Cityflyer gone!

[williamsf1]

This is from 2004 off the QF website

About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases - New Qantas Domestic Inflight Service

Turn the clock forward 2012 ... The same person is saying the same things working for another airline!

 

[Austman]

Could this now mean on weekdays in Y there will be newspapers in the morning and wine or beer after 4pm for all Qantas domestic flights (except Perth transcontinental)?

It could make sense in the competition with Virgin. Or maybe even offer it 7 days/week? The other parts of City Flyer disappeared long ago.

 

[lovestotravel]

Newspapers ? They are still printed ?

 

[Austman]

Newspapers ? They are still printed ?

They are those things you can read when all electronics are supposed to be off. At least that's when I read them.

 

[anat0l]

On another note, is AJ an engineer?

No, his qualifications mark him as a physicist-come-mathematician. IMO that's much worse than an engineer.

Could this now mean on weekdays in Y there will be newspapers in the morning and wine or beer after 4pm for all Qantas domestic flights (except Perth transcontinental)?

It could make sense in the competition with Virgin. Or maybe even offer it 7 days/week? The other parts of City Flyer disappeared long ago.

I remember those corny CityFlyer ads involving one smart businessman and another smart-alack businessman. One was talking about how flying Qantas meant staying loyal to the great marsupial that is the symbol of Australia, whilst the other was talking about how Qantas knows he likes his newspaper in the morning and a cold beer in the evening.

How times have changed.


In any case, the way I see it is that CityFlyer was supposed to guarantee a certain standard (or set of) service for a certain set of routes (i.e. mainly the inter-capital ones). For non-CityFlyer routes, you didn't know what you were getting, period.

That's all changed. And the separation of CityFlyer baggage belts and non-CityFlyer baggage belts is ridiculous (it didn't offer any advantage having a "dedicated" belt for CityFlyer). And I don't know how I initially liked it, but separating the FIDS boards between CityFlyer and non-CityFlyer flights is a stupid idea. That said, QF could also see to upgrade their FIDS systems in the major centres. (Most are confusing; e.g. in Brisbane the old-style FIDS list all flights with their codeshares, which means you can normally only see 30 minutes of flights at a time if you're lucky; in other centres when the status of a flight changes to 'BOARDING' or 'FINAL CALL', it covers up the destination of the flight, which is OK for most of us but not so OK for the casual flyer).


I know this is going to be almost uncanny to suggest, but I'd advocate that QF should offer complimentary alcohol to the Y cabin on all flights with scheduled departure after 11.30am, every day of the week. They can restrict it to beer, red wine and white wine if they must; perhaps if they really want to then pre-4pm they can restrict it to one alcoholic drink per pax. I'm not saying this because I know some people would love to have a tipple (ish) earlier in the day - I'm just saying that for a supposed "premium" (everyone on the count of 3: 1, 2, 3... ) carrier with full inclusive service, I thought that would be a key ingredient to stamping that kind of authority. Of course, then the next step is to open the bar earlier on all clubs around Australia (viz. 11.00 - 11.30 am opening to match the onboard service). [Aside: I'm guessing if this did happen, some advocacy group might get up and claim that Qantas is promoting the irresponsible consumption of alcohol by making it freely available]

 

[anat0l]

They are those things you can read when all electronics are supposed to be off. At least that's when I read them.

Not when you're in cruise, seat belt sign turned off and the device is in flight-safe mode.

 

[Austman]

And I don't know how I initially liked it, but separating the FIDS boards between CityFlyer and non-CityFlyer flights is a stupid idea.

Totally agree. I don't think it really helped anyone.

 

[serfty]

It was mentioned in an email this morning ('Flexi Fare Sale'):

Flexi Fare Sale

A change is as good as a holiday Pick up one of our Flexi Saver sale fares to and from the Gold Coast and you can change your dates without fees at qantas.com (fare difference applies).* Plus, meals and baggage are included on every flight. Melbourne to Gold Coast from $159 Fares are one way for departures from 28 October 2012 to 1 August 2013. Prices are based on payment by BPAY at qantas.com.+ Book your Flexi Fare today Sale ends 11.59pm (AEST) 30 August 2012, unless sold out prior. You're the reason we fly To celebrate our 91 years of experience, here are some of the reasons to fly with us. .... You'll also enjoy... ... Neil Perry inspired cuisine and complimentary beverages after 4pm on CityFlyer.

I find it interesting that OOL is being designated a 'CityFlyer' route going by this.

 

[JohnK]

I wonder if anyone would notice if all the Qantas signs were removed?

 

[oz_mark]

I wonder if anyone would notice if all the Qantas signs were removed?

I'm sure someone would, especially if they were replaced by orange stars.

 

[TheInsider]

I wonder if anyone would notice if all the Qantas signs were removed?

I can say most of the ground staff haven't noticed anything at all!

 

[JohnK]

I'm sure someone would, especially if they were replaced by orange stars.

I am yet to be convinced.

I still cannot believe the market share Qantas has gifted to Jetstar over the past 8 years.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I am yet to be convinced.

I still cannot believe the market share Qantas has gifted to Jetstar over the past 8 years.

Who cares what they gift their child

It all stays in the family

JQ is a mighty big success even if it cost Qantas mainline something

 

[ajw373]

Who cares what they gift their child

It all stays in the family

JQ is a mighty big success even if it cost Qantas mainline something

Exactly. Much better to gift share to your own airline and make a profit than run it yourself and make a loss or give it up fully.

 

[markis10]

Exactly. Much better to gift share to your own airline and make a profit than run it yourself and make a loss or give it up fully.

Pity they have not gifted the safety culture that the red roo had, how many below safe altitude incidents do we need to have, and how many cover up incidents are there, cannot remember the last time DJ or QF had an issue on those two topics.

 

[ajw373]

Pity they have not gifted the safety culture that the red roo had, how many below safe altitude incidents do we need to have, and how many cover up incidents are there, cannot remember the last time DJ or QF had an issue on those two topics.

Totataly different issues but yes saftey has to be #1. Reading between the lines it seems you think that Qantas should be flying marginal and non profitable routes becuase they are safer. All well and good in a subsidised enviroment but not in a commercial enviroment.

As for cover ups, gotta ask what cover ups? The industry is heavily regulated and I don't beleive that anyone, especially Qantas or Jetstar would risk a cover up or not reporting as they are required to do.

 

[serfty]

Anyway, I found it more then interesting that CityFlyer was mentioned in the email in relation to OOL.

Maybe an email template was improperly employed ...

(FWIW, A "Cover up" that is revealed publicly cannot be a "Cover Up" as it was not "Covered Up".)

 

[markis10]

As for cover ups, gotta ask what cover ups? The industry is heavily regulated and I don't beleive that anyone, especially Qantas or Jetstar would risk a cover up or not reporting as they are required to do.

In a perfect world maybe, but we are not in a perfect world, fact is JQ are doing well but have issues with safety because cost is being put ahead:

Report finds Jetstar Pacific safety violations | Australian Aviation Magazine

So that incident was with a partly owned division, not 100% JQ issue, but this one was:

Investigation: AO-2007-044 - Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232

The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]
• Flight crew undergoing initial endorsement training with the third party training
provider were not trained until later to the procedures and systems used by the
operator. [Minor Safety issue]
• The aircraft operator did not comply with accepted document change procedures
when modifying the standard operating procedure for the go-around. [Minor
Safety Issue]
• There was no provision in the current CASA Regulations or Orders for third
party flight crew training providers. As such,the responsibility for training
outcomes were unclear. [Minor Safety issue]
Other key findings
• The aircraft operator did not comply with the incident reporting requirements of
its safety management system, which was part of its operations manual, or with
the reporting requirements of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

How many incidents have QF had with a FO with 300 hours of experience not keeping up with the aircraft requirements in a landing and the captain being overwhelmed?

How many QF FOs have 300 hours of experince and under 2000 hours in total??

http://atsb.gov.au/media/3529338/ab2011128.pdf#page=30

 

[ajw373]

In a perfect world maybe, but we are not in a perfect world:

Report finds Jetstar Pacific safety violations | Australian Aviation Magazine

So that incident was with a partly owned division, not 100% JQ issue, but this one was:

Investigation: AO-2007-044 - Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232

Not compling with a regulation or internal procedure is not the same as covering up which is what was implied.

As for Jetstar Pacific that is an airline that is Jetstar in name only. Operating to totally different rules and is an airline that had it's own embedded culture and operating enviroment.

 

[markis10]

Not compling with a regulation or internal procedure is not the same as covering up which is what was implied.

As for Jetstar Pacific that is an airline that is Jetstar in name only. Operating to totally different rules and is an airline that had it's own embedded culture and operating enviroment.

Did you miss the part about not reporting it which is mandatory??

I don't beleive that anyone, especially Qantas or Jetstar would risk a cover up or not reporting as they are required to do.

Thats exactly what JQ did: "did not satisfy the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system (SMS) or of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003."