Building a stronger Qantas

[patrickk]

Could also stick with OW if the schedule permits and fly CX from BKK, but I agree having to fly through SYD is a PITA every time I need to fly to BKK. If they're no longer heading on to LHR, maybe they can go an A330 direct from ADL?

With the new broom you can fly MAS to Colombo or perhaps Kingfisher another OW option

 

[Happy Trails]

Anyone notice the billboards popping up by the pilots union, there is one at Hendra "When you get on a QF plane you expect a QF pilot".

It'll go viral from there.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

You can add to that that it is also an airline that is used to dupe australians into paying more for a service they think is australian when it in fact isnt. the cost savings achieved by using NZ based crew is solely used to line the pockets of qantas as in not reflected in "better value" airfares.

This same model will no doubt be used by "qantasia". It will be established overseas and like an undetectable cancer, slowly start to spread its tendrils into australian ports and take over mainline routes. As has been mentioned before, the name of the game (IMO) is to rid qantas of its expensive australian staff and replace them with foreigners or locals stupid enough to work for half the pay!

Jetconnect competes with AirNZ primarily. And AirNZ pays a decent wage to its NZ based crew (last time I checked, NZ wasn't a 3rd world country). Since fares are similar between NZ and QF on the trans-tasman routes, I don't see how there are huge profits floating QANTAS' way. Instead competition drives prices down.

 

[Captain Paul]

Why the strong need for a CEO of an Australian company stressing the point that upon expansion overseas it will NOT be called QANTAS?

If it is a premium airline then call it QANTAS!
After all, we are told this new premium airline is to offer all the perks for Frequent Flyers just like QANTAS.

I am most ashamed that an Australian company feels it has to appease Unions and a lot of naysayers by saying that when we expand overseas we will NOT be using our company name.

Further, this will be done not because of any marketing advantage a new name will bring, building brand recognition from scratch is expensive, but it seems because QANTAS doesn't want any backlash from the unions and naysayers arguing for Australian conditions and wages for this new overseas hub.

Honestly, it is like arguing that the Heinekin and Asahi Beer we drink here but made in Thailand should not be manufactured in Thailand under Thai wages and conditions but instead manufactured in Holland and Japan, respectively, or if manufactured in Thailand then done so under Dutch and Japanese wages and conditions. The same can be said for Toyotas manufactured in Thailand or even on a simpler level -arguing that McDonalds or any other company should employ staff based on its home country wages and conditions irrespective of where it expands.

We should be supporting QANTAS's decision for a new overseas hub and angry that it will not be called QANTAS. Not to argue this is to question why the new airline does not want to take advantage of the QANTAS good name and safety record known worldwide?

I vote for the continuation of the QANTAS name in setting up a new hub in Asia.

Happy Flying
Captain Paul​

 

[ajw373]

Why the strong need for a CEO of an Australian company stressing the point that upon expansion overseas it will NOT be called QANTAS?

If it is a premium airline then call it QANTAS!
After all, we are told this new premium airline is to offer all the perks for Frequent Flyers just like QANTAS.

I am most ashamed that an Australian company feels it has to appease Unions and a lot of naysayers by saying that when we expand overseas we will NOT be using our company name.

Further, this will be done not because of any marketing advantage a new name will bring, building brand recognition from scratch is expensive, but it seems because QANTAS doesn't want any backlash from the unions and naysayers arguing for Australian conditions and wages for this new overseas hub.

Honestly, it is like arguing that the Heinekin and Asahi Beer we drink here but made in Thailand should not be manufactured in Thailand under Thai wages and conditions but instead manufactured in Holland and Japan, respectively, or if manufactured in Thailand then done so under Dutch and Japanese wages and conditions. The same can be said for Toyotas manufactured in Thailand or even on a simpler level -arguing that McDonalds or any other company should employ staff based on its home country wages and conditions irrespective of where it expands.

We should be supporting QANTAS's decision for a new overseas hub and angry that it will not be called QANTAS. Not to argue this is to question why the new airline does not want to take advantage of the QANTAS good name and safety record known worldwide?

I vote for the continuation of the QANTAS name in setting up a new hub in Asia.

Happy Flying
Captain Paul​

Think you have missed the point of the new airline. Contrary to what the Qantas pilots union etc says it is not being set-up to do Australians and existing Qantas employees in general out of jobs, it is being set-up to exploit new markets because there is stuff all growth left in the premium market in Australia but heaps in Asia, China in particular. Of Qantas will feed into this airline, but it's main purpose will be to serve Asia. When it comes to the Qantas name the brand is symbolic of Australia, so would be meaningless to a Chinese person flying to Singapore, so it makes perfect sense to have a different name, but yes it will be hard to start a new brand.

You raise an interesting point about the company name and it not being used on the new airline, but to me this highlights that maybe now is the time to change the name of the registered company so that it that bears no resemblance to any of the brands it owns, including Qantas. So yes keep the Qantas brand, keep the Jetstar brand etc, but change the company name to something that better reflects what the company is about in 2011. Maybe then people would realise that Qantas the company is more than an airline named Qantas, rather it is a group of companies all feeding money into a company called Qantas Airways Limited.

This is very common in the airline industry. For example what is the name of the company that owns the airlines Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Hong Kong? Will give you a hint, it isn't Cathay Pacific.

 

[tuapekastar]

Think you have missed the point of the new airline. Contrary to what the Qantas pilots union etc says it is not being set-up to do Australians and existing Qantas employees in general out of jobs, it is being set-up to exploit new markets because there is stuff all growth left in the premium market in Australia but heaps in Asia, China in particular. Of Qantas will feed into this airline, but it's main purpose will be to serve Asia. When it comes to the Qantas name the brand is symbolic of Australia, so would be meaningless to a Chinese person flying to Singapore, so it makes perfect sense to have a different name, but yes it will be hard to start a new brand.

You raise an interesting point about the company name and it not being used on the new airline, but to me this highlights that maybe now is the time to change the name of the registered company so that it that bears no resemblance to any of the brands it owns, including Qantas. So yes keep the Qantas brand, keep the Jetstar brand etc, but change the company name to something that better reflects what the company is about in 2011. Maybe then people would realise that Qantas the company is more than an airline named Qantas, rather it is a group of companies all feeding money into a company called Qantas Airways Limited.

This is very common in the airline industry. For example what is the name of the company that owns the airlines Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Hong Kong? Will give you a hint, it isn't Cathay Pacific.

Yep, The Swire Group owns/runs those airlines, but not sure that changing Qantas's name to something totally unrelated has any point to it. The Swire Group I think has fingers in many pies, whereas Qantas is just airlines (or so I believe).

 

[Oneworldplus2]

2.- Maybe I have been lucky, but in all the dealings I have had with American Airlines (have to fly them a lot too) their phone staff have been amazing. Every time I have called them (USA line) the waiting times have been miniscule, and the staff spoke English as a first language. Admittedly calling AA via their Australian numbers is a different universe, with 20+ minute waiting times followed by the connection to Pakistan. But how on earth can AA have such a brilliant phone support within USA? Can Qantas duplicate that? Travellers who only fly occassionally probably wouldnt value this so much, but if you fly a lot and inevitably have to phone their call centres, it is truly a loyalty-building experience to get swift and clear communications.

QF;
I've never waited more than 5 minutes on the phone (including when l called QF in Germany (Berlin), presumably FRA call centre?) and less since I became WP (an average of 1 or 2 minutes at most). Perhaps l've become lucky with QF...? Maybe a lotto ticket is to be purchased?

 

[Moopere]

TBH, I'm not sure if the general flying public gives much of a hoot about who financially owns an airline. In my world, branding is about product recognition and/or dividing a market into segments so that you can address them separately. So, QF for the high end, JQ for the low end, and because they are separately branded this is supposed to provide a certain clarity to the purchasing public. QF have muddied these waters considerably (unfortunately), and generally I don't see branding working with other companies in the muddled way they have chosen to do it.

To my way of thinking Captain Paul is spot on, if they are not going to use the QF branding for the new airline its because they want to address it differently for some reason. My own suspicions pretty closely follow what Cpt Paul has said. QF has strong brand recognition world wide, yes even in China. Pretty much anyone in the world who is in a position to fly will recognise the brand. To not use one of the highest recognised aviation brands in the world for your new venture is to deny yourself instant cashflow via brand sales - so the fear behind the reasoning must be substantial indeed.

All old and large business becomes burdened with decades of 'dead wood', its real and its hard to deal with. Specifically, the dead wood is (some of the) people, processes and culture. Young companies have no legacy to deal with and are fresh, bouncy and agile as a result. QF needs, in my opinion, to find a way to reinvent itself and at the same time cut away the dead wood. A painful and possibly even fatal exercise in this country. Thus, the reinvigoration of QF must occur overseas, theres just no other way to do it. Putting on my prophets hat here, I believe QF Australia will be shrunk and shrunk, as quickly as the market and local conditions will allow, until its simply a management vehicle owning a number of overseas operated child companies.

 

[goldy]

Jetconnect competes with AirNZ primarily. And AirNZ pays a decent wage to its NZ based crew (last time I checked, NZ wasn't a 3rd world country). Since fares are similar between NZ and QF on the trans-tasman routes, I don't see how there are huge profits floating QANTAS' way. Instead competition drives prices down.

I wasn't suggesting the tasman was a pot of gold, but id bet my first born that the only incentive for the creation and operation of "jitkeneckt" was strictly financial.

Honestly, it is like arguing that the Heinekin and Asahi Beer we drink here but made in Thailand should not be manufactured in Thailand under Thai wages and conditions but instead manufactured in Holland and Japan, respectively, or if manufactured in Thailand then done so under Dutch and Japanese wages and conditions.​

​

For me, the crux of this issue is that the 2 brands you mention are "premium" brands normally manufactured in the first world and priced accordingly. When the company moves manufacturing off shore, in many cases to second or third world countries, with significantly reduced costs, I would expect a commensurate price drop, as opposed to maintaining the current price for the simple purpose of lining the pockets of some huge multinational conglomerate.
Mercedes Benz tried manufacturing cars in South Africa and learnt the hard way that customers do not appreciate and will not tolerate being charged top dollar for a perceived reduction in "premiumness". Qantas too, will learn the hard way that customers will not be willing to pay a premium to fly on "Qantasia"!!​

 

[dajop]

Could also stick with OW if the schedule permits and fly CX from BKK, but I agree having to fly through SYD is a PITA every time I need to fly to BKK. If they're no longer heading on to LHR, maybe they can go an A330 direct from ADL?

CX also do 4-weekly SIN-CMB (vs3-weekly BKK-CMB). This connects with QF services from BNE/PER and on the way back it connects with QF services to SYD(32)/PER, so it is doable on oneworld with single stops in both . And on a weekly basis (Saturdays) to the ADL-SIN service. A destination at last PER has superior oneworld connections to/from than SYD!

 

[dajop]

After all, we are told this new premium airline is to offer all the perks for Frequent Flyers just like QANTAS!

Aaah, but do we know that for sure. All we know that it will offer the opportunity to earn points and status credits, be part of the FF program with status benefits etc.

But, here's the catch, most "premium" carriers in Asia are very selective in offering FF points. On TG, SQ & CX points/status earning fares are often at a hefty premium to intro fares, and more geared to the corporate markets. I can foresee that the new carrier could well go down this path ... if you are on a QF codeshare, great, the QF rules apply. But if you are on the new carrier's code, there may well be a different earning table that applies. Just some speculation here.

 

[wandering_fred]

Aaah, but do we know that for sure. All we know that it will offer the opportunity to earn points and status credits, be part of the FF program with status benefits etc.
...
if you are on a QF codeshare, great, the QF rules apply. But if you are on the new carrier's code, there may well be a different earning table that applies. Just some speculation here.

Well perhaps most of the QF rules apply. It apparently took some very special dispensation to get QF code shares on J* to credit to a limited number of OW partner airlines. I find Red Roo's reluctance to comment on OW participation almost as enlightening as an actual answer. :shock::evil:

Hopefully I'm wandering in the wrong direction.

Fred

 

[Archphoto]

and also for red roo to answer, how are any of us going to be able to buy tickets when we have to show up within 2 days with our credit cards at the local office??

there is, according to qantas, no way around this requirement for china.

It's a total PITA, believe me and the "legal" (have I quoted that correctly?) reasoning doesn't seem to hold water. (I can book a CX flight here in BKK on their TH site and only need to show the CC used to book the flight upon check-in - same goes for PG.)

Think QF need to revisit this situation, as other carriers happily accept the CC used at time of booking as long as it is presented upon check-in. If you fail to present, you either:

1. Will not be allowed to board on the originally purchased ticket or
2. Pay up again and fly on your merry way.

Pretty simple huh? And no need to spend hours in a cab waiting for the rain to stop, traverse a flood-like road or take your life in your hands trying to get to the office on the back of a motorcycle taxi before that ticket is cancelled!

Oh and I almost forgot - AirAsia and J*Asia happily accept CC online, and no, they don't even ask for the CC at check-in!

 

[drron]

Yep, The Swire Group owns/runs those airlines, but not sure that changing Qantas's name to something totally unrelated has any point to it. The Swire Group I think has fingers in many pies, whereas Qantas is just airlines (or so I believe).

But then AA is actually owned by AMR Corporation-changed their Holding company name in 1982.And it is Airlines and travel just like QF.

 

[ajw373]

To my way of thinking Captain Paul is spot on, if they are not going to use the QF branding for the new airline its because they want to address it differently for some reason. My own suspicions pretty closely follow what Cpt Paul has said. QF has strong brand recognition world wide, yes even in China. Pretty much anyone in the world who is in a position to fly will recognise the brand. To not use one of the highest recognised aviation brands in the world for your new venture is to deny yourself instant cashflow via brand sales - so the fear behind the reasoning must be substantial indeed.

Correct it is a widely recognised and respected brand, but a brand that is associated with travel TO Australia. So pretty useless if the market you are after is inter-Asian.

 

[ajw373]

Yep, The Swire Group owns/runs those airlines, but not sure that changing Qantas's name to something totally unrelated has any point to it. The Swire Group I think has fingers in many pies, whereas Qantas is just airlines (or so I believe).

The point is simple. As it stands when people think of Qantas they think of the airline, and then many get all upset when Qantas the company decides to invest money into businesses they own other than Qantas the airline. Then there is all this talk of cross subsidisation etc, which BTW is totally irrelevant as the income from each business unit within the group belongs to the company to do as they wish, if they want to invest profits made by Qantas domestic into Jetstar then that is totally their right, and in a business sense their obligation if the other business unit has more growth and long term profit potential. By changing the name of the company to something other than Qantas reflects the simple fact that the business is more than one airline and is instead a group of business units each contributing to the main company, just like Swire who owns 3 separate airlines as well as other business interests too.

 

[ajw373]

But then AA is actually owned by AMR Corporation-changed their Holding company name in 1982.And it is Airlines and travel just like QF.

Yep and British Airways is owned by a company called International Airlines Group, clearly reflecting the fact that it and Iberia are now a merged company, which makes it easier for the business as a whole to make decisions for the group as a whole. If the company remained as say British Airways it would be accused of favoritism if they invested more in BA than Iberia. Bit like Qantas (the company) who now owns several different airline brands and other business interests, yet people still associate the company with one small part of the business and then carry on when they decide to invest in businesses other than Qantas, despite the fact that growth and profit potential for Qantas the airline is very limited, due to saturation of the premium end of the Australian airline market, especially with Virgin now moving more up market. So clearly if the company wants to survive it needs offshore businesses and needs a restructure of Qantas the airline to be able to compete with Virgin and other foreign carriers.

 

[farmer]

Hi All,
The part of the strategy that is misleading is the CEO of Qantas wrapping himself in the flag and holding up models of A380's to suggest that he is a growing Aussie branded, Aussie staffed airline under the iconic brand name of Qantas

His business strategy of setting up new airlines in asia with new non Australian brands and staff is perfectly legitimate and sensible. The strategy of trying to mislead us that it will make the original Qantas International "stronger" will rebound on the company. We don't like being mislead or taken for mugs. Qantas Classic International and Qantas Domestic will shrink under the external and internal competitive pressures and the cheaper services offered by Jet Star and the new offshore brands.
It will make the business model stronger for the shareholders of these new airlines, but Qantas as we knew it is on the way out very quickly. Sad but now inevitable.

AJ needs to to tell it like it is without spin. We might even respect him for his honesty and willingess to pursue the interests of his shareholders vigourously.

Farmer.

 

[goldy]

Hi All,
AJ needs to to tell it like it is without spin. We might even respect him for his honesty and willingess to pursue the interests of his shareholders vigourously.

Are you kidding me? He'd be burnt at the stake!!

To my way of thinking Captain Paul is spot on, if they are not going to use the QF branding for the new airline its because they want to address it differently for some reason. My own suspicions pretty closely follow what Cpt Paul has said. QF has strong brand recognition world wide, yes even in China. Pretty much anyone in the world who is in a position to fly will recognise the brand. To not use one of the highest recognised aviation brands in the world for your new venture is to deny yourself instant cashflow via brand sales - so the fear behind the reasoning must be substantial indeed.

I think this new entity is nothing more than a blatant attempt to circumvent the Qantas sale Act.

 

[russ]

As other posters have said, there are two different Qantas-es: the brand (QF) and the company (QAN).

Perhaps it would have been better for AJ to say: "We're building a stronger QAN by building a weaker QF"