintenance would have been done on the components as required, e.g. frame, paint, electronics, engines etc. But there will probably still be parts of that 20 year old plane that have very well been there since the plane was delivered. Whether these are critical parts or not is a whole different thing, and what effect does age really have on safety.

The advantage that seems to be splashed here is that a longer serving aircraft has a record, i.e. the longer an aircraft has been flying without accident, the better chance there is in believing that it will continue to do so (assuming all the correct things are done). I'm assuming someone audits aircraft for compliance, adequate performance etc. so you couldn't go 18 years and still flying but living a lie.

Still, the assumption is that if you buy a new piece of equipment, it works much better than an old one, even if the old one has been maintained well. Also, there is a certain "amenity" value that people seem to have knowing if they are flying on an old aircraft vs. a new one, just like cars (e.g. most people get a nice "vibe" or the like driving a new car rather than an old one, assuming that their performances are more or less equal).

Also, there seems to be a pseudo-correlation that the older QF aircraft seem to run into problems more than the newer ones, but that is very debatable, despite being "publicly" accepted to be pseudo-fact


On another note - "Qantas has the oldest fleet in the country". No joke??!!!! Of the carriers in this country - QF, DJ, JQ and TT (wow...only four of them) - given QF's legacy and period of time running, I think that phrase goes into the "Du'h!" basket.

 

[Justinf]

All things being equal, the debate is centering around the proposition that an older aircraft is "less reliable" than a newer one.

The difference between a 20 year old 747-400 and a 2 year old 747-400 in the airline industry is that one has flown 18 years more than the other. During those 18 years, obviously maintenance would have been done on the components as required, e.g. frame, paint, electronics, engines etc. But there will probably still be parts of that 20 year old plane that have very well been there since the plane was delivered. Whether these are critical parts or not is a whole different thing, and what effect does age really have on safety.

The advantage that seems to be splashed here is that a longer serving aircraft has a record, i.e. the longer an aircraft has been flying without accident, the better chance there is in believing that it will continue to do so (assuming all the correct things are done). I'm assuming someone audits aircraft for compliance, adequate performance etc. so you couldn't go 18 years and still flying but living a lie.

Still, the assumption is that if you buy a new piece of equipment, it works much better than an old one, even if the old one has been maintained well. Also, there is a certain "amenity" value that people seem to have knowing if they are flying on an old aircraft vs. a new one, just like cars (e.g. most people get a nice "vibe" or the like driving a new car rather than an old one, assuming that their performances are more or less equal).

Also, there seems to be a pseudo-correlation that the older QF aircraft seem to run into problems more than the newer ones, but that is very debatable, despite being "publicly" accepted to be pseudo-fact


On another note - "Qantas has the oldest fleet in the country". No joke??!!!! Of the carriers in this country - QF, DJ, JQ and TT (wow...only four of them) - given QF's legacy and period of time running, I think that phrase goes into the "Du'h!" basket.

Not necessarily. OzJet would have held that mantle when it was in operation due to its 757s. Plus airlines lease aircraft all the time, which can add to a fleet's age.
Of course Qantas' fleet is positively babylike compared to some carriers in the US and even in the developing world.
I probably steered the thread in the wrong direction. No more on this from me.
Each to their own.

 

[mannej]

Ozjet did not ever have 757's in its fleet. I think you are mistaking them for the 732's they had in their fleet.

 

[Rae]

In addition to my own travel, I'm also in charge of travel for a few bands. We choose to fly Qantas for several reasons. For me personally, whilst Virgin's marketing etc kinda makes them more appealing to me, I simply don't like their seats. I actually LIKE being able to buy the food I want rather than being given the same sloppy vegetarian sandwich from Qantas but it's not enough of a reason to change. I like the status and the upgrades.

For the bands, who are all Gold/Platinum members also, it really comes down to excess baggage. Here's an example:

Band travelling Melbourne to Hobart (these are all real experiences)
First time with Virgin as Qantas offer their flights at very unsuitable times for them. Cost for excess baggage = $900. Flight on time

Next time, Mel - Hob with Jetstar. Cost for excess baggage was $300 but flight cancelled and band had to travel 3 hours earlier at stupid o'clock after a show the night before

Return flight Hob - Mel with Qantas. Flight on time. Excess baggage charge = nothing.

So you see, it's pretty simple mathematics for us. It's fair enough that airlines charge excess baggage and it's totally their right to, but the cost comparisons here are pretty different and I'm sure it's because of their status that Qantas are nicer with excess baggage but do Virgin offer it?

I heard that a band who's song was used in a Virgin conmercial were charged $2000 excess for a MEL/OOL flight.

One of our groups have to travel to the Gold Coast quite a bit from Melbourne, and hate Virgin/Jetstar so much that they now fly to Brisbane on Qantas and drive to the Gold Coast - seriously.

I WANT to like Virgin but I just can't. I would still fly Virgin as a second preference over Jetstar, status or not.

 

[sampson]

I'm a mug flyer who thought you guys meant a DJ flight was a flight on points from a David Jones' cards or something.

Just got off a plane from NZ with some DJ ops fellow "Simon' with his 3 rows of seats to himself. Yeah it'd be nice to learn that what's the diff between a 777 and a A380, but as a mug flyer, I've had tons more leg room - the width of my hand - on VA to/from LA and DJ to/from NZ. Qantas might have eye shades for sleeping and free meals, but the legroom is just crampingly tight. It'll be a while til we darken Qantas' doors.

 

[anat0l]

I don't know how wrong it is to revive a new thread, but I found this link whilst reviewing the twitter comments on the recent article about QF's check-in woes.

Qantas Sucks World - Customer complaints

Probably not new for some of the stalwarts here, but an....interesting....read.

I can't find one for the Virgin group. So we must be the bad guys.

 

[markis10]

All things being equal, the debate is centering around the proposition that an older aircraft is "less reliable" than a newer one.

The difference between a 20 year old 747-400 and a 2 year old 747-400 in the airline industry is that one has flown 18 years more than the other.

Thats not the only difference and is way oversimplifing things, D checks show the effect of age in a dramatic way, at the first D check the ratio of scheduled to unscheduled labor is 1:1 at around 5 years. However, at the 4th or 5th one (at year 20+), the ratio has increased to 2.7:1 . In short, the amount of scheduled time for inspections doesn’t change, but the unscheduled work that results from the inspection goes up by a factor of almost 3 over the course of 20 years, often resulting in an aircraft returning from scheduled work late which in itself impacts reliability.

Also, there seems to be a pseudo-correlation that the older QF aircraft seem to run into problems more than the newer ones, but that is very debatable, despite being "publicly" accepted to be pseudo-fact

Based on the experience of thousands of operators over the years, its a fact, not a pseudo-fact, readily available data shows that availability drops from the 95% range for aircraft up to 15 to 20 years of age to an average of 70% at age 25 and 55% at age 30 and we are starting to see that with the 767's. Case in point and a good example was the 747-300s on the Perth run over their last few years!

 

[oz_mark]

Case in point and a good example was the 747-300s on the Perth run over their last few years!

...and the 747-200's before them :evil:

Not that the manufactureres have been helping, but IIRC Qantas were trying to rid themselves of aircraft over 20 years of age.

 

[markis10]

...and the 747-200's before them :evil:

Not that the manufactureres have been helping, but IIRC Qantas were trying to rid themselves of aircraft over 20 years of age.

Both Airbus and Boeing provide relability data to aircraft owners online at portals like myboeing.com, it is also a requirement of CAR1988 for operators to track maintenance and reliability for each airframe and report to CASA on this.