P1 Fail

[eosphoros]

I think you've missed the point.

I have not missed the point. I understand everything that you are saying. And, as I have already said, I agree that things could have been handled better.

What you have demonstrated is that you have missed my point. And that is that your posts reek of entitlement -- hence my reference to DYKWIA syndrome.

 

[TonyHancock]

And that is that your posts reek of entitlement -- hence my reference to DYKWIA syndrome.

Once again we poor DYKWIA's are trodden on and reviled. We are people too you know.

 

[serfty]

How were they to know it was important to you?

Proactively call and ask?

A few years ago, before the introduction of P1, as a "mere" WP booked to travel in 388 whY I was called the day before by Qantas to advise it had been subbed for a 744 and "did I wish to travel via SYD to stay on an airbus?".

 

[Sprucegoose]

Naturally I'm happy to spark the debate and discussion, but just to be very clear :

I'm not having a go at the staff on the P1 Team, who I find to be lovely people to deal with, and I do believe they as individuals try very hard.

My issue is with the QF handling of the matter more generally/systemically.

Invariably it gets down to people on the ground, their managed priorities and workflow. Systems fail and people fail. Here possibly together.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Surely P1 is like "double secret probation" it doesn't really mean anything does it? You don't just get recognised as top tier but double secret extra special top tier! Extra iPad small talk from the CSM on the plane! No other OW carrier recognise it as anything other than OWE do they? Dealing with QFF/loyalty has always been the most 'unrewarding' part of any dealings you are likely to have with QF. Nothing's changed.

Well you are still a OWE

 

[dfcatch]

I have not missed the point. I understand everything that you are saying. And, as I have already said, I agree that things could have been handled better.

What you have demonstrated is that you have missed my point. And that is that your posts reek of entitlement -- hence my reference to DYKWIA syndrome.

So a P1 shouldn't be dissatisfied about not receiving the primary service benefit of being a P1 over a WP (that being disruption management/notification by the SST).

Granted - of course it's DYKWIA. I'm a P1 and when something goes wrong, I'd like the advertised benefit to kick in.

No different to an SG expecting to receive access to the QP.

If this was a mere SYD-MEL flight - then I would totally agree with you.

But when it's a TPAC flight of 13.5 hrs, which you have specifically selected on the basis of specific aircraft/cabin/seating with a view to being able to rest appropriately and arrive in a working condition - I think IMHO that expectations are allowed to be a little higher than the mere SYD-MEL.

I guess if you reserve a Mercedes and Hertz give you a Getz - that would be DYKWIA too if you're unhappy??

(TonyHancock actually prefers the Getz - but hey, he likes the French too ðŸ

 

[russ]

If you want a Mercedes, rent a Mercedes. Don't rent a Getz and expect an upgrade.

ie if you want a decent seat, don't fly economy

 

[dfcatch]

If you want a Mercedes, rent a Mercedes. Don't rent a Getz and expect an upgrade.

ie if you want a decent seat, don't fly economy

Agree Russ. (Except I did say "reserve" a Mercedes)

I'm pretty sure you've previously offered me the use of your credit card.

I seem to have misplaced the number - would you mind sending it through again xx_ ð

 

[opusman]

- it's a significant product downgrade.

It's not the same as 380 J to 747 J. (I'd be disappointed, but the product difference is minimal).

Changing my 380 upper deck bulkhead Y seat to 747 Y - that's not the same product. Not even close.

Why isn't it the same product?

It's the same seat. The same food. The same level of service.
A Y fare on the 380 is no more expensive than one on a 747.

In every important respect they are identical products. I'm struggling to understand why you think they should have contacted you at all.

 

[eosphoros]

So a P1 shouldn't be dissatisfied about not receiving the primary service benefit of being a P1 over a WP (that being disruption management/notification by the SST).

Granted - of course it's DYKWIA. I'm a P1 and when something goes wrong, I'd like the advertised benefit to kick in.

No different to an SG expecting to receive access to the QP.

I guess if you reserve a Mercedes and Hertz give you a Getz - that would be DYKWIA too if you're unhappy??

(TonyHancock actually prefers the Getz - but hey, he likes the French too 

Perhaps I should be more explicit in what I am trying to convey. I am not saying that you should not be dissatisfied when something adverse to your interests/comfort/expectations etc occurs. Nor am I saying that you should abstain from expressing that dissatisfaction. But there is dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction. It is one thing to say: 'there was an aircraft sub; as a P1, it would have been nice to receive a call and been offered options; internal communications at QF should be better for irrops'. It is quite another to prosecute the position that you were entitled to have your every wish known and catered for in a situation where many more pax would certainly be much more affected than you, especially in the manner in which you have done so. Ultimately it comes down to attitude.

 

[dfcatch]

Opusman- Have you flown them both?

Do you have eyes?

Same food - probably yes.

Same seat - not as per my example.
(If you're comparing seat 55B in both - then yes - same).

Same service - not. QCCA service is a much higher quality than QAL crew (individual staff standouts may affect a singular flight).

 

[russ]

Agree Russ. (Except I did say "reserve" a Mercedes)

I'm pretty sure you've previously offered me the use of your credit card.

I seem to have misplaced the number - would you mind sending it through again xx_ ð

Sorry, I can't reach my wallet, it's too far away!

 

[opusman]

Opusman- Have you flown them both?

No, I don't do Y. But one or two seats aside, the seating is identical. They are sold as the same product. QF are not going to turn around and tacitly admit they're not (otherwise everyone who got bumped to a 747 could presumably ask for compensation).

 

[RooFlyer]

Why isn't it the same product?

It's the same seat. The same food. The same level of service.
A Y fare on the 380 is no more expensive than one on a 747.

In every important respect they are identical products. I'm struggling to understand why you think they should have contacted you at all.

I think that sums up the 'contra' side of this debate. "Can't see your problem."

However I'm with the OP - whether or not there is a problem for a pax is in the eyes of the pax concerned, no-one else. And as a P1 they should be entitled to decide for themselves if the new aircraft is a problem for them and should be entitled to prompt advice re the equipment sub.

As I've noted before, QF have mobile numbers, e-mails, the lot. A staged (by cabin and status) series of texts should be easy to send out; something like "Preliminary advice. QFXX now operated by 747, not A380. Customer service will be in touch or call 13xx_x for options now."

yes, this will be more hassle for QF and would probably cost them more to implement.

However as far as I'm concerned, the issue is the service delivered to premium pax. A company simply must deliver premium service to its premium customers. The F lounges made available to their premium passengers are amongst the best in the world. Why shouldn't the service match?

 

[dfcatch]

Perhaps I should be more explicit in what I am trying to convey. I am not saying that you should not be dissatisfied when something adverse to your interests/comfort/expectations etc occurs. Nor am I saying that you should abstain from expressing that dissatisfaction. But there is dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction. It is one thing to say: 'there was an aircraft sub; as a P1, it would have been nice to receive a call and been offered options; internal communications at QF should be better for irrops'. It is quite another to prosecute the position that you were entitled to have your every wish known and catered for in a situation where many more pax would certainly be much more affected than you, especially in the manner in which you have done so. Ultimately it comes down to attitude.

Except that you're misrepresenting anything/everything that I've stated.

The single most important being - that the singular most important benefit of P1 was not provided, at a time when most required, on a flight route where the effect of service failure is the most pronounced.

I've also readily stated that F pax, and premium cabin pax actively displaced should be dealt with first. Which they were. And in the case of those outranking me (premium cabin pax involuntarily downgraded) - they were/will be provided with published compensation as per QF policy.

You may think that expectation is unreasonable and doesn't constitute a "fail". I do.

For me - service provision (including seating) on TPAC routes is the singular most important service factor to me across my entire patronage of Qantas.
More often than not - not only do they get this right, but they excel.

Perhaps the flip side of that high-level of service expectation is that when it goes wrong, the impact is significant.

For you - no doubt you have an issue that is your singular most important too.

For QF - the concern should be the failure to provide a premium benefit. If too many P1s believe they're not getting an important status benefit when things go wrong (aka - when it matters most) then they won't pursue such a level of patronage with QF in the future and may split their business (eg. Maybe a WP&WP strategy with QF/VA).

If I were QF - I'd want to fix those failures. And I'd want to know where the touch points are not meeting expectations.

Nothing wrong with you not relating to said expectations and therefore thinking they're unreasonable. But that's your opinion, nothing more.

 

[dfcatch]

No, I don't do Y. But one or two seats aside, the seating is identical. They are sold as the same product. QF are not going to turn around and tacitly admit they're not (otherwise everyone who got bumped to a 747 could presumably ask for compensation).

Actually the A380 is sold and advertised as a specific product.

That's why they advertise the schedule explicitly - so those who wish to book that aircraft can do so.

Of course they don't have to compensate. They never "have" to do anything.

But that doesn't mean they should or shouldn't look after their premium pax (cabin, status or both).

 

[Anna]

Proactively call and ask?

They were probably too busy calling the people with actual disruptions and inconveniences.

 

[opusman]

Actually the A380 is sold and advertised as a specific product.

Really? Can you tell which flights are a 380 vs a 747? Cos I can't.

 

[BAM1748]

Matt - the minibar in the Four Points was poor - please understand humour. You seem to struggle.

Yes - my flights and my status are all self-funded mate.

So when I get screwed over - I take it personally when I spend my scarce dough on a product, get subbed an inferior product (you're the exception, not the rule. I didn't hear a single pax on my flight / nor crew that were pleased with being on a 747), and don't even get advised or given options - I'm more than a bit cross.

Like I've said (and other posters have said) the issue is a systemic one.

Just go and stand at SYD or LAX checkin on a day where there's a sub and you'll understand that it's a BIG problem for QF.

Screwed over, Y seat on a 380 to Y seat on a 747. People's idea of being screw over if different to my own. Thanks for clarifiying you pay your self, hopefully you can claim some of it back as business travel.

If you read one of my previous post you would notice I have been at LAX when a flight was subbed and put back 12 hours while a replacement 380 bought in to replace a 380 with a fuel leak. It wasn't a big problem and handled well.

I think QFs big problem is they went with the 380 which seems to be a fragile aircraft with many little issues that can ground them.

Matt

 

[trixydoza]

Really? Can you tell which flights are a 380 vs a 747? Cos I can't.

View attachment 54700

If I didn't have the flight numbers memorised, I'd just move my mouse to the flight number...