New Qantas boss Alan Joyce to earn up to $4.7m

[SusanS]

My understanding is that the salary is only $2mil and the rest is made up of performance bonus - if you like. If he doesn't meet the targets set - he doesn't get the shares/cash. Take a look at the Qantas website - investors - AGM and you'll see what shareholders are being asked to vote on. Times are tough, the share price is low at present - it's a bind for shareholders - disappointed with performance but wanting someone in the top job who can manage well in the current aviation climate, with a view to increasing the value of their investment. There's often a sentimental component to buying Qantas shares, but at the end of the day - a shareholder wants a good return and the pressure is on Joyce to achieve that. I think his salary is on the low side for someone with his experience and I don't believe he's in it for the money.

 

[simongr]

Re: From Irish dwarf to $6 million dollar man (warning - rant included!)

Just seems unfortunate to offer the dwarf a way above international standards salary package when QF are supposed to under an exec weage freeze.

If the incoming CEO is being paid less than the outgoing CEO then surely that means that the exec pay freeze is still in place?

I wonder if the average working Joe would be happy with 50% of his wages being performance related. Also would they be happy having salaries tied to share prices which can move independently of the performance of the individual or the company.

 

[Platy]

Re: From Irish dwarf to $6 million dollar man (warning - rant included!)

If the incoming CEO is being paid less than the outgoing CEO then surely that means that the exec pay freeze is still in place?

I wonder if the average working Joe would be happy with 50% of his wages being performance related. Also would they be happy having salaries tied to share prices which can move independently of the performance of the individual or the company.

Our respective logical powers diverge, sir! But then I'm a lowly scientist and small business owner, not a numbers man in a large corporate entity determining CEO salaries. If I was the latter, I would be looking at world pricing levels for a product (ie. an airline CEO) to determine reasonable purchase cost (ie. saalry package), not the single data point of the cost of the last one bought locally, particular if purchase resources are supposedly under budgetary freeze.

Now the diminuitive Joyce ain't gonna be too hard up if the old share price doesn't move his way, after all he can base his family budget on the 50% guaranteed salary component of a cool $2 million! Someone on minimal income doesn't have that luxury.

Furthermore, the lucky leprechaun may just be in the right place at the right time given the current QF share price is untypically low and thus offers much scope for upwards movement to the great advantage of his bonus.

My understanding is that regular staff have had to bargain their pay rises (which are in line with CPI) with productivity gains, so they are effectively going backwards whilst providing more.

Public opinion is swinging against obscene executive salaries.

With Dixon's admission of the failings of the private equity bid now public you really have to wonder if these trumped up fat cats are actually worth a fraction of the cash that is doled into their pockets. After all a successful bid could have brought down the whole airline or had the average joe tax payer bailing out yet another corporate entity crumbling through bad management and inadequate federal regulation.

It wouldn't be so bad if folk like Joyce and Dixon (unlike James Strong) had any modicum of respect for the 1,000s of loyal working folk in their company, which, based on numerous personal conversations with coal face staff and watching the execs' disrespectful public rants, they clearly lack.

For many of us its the everyday professionalism check in staff, cabin crew, etc who keep us loyal to the airline despite the inane decisions of the exec team. And that has to be maintained whether the share price is up or down, profit low or high for the company to survive. So it makes sense to keep your average joe workers on minimal wages, with minimal discretionary bonuses when profits are high, etc

 

[SusanS]

I hope you don't mind Platy, but I'd like to comment on what you've said. I gather it's not that you're against the remuneration package per se, but Joyce's apparent lack of respect for coal-face staff. And this belief is based on conversations with (possibly) some very unhappy worker's opinions of their employer. I'm only new to this forum, but from reading some of the comments here, there seems to be alot of sourgrapes. I think if you have an attitude problem in the first place, you're not going to see/hear respect even when it's given to you.

I support Q despite the coal-face staff, because my experience has been the complete opposite to yours. Since time began - scientifically speaking, Q staff have had an attitude problem, I've been flying for 42 years, since I was a 1yo. I'm hopeful that Joyce can fix that, once and for all. I now fly J* more often than Q for domestic flights because the staff are very friendly to everyone, not just men in suits. Internationally it's a little bit better, but still the attitude prevails, that unless you're a man in a suit,( or possibly just a man) you don't rate. I'm sure there are staff who aren't like that at Q, but they are in the minority because I haven't met them yet. I like Joyce's style because it's modern, egalitarian, and utilitarian. The world is changing and it's time for the dinosaurs to either adapt or become extinct. And we all know what happened.

Good service + friendliness = professional. Not attitude, chip on shoulder. I'm not interested in how much Joyce earns, because I don't believe what he's getting is excessive for his position. However, I do get tired of whinging workers who always say their lot isn't as good as they think it should be. If they keep going the way they are, there won't be a job for them anyway because Q won't be financially viable, so they won't have to keep up the attitude. It's not the CEO's remuneration that's the problem.
Enjoying the discussion.

 

[simongr]

Ithe attitude prevails, that unless you're a man in a suit,( or possibly just a man) you don't rate.

Interesting comments - I have found QF staff to be much nicer to people not in suits when flying international in J... although I have just realised that when I fly J I am generally a little more casual as that is more comfortable to travel in - perhaps that explains their horrid attitude on many occasions...

 

[Platy]

I hope you don't mind Platy, but I'd like to comment on what you've said. I gather it's not that you're against the remuneration package per se, but Joyce's apparent lack of respect for coal-face staff. And this belief is based on conversations with (possibly) some very unhappy worker's opinions of their employer. I'm only new to this forum, but from reading some of the comments here, there seems to be alot of sourgrapes. I think if you have an attitude problem in the first place, you're not going to see/hear respect even when it's given to you.

I support Q despite the coal-face staff, because my experience has been the complete opposite to yours. Since time began - scientifically speaking, Q staff have had an attitude problem, I've been flying for 42 years, since I was a 1yo. I'm hopeful that Joyce can fix that, once and for all. I now fly J* more often than Q for domestic flights because the staff are very friendly to everyone, not just men in suits. Internationally it's a little bit better, but still the attitude prevails, that unless you're a man in a suit,( or possibly just a man) you don't rate. I'm sure there are staff who aren't like that at Q, but they are in the minority because I haven't met them yet. I like Joyce's style because it's modern, egalitarian, and utilitarian. The world is changing and it's time for the dinosaurs to either adapt or become extinct. And we all know what happened.

Good service + friendliness = professional. Not attitude, chip on shoulder. I'm not interested in how much Joyce earns, because I don't believe what he's getting is excessive for his position. However, I do get tired of whinging workers who always say their lot isn't as good as they think it should be. If they keep going the way they are, there won't be a job for them anyway because Q won't be financially viable, so they won't have to keep up the attitude. It's not the CEO's remuneration that's the problem.
Enjoying the discussion.

Thanks for sharing your own observations and comments, SusanS!

Actually I do have a problem with excessive remuneration for exec and CEOs. I had referred to a benchmark of packages for airline CEOs in my earlier posts as a yard stick. I question the method of those salaries being determined (apparently not shareholders for QF - this may need to change since I understand federal legislation may be one the move).

A serious staff morale problem at QF is evident not only to the casual observer, but admitted publicly (eg. Joyce's interview in Australian magazine).

Outgoing CEO Dixon loved to make public his distaste for the average person working for QF - this hardly seems like a constructive strategy to address working conditions.

Incidentally, I have observed James Strong on aircraft taking time to quietly chat with cabin crew - a far cry from Dixon's taciturn rudeness.

I have worked on contract for various corporations (within the learning & development arena) and seen the very positive results of serious efforts in establishing a cooperative and respectful results and values driven workplace culture. Dixon et al obviously had no idea/interest in such.

Whereas a percentage of the population will have an intrinsic propensity to "attitude" in most cases a negative point of view is developed though poor service, delivery of product, job expectations not being met, salary being screwed down, etc.

I'm not sure if there is much actual substance to the whinging worker catchcry. Please consider that QF workers have accepted pay rises below CPI and accepted increased productivity - their pay is going backwards!!! I guess you wouldn't be too pleased if that was your situation. Dixon's super top up equated to 145 annual (average) staff salaries and his final package to an additional 218 annual staff salaries - if the private equity deal had gone thorugh his bonus would have equated 2,360 average salaries - oops that's like almost 10% of the salary run on one exec!!!!!

Staff are also given less to work with to provide service levels.

I have had many bad experiences with QF but realised most could be traced back to poor management. There are many occasions when coal facing staff have gone beyond that required to assist.

I'm glad you are happy with the Deathstar. My personal opinion is not to trust them if I have a business meeting that day and I hate the idea that if I have a problem nobody will speak to me (no complaints or discussion are accepted on the phone - the call centre is outsourced and directed at sales not compalints/issues).

It is disappointing if you feel other customers are receiving better service due to their appearance. Most unfortunate and totally unacceptable.

With many very frequent flyers sharing this forum it is perhaps inevitable that there will be reports of poor service and product delivery and articulation of the associated frustration.

I hope you also find the value of the extraordinary advice and experience embedded within many threads and posts!!!

 

[SusanS]

Thanks for sharing your own observations and comments, SusanS!

Actually I do have a problem with excessive remuneration for exec and CEOs. I had referred to a benchmark of packages for airline CEOs in my earlier posts as a yard stick. I question the method of those salaries being determined (apparently not shareholders for QF - this may need to change since I understand federal legislation may be one the move).

A serious staff morale problem at QF is evident not only to the casual observer, but admitted publicly (eg. Joyce's interview in Australian magazine).

Outgoing CEO Dixon loved to make public his distaste for the average person working for QF - this hardly seems like a constructive strategy to address working conditions.

Incidentally, I have observed James Strong on aircraft taking time to quietly chat with cabin crew - a far cry from Dixon's taciturn rudeness.

I have worked on contract for various corporations (within the learning & development arena) and seen the very positive results of serious efforts in establishing a cooperative and respectful results and values driven workplace culture. Dixon et al obviously had no idea/interest in such.

Whereas a percentage of the population will have an intrinsic propensity to "attitude" in most cases a negative point of view is developed though poor service, delivery of product, job expectations not being met, salary being screwed down, etc.

I'm not sure if there is much actual substance to the whinging worker catchcry. Please consider that QF workers have accepted pay rises below CPI and accepted increased productivity - their pay is going backwards!!! I guess you wouldn't be too pleased if that was your situation. Dixon's super top up equated to 145 annual (average) staff salaries and his final package to an additional 218 annual staff salaries - if the private equity deal had gone thorugh his bonus would have equated 2,360 average salaries - oops that's like almost 10% of the salary run on one exec!!!!!

Staff are also given less to work with to provide service levels.

I have had many bad experiences with QF but realised most could be traced back to poor management. There are many occasions when coal facing staff have gone beyond that required to assist.

I'm glad you are happy with the Deathstar. My personal opinion is not to trust them if I have a business meeting that day and I hate the idea that if I have a problem nobody will speak to me (no complaints or discussion are accepted on the phone - the call centre is outsourced and directed at sales not compalints/issues).

It is disappointing if you feel other customers are receiving better service due to their appearance. Most unfortunate and totally unacceptable.

With many very frequent flyers sharing this forum it is perhaps inevitable that there will be reports of poor service and product delivery and articulation of the associated frustration.

I hope you also find the value of the extraordinary advice and experience embedded within many threads and posts!!!

Yes, I do find the comments and advice interesting and useful at times, however, I'm conscious of the fact that they are posted mainly by males, and that gender differences in opinion/expectation/experience are very real. Hence, why the business man next to me gets the giggle and I don't. We all know that the aviation industry is very sexist and let's face it, VB epitomises that - a la Branson style! Are there any women running airlines in the world? In fact, Q's executive team doesn't have one female on it, though the board has 2? But don't get me started there.

However, I digress and you and I will have to disagree on the CEO remuneration issue.

I do feel though that you can't blame poor management for everything. I think at the end of the day, an individual has the choice of how to perform their job, regardless of salary. If it's only about the money, then no wonder they're all unhappy. I've worked for organisations that had absolutely cough management, poor pay & conditions, but I still did the best I could for my clients. I then simply left the organisation to find a better managed company. If the Q staff don't like the way they are being treated they can leave. I'm not suggesting that there isn't room for improvement. I agree with you that Dixon was a hard nut. But at the end of the day, if the environment you're working in, isn't conducive to you producing your best, or you can't get your feelings around that, even in an adverse environment, then it's best to move on. I don't believe Q has high staff turnover, so I suggest that even though they may not like the way the company treats them, they are willing to stay. It's a bit like battered wife syndrome - which is very sad, but nevertheless, avoidable if the individual chooses not to be treated that way.

Some things in life just seem unfair, and possibly the relative perceived inequity between ordinary worker salaries and CEO/ senior management salaries is one of them. I should confess that I am a Q shareholder and I will be voting in favour of the remuneration package, because I want the share price to increase and the man who can do that is Mr Joyce. I will also be asking the chairman about how they are going to tackle employee relations going forward. I agree that I think this is a problem for Q and it needs to be addressed in a significant way. However, I believe that staff have to stop viewing management as the enemy and start engaging with them on a whole new level. As I've said, Mr Joyce is a new breed, never before seen at Q, and if staff want improvements then they need to trust and embrace the views of Mr Joyce. I think Leigh Clifford was very astute in not giving the top job to PG or JB, they are of the old school and Q needs something new to bring it into the 21st century and deliver what shareholders & customers want and expect from this wonderful airline. I think Dixon's only real failing was employee relations, on all other fronts of the business he's done a very capable job in difficult times during the past 8 years. And he's publicly admitted to the fiasco that was the private equity takeover bid. Of course shareholders were against it, we knew what was happening. However, like any investment, we want a good return for our $ and it's a balancing game in the end.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Joyce can do with Q, it will really test his skills I think. And in the meantime I will continue to support Q with my hard earned wages, so that the flight attendants can giggle with the suits or the casually dressed.

 

[Platy]

Yes, I do find the comments and advice interesting and useful at times, however, I'm conscious of the fact that they are posted mainly by males, and that gender differences in opinion/expectation/experience are very real. Hence, why the business man next to me gets the giggle and I don't. We all know that the aviation industry is very sexist and let's face it, VB epitomises that - a la Branson style! Are there any women running airlines in the world? In fact, Q's executive team doesn't have one female on it, though the board has 2? But don't get me started there.

However, I digress and you and I will have to disagree on the CEO remuneration issue.

I do feel though that you can't blame poor management for everything. I think at the end of the day, an individual has the choice of how to perform their job, regardless of salary. If it's only about the money, then no wonder they're all unhappy. I've worked for organisations that had absolutely cough management, poor pay & conditions, but I still did the best I could for my clients. I then simply left the organisation to find a better managed company. If the Q staff don't like the way they are being treated they can leave. I'm not suggesting that there isn't room for improvement. I agree with you that Dixon was a hard nut. But at the end of the day, if the environment you're working in, isn't conducive to you producing your best, or you can't get your feelings around that, even in an adverse environment, then it's best to move on. I don't believe Q has high staff turnover, so I suggest that even though they may not like the way the company treats them, they are willing to stay. It's a bit like battered wife syndrome - which is very sad, but nevertheless, avoidable if the individual chooses not to be treated that way.

Some things in life just seem unfair, and possibly the relative perceived inequity between ordinary worker salaries and CEO/ senior management salaries is one of them. I should confess that I am a Q shareholder and I will be voting in favour of the remuneration package, because I want the share price to increase and the man who can do that is Mr Joyce. I will also be asking the chairman about how they are going to tackle employee relations going forward. I agree that I think this is a problem for Q and it needs to be addressed in a significant way. However, I believe that staff have to stop viewing management as the enemy and start engaging with them on a whole new level. As I've said, Mr Joyce is a new breed, never before seen at Q, and if staff want improvements then they need to trust and embrace the views of Mr Joyce. I think Leigh Clifford was very astute in not giving the top job to PG or JB, they are of the old school and Q needs something new to bring it into the 21st century and deliver what shareholders & customers want and expect from this wonderful airline. I think Dixon's only real failing was employee relations, on all other fronts of the business he's done a very capable job in difficult times during the past 8 years. And he's publicly admitted to the fiasco that was the private equity takeover bid. Of course shareholders were against it, we knew what was happening. However, like any investment, we want a good return for our $ and it's a balancing game in the end.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Joyce can do with Q, it will really test his skills I think. And in the meantime I will continue to support Q with my hard earned wages, so that the flight attendants can giggle with the suits or the casually dressed.

Thanks SusanS for more interesting comments. Yes there is an obvious gender demarcation (for whatever reasons). Actually Qantas has a relatively senior manger, Lesley Grant, if she is still there. VB's "flirtatious branding" makes me cringe (right back to the launch at SYD when RB stood on the wing of the 737 flanked by the dolled up cabin crew!).

To clarify, I don't blame poor management for everything, primarily the issues that I have personally found disappointing as a customer. Plus of course the concern that managing staff morale is a vital part of constructive leadership - the fear, uncertainty doubt mantra works after a fashion, but fosters a festering resentment in folk over time.

My personal fear is that the Joyce experiment will accelerate the trend towards LCC services replacing QF full service, a continuing obfuscation between the QF and JQ branding, yet further lowering of service standards at QF.

So I hope your more positive assessment is correct! Unfortunately I have met too many people who have been disappointed by either JQ or QF or both over recent years to have an unwavering faith in the future of the group of individual brands, nor will I any longer assume that management view the customer with sufficient regard...I doubt Joyce is the person to correct such issues given he apparently believes his own hype about the JQ success when in reality the airline has been de facto sponsored by the parent entity.

IF "enhancements" such as the JQ strategy of written complaints only come to QF it will be a sure sign of a continued slide away from the customer.

 

[SusanS]

Thanks SusanS for more interesting comments. Yes there is an obvious gender demarcation (for whatever reasons). Actually Qantas has a relatively senior manger, Lesley Grant, if she is still there. VB's "flirtatious branding" makes me cringe (right back to the launch at SYD when RB stood on the wing of the 737 flanked by the dolled up cabin crew!).

To clarify, I don't blame poor management for everything, primarily the issues that I have personally found disappointing as a customer. Plus of course the concern that managing staff morale is a vital part of constructive leadership - the fear, uncertainty doubt mantra works after a fashion, but fosters a festering resentment in folk over time.

My personal fear is that the Joyce experiment will accelerate the trend towards LCC services replacing QF full service, a continuing obfuscation between the QF and JQ branding, yet further lowering of service standards at QF.

So I hope your more positive assessment is correct! Unfortunately I have met too many people who have been disappointed by either JQ or QF or both over recent years to have an unwavering faith in the future of the group of individual brands, nor will I any longer assume that management view the customer with sufficient regard...I doubt Joyce is the person to correct such issues given he apparently believes his own hype about the JQ success when in reality the airline has been de facto sponsored by the parent entity.

IF "enhancements" such as the JQ strategy of written complaints only come to QF it will be a sure sign of a continued slide away from the customer.

You make excellent points Platy and I fully get where you're coming from, but I do think Joyce isn't stupid enough to turn Q mainline into JQ. That premium yield is much to advantageous, and I believe what is going to happen is that Q mainline will become even more premium, and possibly priced out of the ordinary Australian travel budget. QF will go for the business/premium leisure market and will most certainly become a niche brand, but a highly profitable part of the Q group. You're not going to get customers paying top$ for JQ style servicing. Joyce wants the top $ so he knows he's going to have to provide a level of service/experience that savvy premium travellers want. There's an awful lot of 20-40 yr olds out there who want to be like the Beckhams - they'll pay through the nose if they think they're getting something very exclusive, that costs lots of money. Possibly to you and I, this is obscene/ stupid but to these customers, it's all part of who they think they are/want to be. If I were Joyce, this is the direction I'd be heading in. Opulence in travel is back in fashion, the A380 - Marc Newson moment is what it's all about in the future, but only if you're willing to pay, and believe me they will pay. (I'm a psychologist/marketer who specialises in consumer behaviour/trend forecasting.) What are those tricky customers going to want next?

JQ can service the lower end of the market very effectively, and will probably become the bigger part of the business via volume, but not on yield. So at the end of the day, the consumer will have the choice of LCC or premium boutique carrier. No different from VB - beer that is, to say Crown lager. It's your choice. We might even see only business class flights in the future - imagine that - a whole plane full of business class customers - yippee! I can see Joyce doing an Irish dance to that one.

As for complaints - they've had to change a few strategies with JQ over the past 4 years, 30min close-off, unallocated seating - let's see if we can change a few more. The power lies in the hands of the consumer, we need to exercise it more often.

Joyce has been hamstrung from realising his real visions in the past, because of the heavy handed GD, he's now free to fly - pardon the pun. Nothing wrong with a bit of ego, but I have to agree with Sir Rod Eddington's ( past CEO of BA) assessment of Joyce - ego under control, well-liked and well-respected. There's no doubting the success of JQ, however QF is a different ball game, so let's see how he goes.
A pleasure talking with you Platy.

 

[Platy]

You make excellent points Platy and I fully get where you're coming from, but I do think Joyce isn't stupid enough to turn Q mainline into JQ. That premium yield is much to advantageous, and I believe what is going to happen is that Q mainline will become even more premium, and possibly priced out of the ordinary Australian travel budget. QF will go for the business/premium leisure market and will most certainly become a niche brand, but a highly profitable part of the Q group. You're not going to get customers paying top$ for JQ style servicing. Joyce wants the top $ so he knows he's going to have to provide a level of service/experience that savvy premium travellers want. There's an awful lot of 20-40 yr olds out there who want to be like the Beckhams - they'll pay through the nose if they think they're getting something very exclusive, that costs lots of money. Possibly to you and I, this is obscene/ stupid but to these customers, it's all part of who they think they are/want to be. If I were Joyce, this is the direction I'd be heading in. Opulence in travel is back in fashion, the A380 - Marc Newson moment is what it's all about in the future, but only if you're willing to pay, and believe me they will pay. (I'm a psychologist/marketer who specialises in consumer behaviour/trend forecasting.) What are those tricky customers going to want next?

JQ can service the lower end of the market very effectively, and will probably become the bigger part of the business via volume, but not on yield. So at the end of the day, the consumer will have the choice of LCC or premium boutique carrier. No different from VB - beer that is, to say Crown lager. It's your choice. We might even see only business class flights in the future - imagine that - a whole plane full of business class customers - yippee! I can see Joyce doing an Irish dance to that one.

As for complaints - they've had to change a few strategies with JQ over the past 4 years, 30min close-off, unallocated seating - let's see if we can change a few more. The power lies in the hands of the consumer, we need to exercise it more often.

Joyce has been hamstrung from realising his real visions in the past, because of the heavy handed GD, he's now free to fly - pardon the pun. Nothing wrong with a bit of ego, but I have to agree with Sir Rod Eddington's ( past CEO of BA) assessment of Joyce - ego under control, well-liked and well-respected. There's no doubting the success of JQ, however QF is a different ball game, so let's see how he goes.
A pleasure talking with you Platy.

Well, SusanS, whereas your analysis may be include some accurate prediction, I would be personally disappointed at such outcomes.

IMHO the weak points in your arguments are as follows:

- QF has already raised domestic business class fares around 60% within a few years (it is now over $1,000 one way CNS-SYD!) to the point of absurdity, even the Beckgham wannabes have a breaking point and don't want to be taken as fools for wasting their cash for a service that turns out to be ordinary. Businesses too are radically cutting business level travel rather than looking for more exclusive and pricey product.
- QF has also REDUCED service levels on the domestic premium end so that elusive exclusive just ain't being delivered
- the trend is further reduction in service levels (significant reduction in baggage weight allowance pertinent example)
- pricing, product & value still need to be set to have significant market share, this is both because of the need to generate turnover and compete with Virgin's push into the business/premium market. So this is not a game of NICHE market, this is a high volume game not a boutique product range!!!
- QF brand is being REMOVED from key routes (CNS-DRW, CNS-ASP, CNS-PER, SYD-OOL, CNS-NRT, CNS-SIN, etc) so your argument about offering choice simply doesn't apply in many cases, the game is FORCING folk onto the Deathstar whether they like it or not, ask the good folk of Hamilton Island, Gold Coast how they feel. Come to talk to UK visitors to CNS who get dumped off full service QF in SIN on the Deathstar to CNS and haven't been told they will be sitting like sardines on a baby scarebus with zero service
- the apparent success of Deathstar isn't as robust as you would like to believe. The errant offspring of QF has been weaned from the bosom of the parent airline enjoying the benefits of existing infrastructure and systems - if you strip away the rich milk supply on which it has been suckled the babybuses may not survive so well. The Deathstar couldn't hack it to Nagoya, for example, wrong product in the wrong marketplace and thus replacing QF brand SYD/BNE-CNS-NRT with a Deathstar service tells me that Joyce doesn't have a clue.
- an increasing reliance on the Deathstar forces more business risk via dependence on winning business based on cost ("we are the cheapest")not value ("we meet your needs at a resonable price").

I predict that QF service levels will continue to be eroded. Further QF routes will disappear (another 10% capacity is already being targeted for removal). As QF moves closer to the Virgin product it will create unneeded competitive pressure for itself. The product lines between Deathstar and Qf will continue to be deliberately blurred - more codeshares, less baggage allowance, etc, etc.

Unless Joyce comes in and returns solid service levels to the QF brand at a pricepoint offering good value, QF will sink fast. The rivets are popping already (think of the debacle at BNE check in with woefully insufficient staff, repeated maintenance issues). Over the last few days CNS has experienced nightmare problems with various aircraft unexpectedly out of service.

Yes, Joyce will fix this by removing the QF flights and adding Deathstar scarebuses wherever possible. QF may prevail for a while between high volume city pairs until eventually the product demarcation will converge sufficiently for a gentle absorption either Deathstar in to QF or QF into Deathstar.

 

[SusanS]

Well, SusanS, whereas your analysis may be include some accurate prediction, I would be personally disappointed at such outcomes.

IMHO the weak points in your arguments are as follows:

- QF has already raised domestic business class fares around 60% within a few years (it is now over $1,000 one way CNS-SYD!) to the point of absurdity, even the Beckgham wannabes have a breaking point and don't want to be taken as fools for wasting their cash for a service that turns out to be ordinary. Businesses too are radically cutting business level travel rather than looking for more exclusive and pricey product.
- QF has also REDUCED service levels on the domestic premium end so that elusive exclusive just ain't being delivered
- the trend is further reduction in service levels (significant reduction in baggage weight allowance pertinent example)
- pricing, product & value still need to be set to have significant market share, this is both because of the need to generate turnover and compete with Virgin's push into the business/premium market. So this is not a game of NICHE market, this is a high volume game not a boutique product range!!!
- QF brand is being REMOVED from key routes (CNS-DRW, CNS-ASP, CNS-PER, SYD-OOL, CNS-NRT, CNS-SIN, etc) so your argument about offering choice simply doesn't apply in many cases, the game is FORCING folk onto the Deathstar whether they like it or not, ask the good folk of Hamilton Island, Gold Coast how they feel. Come to talk to UK visitors to CNS who get dumped off full service QF in SIN on the Deathstar to CNS and haven't been told they will be sitting like sardines on a baby scarebus with zero service
- the apparent success of Deathstar isn't as robust as you would like to believe. The errant offspring of QF has been weaned from the bosom of the parent airline enjoying the benefits of existing infrastructure and systems - if you strip away the rich milk supply on which it has been suckled the babybuses may not survive so well. The Deathstar couldn't hack it to Nagoya, for example, wrong product in the wrong marketplace and thus replacing QF brand SYD/BNE-CNS-NRT with a Deathstar service tells me that Joyce doesn't have a clue.
- an increasing reliance on the Deathstar forces more business risk via dependence on winning business based on cost ("we are the cheapest")not value ("we meet your needs at a resonable price").

I predict that QF service levels will continue to be eroded. Further QF routes will disappear (another 10% capacity is already being targeted for removal). As QF moves closer to the Virgin product it will create unneeded competitive pressure for itself. The product lines between Deathstar and Qf will continue to be deliberately blurred - more codeshares, less baggage allowance, etc, etc.

Unless Joyce comes in and returns solid service levels to the QF brand at a pricepoint offering good value, QF will sink fast. The rivets are popping already (think of the debacle at BNE check in with woefully insufficient staff, repeated maintenance issues). Over the last few days CNS has experienced nightmare problems with various aircraft unexpectedly out of service.

Yes, Joyce will fix this by removing the QF flights and adding Deathstar scarebuses wherever possible. QF may prevail for a while between high volume city pairs until eventually the product demarcation will converge sufficiently for a gentle absorption either Deathstar in to QF or QF into Deathstar.

Hi Platy, I can tell you're not a happy camper. I don't dispute what you are saying about a reduction in servicing some routes, and without a thorough analysis at my fingertips of the routing/schedules etc... I accept that what you're saying is true. However, the world of aviation is at a crossroad. We need to fly to get around this wonderful country of ours, and it may be that the only way to do that is LCC way. Jetstar is still growing domestically, and Q will reduce capacity, but not service standards. The key markets for Q are business between BNE,SYD, MEL. Not the routes you mention. Unfortunately if you're doing business in CNS, then you just have to accept that it is not a major business centre in the global sense and will be serviced according to how profitable the route is. By niche, I mean the most profitable corner of the market - if it happens to be high volume as well, then all the better. They are not mutually exclusive terms I believe.

Q has to raise fares( sometimes to ridiculous levels) to remain profitable on routes that aren't profitable, it's that simple. You can't have everything, you still have choice, between business class on Q or the J* experience. I never said it would be the perfect choice. I would suggest you might need to get a global perspective on this issue, and I can tell you now that SQ have just introduced the all business class service between SIN- LAX, SIN - Newark, so things are changing.

I agree that if the service isn't there, as a consumer you have every right to complain. And complain you should. However, I think if you're flying out of GC/Hamilton Is, these are generally tourist destinations as far as airlines are concerned and you may not get the service standard you would like because of that, that's just the way it is.

As for VB, they won't crack the business/premium market in a significant way - they just don't offer what Q does, and they can't without eroding their cost base until they're broke.

It's all changing, that's all I can say, and I can tell you the AGM was heated and there are lots of issues for Mr Joyce out there. I think he'll listen more than GD did and that's a good start. I don't agree with your prediction that QF service levels will drop on the key business routes, in fact they will increase, however, those not on that track will inevitably be serviced according to the best cost efficiency that can be achieved. It's a business, and at the end of the day, it's a balancing act that will never make everyone happy. The relationship between price and value is very subjective for each individual.

Do we want a profitable national airline, that makes a significant contribution to the economy on many levels, or do we want to have the American experience? Airlines going broke, jobs gone forever. Personally I think we're very lucky to have Q, J* & VB in a country this small and isolated. I don't think you can judge Q too harshly at the moment - the aviation industry is in freefall - and most airlines around the world are just trying to stay in the air. I hope Q survives and I'll do my bit to help our national airline, whatever shape it takes. As I've said before Joyce is a totally different kettle of fish to Dixon, there's a new management team coming in, so let's see what happens.

 

[comint]

I would think the future of air travel, for flights under 4 hours, is the LCC model, with only a few exceptions, which are covered at Qantas Group by - QantasLink & CityFlyer.

QF brand is being REMOVED from key routes (CNS-DRW, CNS-ASP, CNS-PER, SYD-OOL…

In whose view are these “key routes”? Golden Triangle & Transcontinental are key routes (domestic), but Qantas is polite enough to encourage Adelaide & Canberra to think they are at a similar level. (Maybe TSV?!?!)

QF has also REDUCED service levels on the domestic premium end so that elusive exclusive just ain't being delivered

One might argue that “on the ground” service levels have increased massively for premium customers. Now hosting separated lounge experiences in SYD, MEL, BNE, and brand new in CBR plus next year something in PER too. I don’t have access to the Chairman’s Lounge, but the work going on in SYD T3 at the moment looks extensive from the outside. Of course “in the air” a lack of competition and a “Cost Cutting Culture” has lead to a poorer premium product.

Come to talk to UK visitors to CNS who get dumped off full service QF in SIN on the Deathstar to CNS and haven't been told they will be sitting like sardines on a baby scarebus with zero service

The pitch is less than 10% tighter on a JQ A320 than a QF B737, some people just like to complain.




As for “zero service”, I would argue in defence of SusanS’s original position – I find Jetstar’s in-air service standards to be the best of all the major domestic jet airlines. Some "in the air" examples –

• consistency in friendly/warm welcome on board - every flight. (Although I do like the Virgin & Qantas “welcome back [insert name]” AND this is rather obviously missing in the Jetstar experience.)
• exit row storage issue (i.e. no under seat stowage allowed) all airlines make an announcement, only JQ have a service standard where the FA will take the items from you, place them overhead and then as soon as the seat belt sign is off, return to you and ask if you would like them to fetch anything from the overhead bins for you.
• Staff focussed on thanking you on deplaning. Staff on some airlines have so much attitude that they pretend to be looking away or doing something else when you deplane. It is deliberate, it is noticeable and it is poor quality service. The type of FAs who do this, tend not to be employed at Jetstar.
• Tray table clearing on Jetstar is more like five star restaurant service, I often find my left over bits/packaging removed without any involvement from me. Where as on Virgin, if you don’t hand it to a FA they won’t reach over and take it (even though they; 1. obviously see it, 2. you have positioned it in a way to demonstrate it is rubbish), and at Qantas I have been yelled at for not putting my rubbish into the placemat bag.

Of course there are things I dislike about Jetstar, for example the new CEO is an idiot, having reprioritised seat allocation to a new family first policy. This includes Qantas Club/Business Lounges being locked out of exit row allocation. Joyce had a good grasp of what frequent fliers wanted from his airline; whereas this new guy is an idiot.

In regards to Virgin Blue, and its “new business/corporate” approach, it will be a long hard slog for them, working uphill all the way. There are just too many reasons not to fly them.

Personally I think we're very lucky to have Q, J* & VB in a country this small and isolated.

BULLSH!T. Any industry where a single player (Qantas Group) commands over 30% market share (domestic) is a failure of market economic principles, in my opinion. Qantas Group needs stifling regulation!

 

[HardlyAtHome]

I guess I have to come out and make a quick comment on 'Qantas attitude towards female' issues here (I'm not going into the executive salary etc - I have my opinions on it but would rather not get involved in discussions right now as I'm too tired to make much sense).

I can't think of many occasions when I was treated less than satisfactorily by any Qantas staff, and I rarely travel in a pair of trousers, mostly travel in discount economy or business class on points upgrade (just to illustrate the point that I'm not a constant F-traveller).

If anything, staff are generally more friendly and attentive to me than men in suit around me.

 

[comint]

I can't think of many occasions when I was treated less than satisfactorily by any Qantas staff.

I should address this as well, as I would tend to agree with SusanS’s proposition.

To preface, I was reading an old thread somewhere, with a post (I think it was serfty) that was most enlightening. Anyway the OP and his wife were both present at the same check-in desk, but the gist of it was - while the OP found the experience efficient and swift, the wife found it in-personal and rude!

Something to be learnt there me thinks!

Often it is the harangued lounge staff that are the worst.

Observed Qantas example: Worried Woman comes up from check-in, to the MEL domestic J lounge, and says that her FF# was not entered during check-in (JetFlex). Staff at the desk advise there is nothing they can do, she will have to go back down stairs to JQ. So the passenger asks if she can claim afterwards (this is late Friday arvo in MEL, and the security lines in T1 are atrocious)… You might think the correct response, “absolutely, wait 3 days then go online to QFF and claim”, would be heard, but alas no, the desk staff further antagonised the passenger by stating that they weren’t sure if this was possible, she should ask Jetstar downstairs. HOPELESS!

Observed Virgin Blue example: Worried Woman at BNE the Lounge desk asks if the desk staff can make sure they announce the boarding of her flight to TSV, as she had missed it the week before, as there was no announcement. With one person staffing the desk, the answer was no, they don’t guarantee boarding announcements at Virgin Blue. Once I went into the Lounge, and counted less than a dozen guests, I became appalled at the attitude of the staff member. Surely the only possible response was “certainly, I will personally keep an eye on the flight for you, and let you know when its time to board”. HOPELESS!

My two examples involve female staff interacting with female passengers, something else to ponder.

 

[HardlyAtHome]

It is quite interesting to read that people feel Qantas staff treat females worse, because I have honestly not been on the receiving end of any different treatment (if anything, I think I get treated better than men in suits generally).

Have I been exceptionally lucky with not having had much of an issue (the only 'less than satisfactory experiences' have all been with males, now I come to think of them, although I never paid any attention to it before - and they were not unpleasant to me specifically, but they were generally grumpy, I think). I don't think I can easily put mine down as luck, as I have a fairly large number of occasions when I interact with Qantas staff every year.

Quite curious. I'll have to pay more attention next time to look around and see if females get treated any worse than males for no apparent reason.

 

[comint]

Quite curious. I'll have to pay more attention next time to look around and see if females get treated any worse than males for no apparent reason.

Part of the problem may also be treating some women the same way as men:!:

I think there is a general gender difference, in the "perception" of what constitutes "good" service.

 

[SusanS]

I should address this as well, as I would tend to agree with SusanS’s proposition.

To preface, I was reading an old thread somewhere, with a post (I think it was serfty) that was most enlightening. Anyway the OP and his wife were both present at the same check-in desk, but the gist of it was - while the OP found the experience efficient and swift, the wife found it in-personal and rude!

Something to be learnt there me thinks!

Often it is the harangued lounge staff that are the worst.

Observed Qantas example: Worried Woman comes up from check-in, to the MEL domestic J lounge, and says that her FF# was not entered during check-in (JetFlex). Staff at the desk advise there is nothing they can do, she will have to go back down stairs to JQ. So the passenger asks if she can claim afterwards (this is late Friday arvo in MEL, and the security lines in T1 are atrocious)… You might think the correct response, “absolutely, wait 3 days then go online to QFF and claim”, would be heard, but alas no, the desk staff further antagonised the passenger by stating that they weren’t sure if this was possible, she should ask Jetstar downstairs. HOPELESS!

Observed Virgin Blue example: Worried Woman at BNE the Lounge desk asks if the desk staff can make sure they announce the boarding of her flight to TNS, as she had missed it the week before, as there was no announcement. With one person staffing the desk, the answer was no, they don’t guarantee boarding announcements at Virgin Blue. Once I went into the Lounge, and counted less than a dozen guests, I became appalled at the attitude of the staff member. Surely the only possible response was “certainly, I will personally keep an eye on the flight for you, and let you know when its time to board”. HOPELESS!

My two examples involve female staff interacting with female passengers, something else to ponder.

BULLSH!T. Any industry where a single player (Qantas Group) commands over 30% market share (domestic) is a failure of market economic principles, in my opinion. Qantas Group needs stifling regulation!

Thanks for economic principles 101 lesson, but in small markets, it is often the case that one player holds a dominant position. It is usually only in large markets where there can be real competition I think, otherwise it's just not going to be profitable for everyone concerned.

However, I thank you comint, for your support of some of my observations and possible areas for improvement in the customer service area of all the airlines. The gender issue is very real, and for every female passenger who hasn't had that experience, there are probably 10 us who have. Whereas it's probably the reverse for male passengers, from what I've seen.

As for female to female issues, I worked with the pharmaceutical industry for a while, they employ male sale reps to see female drs about female products, and employ females to sell to male drs, because of gender dynamics, very sneaky. Social intelligence is a growing area of neuroscience and the more we find out the more scary it is, but true.

So I'd like to have male flight attendants serving me my meal, then I'd have no gripes! No, seriously, I don't care who serves the meal, as long as they are polite to everyone equally. That's why I like the J* model of service, it's not based on outdated hierarchies.

 

[serfty]

HardlyAtHome, welcome to AFF.

... To preface, I was reading an old thread somewhere, with a post (I think it was serfty) that was most enlightening. Anyway the OP and his wife were both present at the same check-in desk, but the gist of it was - while the OP found the experience efficient and swift, the wife found it in-personal and rude! ...

'Twas not me ...

 

[HardlyAtHome]

Part of the problem may also be treating some women the same way as men:!:

I think there is a general gender difference, in the "perception" of what constitutes "good" service.

Also I think service can be interactive. If the passenger is not quite as pleasant to the service provider as some other people are, they may receive a slight lesser service, subconsciously.

That's not to necessarily 'blame' the passenger or the crew - it is probably subconscious - e.g. I might be subconsciously speaking more nicely to a nice looking male cabin crew than a scary looking cabin crew who looks as if he'd bite if I said anything at all to him. If I smile and speak more nicely to someone, it would be natural to assume that the service from that person could well be nicer towards me even if they are not consciously trying to change the way they behave towards me.

 

[HardlyAtHome]

HardlyAtHome, welcome to AFF.

'Twas not me ...

Thank you Serfty.

I have to confess that I'm actually one of existing members who's trying to avoid wind-ups from friends for my [what they perceive to be] 'excessive travelling' by their identifying me. My other identity is gender-neutral and wanted to keep it that way, hence my new identity. I hope this is OK.