Juddles QF gripes - am I a "fanboi"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

juddles

Suspended
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Posts
5,283
Qantas
Platinum 1
Hi all.

I am continually frustrated in voicing my opinions in many threads that refer to Qantas, as I seem to manage to always come across as a "QF fanboi". Or get accused of being some QF stooge that is planted here in this forum to promote QF.

I think the root problem is that I only tend to comment on QF things, as I do not fly Virgin, and this is an aussie site where these are the only two significant carriers....

Anyway, I thought that if I posted in one spot some of my (many) gripes about QF, then I could refer anyoneto this to disprove that fanboi label.

As is usual in my world, many of even my own opinions can be tempered with caveats (ie "QF sucks at ABC but to be fair other airlines also suck") So despite my desire to introduce said caveats in the interest of fairness, I will not do that here. So just will go "both barrels", and no bandaids.....

In no particular order:

1.- My number one gripe with QF is the redemption of award flights. Not so much the lack of availability - but precisely the issue of co-payments. It is obscene. One has enough points to get a "free" flight from A to B, but then at the end you discover that you have to pay a stack of cold hard cash also. WTF? I don't think anyone expects this. Surely relies on people no longer actually valuing the dollar cost they spent to gain the points....

2.- The "spin team" that QF employs. This is the people that Qantas has who design, redesign, continually change everything - from menus to websites. (aaarrrggghh!!) There is an old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken". QF go way worse than this. They provide something that is "broken", but rather than fix it, they just endlessly install new, also broken, things. Drives me crazy. I never dare to think I know more about running an airline than the airline itself, but in this regard I think the management is way out of touch with consumer reality. I picture in my imaginative mind the old management boys being convinced of need for change by teams of young design ladies buttering them up and flashing their eyelids and convincing them. Am I way off mark here? I horribly think I am not. I doubt they have a single consultant that rocks up with a proposal that says simply " feed the pax real meals, not bullshit".

3.- I am a Platinum One within the QFF program. It is not a great lifestyle I have - to earn that you fly enough that you cannot even remember when lounge access was a pleasure. You just survive. WE P1's get a newsletter every few months. This is something that should be designed exactly for it's public. I suspect most P1's have had a gutful in general of travel - we do it because we must. And you have to do millions of km. So they send out their newsletter with some lass giving such priceless tips as how to travel??? Telling you of their favorite restaurant in Greece??? That newsletter makes me want to vomit. It is the ultimate in QF disconnected, false, cheap, thoughtless, DRIVEL.

4.- "Consistently Inconsistent" - OMG, QF have taken this to levels that are amazing. But I am sure almost everyone who flies QF a bit would agree that this is their natural logo/slogan. It should be emblazoned in huge letters over every single one of their aircraft. As I said at the start, this is not a thread where I will allow myself to praise, so keeping to the negative, Qantas has managed, consistently, to make every flight a surprise. I just never know what I will get when I board. Even before boarding....

5.- Crews. I am P1. I am sitting in 1A, in business, the highest class on my SYD-SCL flight. Yet the crew member manages to make me, ME, feel guilty asking for a second bottle of water. If I was in charge, that crew member would be instantly dismissed. The ones "having a bad day" do so much damage to the airline. I know we can all have a bad day, but in my experience of the three or four crew I interact with on a given long-haul flight, at least one is having a "bad day".

6.- Priority luggage. This one is so pitiful it makes me unsure whether to laugh or cry. Again, as a P1, I expect the best. (I keep saying I am P1 not to bignote myself, but so we all realise that my experiences are as a pax who is second only to CL's - so if I get cough, God forgive anyone who is simply WP or lower!) Priority luggage is the biggest nonsense out there. Many a time I have checked in two bags - one may come out near the front, the other at the end. It is simply nonsense. But (on international flights at least, which is what I most do) I notice that the crew bags are always delivered first. I do not begrudge that - they need to get out of there. But if you can make crew bags come out as a priority, you can do the same with status bags......

7.- Just a personal situation issue - irrelevant to most travellers. I travel continuously. Internationally. So actual time is a personal thing - as in what time of day you are at. I rock into the Brisbane lounge at 6am and cannot get a glass of champas or a bourbon. Despite it being, for me, almost midnight according to my body clock.

8.- Call centres. I understand that these days it is a costly thing for a company, and in the case of Qantas every caller who actually needs to speak to a staff member incurs a cost to the company that obliterates any profit from their ticket. But when someone has a doubt, a problem, it is perfectly natural they want to speak to someone. Speak to a real human being. Not some automated junk electronic chat service. And if you do call, and you do wait the eternity it takes, you would hope that when you finally get that real human being on the line, they should be adept. Someone who can actually understand your problem, know the exact options, and know how to fix things. It is rare in the common lines to get someone who can satisfy even one of these three key aspects. As with any business, I want to be able to speak to someone. Someone who's english I can understand.

Anyway, enough of a rant to get this alive......
 
Last edited:
My own view is that once someone accuses me of working for a company, they have lost the argument.

It's a common thing to do when you can't argue on the substance of what is being debated. Attack the messenger.
 
I don’t think you have been a fanboi but sometimes perhaps you try justify a bad experience someone has on the basis of a Qantas business decision rather than just tell the person that what they experienced sucked! Sometimes people just need to be heard (ie listened to) and told that.
 
I don’t think you have been a fanboi but sometimes perhaps you try justify a bad experience someone has on the basis of a Qantas business decision rather than just tell the person that what they experienced sucked! Sometimes people just need to be heard (ie listened to) and told that.

I agree with you there Pushka. It has been my failure to recognize that concept that invariably gets me on the wrong side of people.
 
I agree with you there Pushka. It has been my failure to recognize that concept that invariably gets me on the wrong side of people.
We all do it. But you probably have more technical knowledge/experience to make a good case for why something bad has happened. Plus you’ve seen a lot more hardship on a mass level than most of us so you might put things in a different context.
 
I don’t think you have been a fanboi but sometimes perhaps you try justify a bad experience someone has on the basis of a Qantas business decision rather than just tell the person that what they experienced sucked! Sometimes people just need to be heard (ie listened to) and told that.
Its all about balance really. Sometimes when someone posts all one way the natural tendency is to put the other side of the argument, you usually don't repeat the bad things yourself if they have already been said. But then read in isolation it may appear that you yourself are biased one way. I think in general bulleting boards are not great for understanding idividuals thoughts as individual posts are read in isolation rather than understanding the full context of a post.

I think we all from time to time are guilty of this, I've certainly been known to argue against the extreme nature of parts of a post even when there are other parts of the post I may well agree with.
 
My own view is that once someone accuses me of working for a company, they have lost the argument.

It's a common thing to do when you can't argue on the substance of what is being debated. Attack the messenger.
This 'play the man, not the ball' thing is one of the most pervasive issues that I've seen across social internet forums and networks.
 
Sorry @juddles I will need to re-read your posts. I actually had a perception of you being highly critical of Qantas (along with a few others )
Your posts come across as someone who travels often and knows of the various issues that arise
I do enjoy reading your posts :)
 
Hi all.

I am continually frustrated in voicing my opinions in many threads that refer to Qantas, as I seem to manage to always come across as a "QF fanboi". Or get accused of being some QF stooge that is planted here in this forum to promote QF.

I think the root problem is that I only tend to comment on QF things, as I do not fly Virgin, and this is an aussie site where these are the only two significant carriers....

Anyway, I thought that if I posted in one spot some of my (many) gripes about QF, then I could refer anyoneto this to disprove that fanboi label.

As is usual in my world, many of even my own opinions can be tempered with caveats (ie "QF sucks at ABC but to be fair other airlines also suck") So despite my desire to introduce said caveats in the interest of fairness, I will not do that here. So just will go "both barrels", and no bandaids.....

In no particular order:

(EDIT LENGTHY LIST)

Anyway, enough of a rant to get this alive......
If someone is accusing you of being a fanboi or a company shill, I think the best advice I ever got was from a penguin: "Smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave".
Earnest suggestions are often seen as arguments to someone that has come posted online with impassioned emotion and disgust. It wasn't long ago that we had a thread on the QF AFF forum by some guy that lost his collective shiz at airline staff then promptly got banned by the airline. It wasn't long before someone dug up the transcripts of legal proceedings that we all found that he was largely the author of his own doom, and had twisted the facts seeking a sympathetic ear from an online forum while hoping to influence potential PR damage to the company.
With so much emotion involved at time of posting, it is always going to end in name calling and de-valuing the opinions of other members. The best news is, while those posters are furiously posting about you chances are you're enjoying life much more than they are.

And can I say. Oh yes. The Qantas site/s are a dog's breakfast. The FF site doesn't mesh well with the regular site, and move to the wine site and.... (insert swear word of choice).
 
My own view is that once someone accuses me of working for a company, they have lost the argument.
It's a common thing to do when you can't argue on the substance of what is being debated. Attack the messenger.

A couple of times on social media Ive responded to a persons post and the response has been similar to 'the company must be happy to have you in their employ'. Apparently being educated on a few of the policies or experienced in their situation and being correct means Im disregarded as a mouthpiece. :rolleyes:
 
Juddles, never considered you a fanboi. Fanbois(and grrls) don't complain full stop. Everything is perfect in the world of their affection.

Heck I've been called a fanboi at times, but I've no qualms about pointing my finger (inconsitently) at QF when I see the need, but I'll equally point out good things when they happen because that's important too.

Remembering also that this is a QF forum will also skew opinions.. specially for those of us who fly QF more than most (since we are both P1). So there are many experiences - good and bad - chalked up.

Writing just for myself I think people see me as a defender of QF when I point out many of the "known glitches" with QF eg: the Far Queue/manual processing for various GV issues, or oddities of upgrades, or whathaveyou. Doesn't mean I'm a fan at all, but I learn to work with what's there and try to make the most of it.

I certainly wish for more improvements and consitency over time - no doubt!
 
I told you you were a fanboi last year (although I hope not in an aggressive way!). However I have to say since then I have noticed a lot more disenchantment in your posts about Qantas. Maybe a function of weariness with travel generally creeping in, which leads to more critical assessment of services. I have found myself agreeing with you in most of your posts this year.

Although I am probably a little more tolerant than you are towards people who just want to rant and get some sympathy, rather than looking at the technical rights. Maybe that is the maternal streak coming out ....
 
I worked at QF for seven years and it’s you who is called the fanboy. Good deflection on my part I reckon ;)

I’ve seen the company, intimately some would say, from both sides of the fence considering my employment history and now being a P1. I’ll usually cut QF some slack because I do know the high level of professionalism in the company even though that is not apparent to some of the travelling public. Running an airline is complex where often constants aren’t and variables don’t. Yep they get it wrong sometimes but I just walked off a flight with another bottle of wine so this is me cutting them slack.

P.S. I LOLd at number 3 in particular.
 
By the way Juddles old son, you owe me royalties on the "Consitently Inconsitent" use! :D I'll waive them to send para 3 to the head of QF Loyalty -- because.. yep! :D
 
I think you worry too much.

I love Qantas and the more I love them the more critical I become with the little things.

Exactly right. The more I fly QF the more flaws I find but none have been a deal breaker yet so I remain loyal. Fanbois who constantly defend QF with no regard to the facts think they are protecting the brand but in fact they are standing in the way of improvement.

I don’t have problem with anyone who defends or attacks an airline as long as they make compelling and logical case.
Qantas is a fine airline with many positives but also plenty negatives. Anyone who constantly only defends or attacks QF either didn’t fly enough to experience both sides of the coin or has an agenda.
 
Exactly right. The more I fly QF the more flaws I find but none have been a deal breaker yet so I remain loyal. ........ Anyone who constantly only defends or attacks QF either didn’t fly enough to experience both sides of the coin or has an agenda.

Completely agree. I also think some have not travelled enough on enough different airlines. There is not an airline I know of that doe severything right, all the time.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top