Devil´s Advocate. Qantas is doing the right thing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I considered different words to encapsulate my feelings... and 'greed' seemed the best fit.

Why 'greed'? because they only have a limited number of awards... the seats they can't sell or don't expect to sell.

but they keep upping the price of those seats... either through fuel surcharges, or devaluing the points you earn in order to redeem the seat.

they encourage members to spend far and wide... without necessarily explaining the high fees and charges. or limited availability. And in some cases when members do finally redeem an award, qantas can at a whim withdraw the service and basically tell you 'tough luck' (I'm thinking here about withdrawal al F to hkg).

We have gone from an 'reward' program, to what is pretty much a 'co-payment' program.

Cant redeem an award on line? call us and pay $60 to book it. Is qantas unique in imposing that fee? I think it might be. Greed? feels like it to me.
 
Last edited:
Greed? looks like it to me.

I need to ask what your definition of "greed" is?

Seems to me that you have a preference that QF simply bury the costs somewhere else. The revenue, costs and profits don't change, it's just that the costs aren't broken down or broken out into separate pieces. Instead, they'd be buried somewhere in some "all inclusive" price.
 
Sure. But remember, the purpose of the company is to make a return for its owners [1]. The means is via selling a product or service.

Now, if you have no means, then obviously your company won't be successful. But even if you have the means, if you are unable to do this profitably, then you are still no successful.

Basically having "means" is a "necessary, but not sufficient" precondition for having a successful company.



No one's saying "customers don't matter" - you're the one that's created that strawman. Certainly customers do matter. As do suppliers. And partners. And regulators. And competitors and many, many other things (though customers are very important)

What's been stated is that "return to the owner" is more important than the happiness of a subset of customers. Because the return to the owner is the purpose of the company - it's the whole point of setting up the company in the first place.

[1] Let's leave aside non-profits, and similar companies, that have other stated aims

I'd be saying customers are the most critical part of the process.
In every other aspect, QF is in relative control, they can chose the suppliers, they can negotiate with potential partners, they can lobby regulators. But with customers they have to convince us to fly with them. They have absolutely no control as to the airline I'll chose to fly next, and if I (the royal I) chose not to fly with QF then they cease to exist as a business. If a supplier chooses not to do business with QF they have a choice of other suppliers they can use.
 
I'd be saying customers are the most critical part of the process.
In every other aspect, QF is in relative control, they can chose the suppliers, they can negotiate with potential partners, they can lobby regulators. But with customers they have to convince us to fly with them. They have absolutely no control as to the airline I'll chose to fly next, and if I (the royal I) chose not to fly with QF then they cease to exist as a business. If a supplier chooses not to do business with QF they have a choice of other suppliers they can use.

Of course there are other suppliers.

But do they deliver the right product, at the right price, in the right locations? It's no different to you choosing a different supplier for your travel needs. Supplies also need to make profits, and thus make decisions about what they supply to the market. And there are some suppliers (like fuel), which there isn't that much room to negotiate on I'm guessing.
 
Of course there are other suppliers.

But do they deliver the right product, at the right price, in the right locations? <snip>

Well that is a choice which QF get to make. They get to make that choice, that is not one which is made for them. Much like I get to decide if QF is right for me. QF can try and influence my decision, but ultimately it is my decision as to if I fly with them or not, much as it's QF's decision as to if they are going to go Airbus / Boeing / Bombardier / Embraer on their next aircraft purchase, which ground services supplier they chose to use at each location, which caterer they will use for inflight catering, even which airports they will fly from. They might have limited choices (then again been CBR based I have limited choice of airline from CBR), but the choice still exists.
 
An idea that is in my head - thoughts on it please:

¨An unhappy customer who buys a product at a price that creates a profit for the company is better than a happy customer who gets the product at a price that makes the company a loss¨.

It is obvious, IMHO, that everyone wants ¨happy customers¨. That without customers a service industry company is nothing. As harvyk pointed out (again IMHO very correctly) at the bottom end of the market the choice is not which airline, but can I afford to travel?, without worrying about ¨service¨. It appears that QF are succesful in selling Jetstar product, but in QFi they are suffering the dilemna as above - make customers a tad unhappy or go out of business.
 
.......yet he puts a new more efficient plane into JQs fleet and not QFi.....

That QF is not sporting 787´s on international routes is, to me, an absolute tragedy. Apart from the efficiency, they are one of the few planes on the market now (even A380 getting past flavour of the month) to have a wow factor.

I wish they had about 40 of them! That would be the QFi I would dream to see.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I need to ask what your definition of "greed" is?

unfair nickel-and-diming.

Take the (now supposedly fixed) issue with booking reward tickets ex Thailand.

Ability to redeem awards is a highly publicised as a benefit, but through not fault of the passenger, you couldn't book an award ticket ex Thailand unless you could present yourself in the Bangkok office within two days of booking.

Alternative - call and get whacked $60 to complete the booking in Australia.

Fixed now, but took years to do it.
 
Fixed now, but took years to do it.


Not completely fixed; the 'within two days' requirement has gone, but it seems you still have to attend the office.

Important Information

For tickets to be issued, once you have completed your booking, you must visit the Qantas Office in the country of your departure for credit card and signature verification.
Changes to your booking can be made by contacting your local Qantas Office. Change fees may apply.
 
unfair nickel-and-diming.

So, if they just rolled-up all these costs into "all inclusive pricing", thus not affecting revenue, you'd be happy?


Take the (now supposedly fixed) issue with booking reward tickets ex Thailand.

Ability to redeem awards is a highly publicised as a benefit, but through not fault of the passenger, you couldn't book an award ticket ex Thailand unless you could present yourself in the Bangkok office within two days of booking.

Alternative - call and get whacked $60 to complete the booking in Australia.

Fixed now, but took years to do it.

These seem like pure cost/benefit issues to me - there's limited resources at QANTAS, and fixing/changing anything costs time/money, and they have bigger problems to solve.
 
So, if they just rolled-up all these costs into "all inclusive pricing", thus not affecting revenue, you'd be happy?

The cost shouldn't have been there in the first place. Or, waived as the cost of doing business if it is caused through no fault of the passenger. Or, clearly and prominently displayed somewhere in the blurb about how easy it is to book award tickets (or not, ex Thailand, China etc).
 
Not completely fixed; the 'within two days' requirement has gone, but it seems you still have to attend the office.

Important Information

For tickets to be issued, once you have completed your booking, you must visit the Qantas Office in the country of your departure for credit card and signature verification.
Changes to your booking can be made by contacting your local Qantas Office. Change fees may apply.

I thought red roo told us this issue had been resolved and we could book ex Thailand now. I can't seem to find the thread though.
 
The cost shouldn't have been there in the first place. Or, waived as the cost of doing business if it is caused through no fault of the passenger. Or, clearly and prominently displayed somewhere in the blurb about how easy it is to book award tickets (or not, ex Thailand, China etc).

Then you're missing the whole point of this thread - QF needs to make money (and more than it's making at the moment). If you want charges to go away, revenue has to come from somewhere else.

IN the 'good old days' these fees where just hidden in general pricing - there never was a time when the "cost of business" wasn't there. So you pay for it either way - either hidden or explicit. It seems like "nickel and diming" == "greed" in your world.
 
Then you're missing the whole point of this thread - QF needs to make money (and more than it's making at the moment). If you want charges to go away, revenue has to come from somewhere else.

IN the 'good old days' these fees where just hidden in general pricing - there never was a time when the "cost of business" wasn't there. So you pay for it either way - either hidden or explicit. It seems like "nickel and diming" == "greed" in your world.

And QF could avoid the cost with a change to their IT system allowing the passenger to book on-line. Unless you are suggesting they aren't fixing their systems with the intent to have people call and pay the $60. I doubt that is the case. It's the same with ticket payment... there must be fee free options.

I have no problem charging for services where value is added, or if the customer chooses to speak with an agent for whatever reason. But when something so simple can't be done on line, it should not be charged for.
 
That QF is not sporting 787´s on international routes is, to me, an absolute tragedy. Apart from the efficiency, they are one of the few planes on the market now (even A380 getting past flavour of the month) to have a wow factor.

I wish they had about 40 of them! That would be the QFi I would dream to see.

You mean the purchase order they cancelled don't you?

It does seem strange saddling Qi with the highest cost per k planes compared with JQ.

Remember JQ supposedly made money at $199 one-way to Japan and Q lost money at $649.

Staff costs do not account for that difference, cross fuel-subsidising accounts for some of that (see the inadvertent admission in a media release about increasing the fuel surcharge due to rising avgas cost for all Q flights but only select JQ flights - increasing cost of fuel costs the same per litre whichever plane its loaded into).

However longer down times due to more frequent and longer maintenance requirements for aging planes vs newer models does up the costs significantly as doe the fuel burn per rpk if the two subsidiaries are paying different per litre prices (as they must be if fuel surcharge can be selective for JQ without hitting profitability).

Is Qi deliberately being shutdown?
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Then you're missing the whole point of this thread - QF needs to make money (and more than it's making at the moment). If you want charges to go away, revenue has to come from somewhere else.

IN the 'good old days' these fees where just hidden in general pricing - there never was a time when the "cost of business" wasn't there. So you pay for it either way - either hidden or explicit. It seems like "nickel and diming" == "greed" in your world.

True Q needs to make money but why is it selectively heaping the costs onto Qi (for example) and favourably sparing JQ?

Why is it creating the total flight cost such that TAs earn a higher commission selling a JQ flight (to Hawaii for example) than the equivalent Q flight (as the commission gets paid on the 'fare' component not the 'fare & other fees + charges')?

Why is it pushing redemptions to JQ over Q as the cash cost on top of JQ for the same destination as a Q flight is significantly less (same as above point but to a different revenue source)?

Q complains about not having a level playing field vs other airline competitors - well as they say "People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones!" They are not giving Q a level playing field vs JQ are they?
 
An idea that is in my head - thoughts on it please:

¨An unhappy customer who buys a product at a price that creates a profit for the company is better than a happy customer who gets the product at a price that makes the company a loss¨.

See Ryanair for the text book example of this. However it's a very fine balance. If had a choice I will NEVER fly them again. However EasyJet I'd fly again anytime, simply because they don't feel like they're constantly trying to screw the scrum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Recent Posts

Back
Top