I've been listening (well, reading) the various threads discussing changes to the program over the last few weeks, and am slightly bemused. Having lurked around here for a year or so, the two things that come to the fore when I try to summarize the general AFF forum consensus about Qantas in 2010 is this:
1. lounges are packed and unpleasant at peak travel times
2. Qantas staff are often found "lacking" in their dealings with passengers at checkin and on board
Firstly, RedRoo, credit where credit's due: approaching a certain group of frequent flyers on forums is appreciated, and useful. Unfortunately, you've been subjected to a great deal of unnecessary and quite unproductive criticism by several posters is the threads you've participated in. For what it's worth, sorry the welcome has been so unpleasant, as it really didn't need to be.
AnonymousCoward, thanks for attempting to contribute in a productive way - I genuinely appreciate what you've had to say. It does indeed seem difficult to keep the thread focused on the original question, and instead we're heading toward a wish-list of economically unrealistic (and unrealizable) ideas, which I'm not sure address the initial question particularly well.
Getting rid of anytime access is clearly in the interests of an airline that is otherwise paying to provide pre-departure services to individuals whose travel expenses are then directed away from that company. It also helps address the problem of lounge overcrowding that (until the recent program changes were announced, when the mood mysterious took a 180° turn) was regularly the subject of negative posts on this forum. So, thanks for addressing the concerns of members of your program (ironically, they don't seem to appreciate it, so I'll thank you on their behalf).
As for the actual question originally posed: improving the program by thinking outside the box...
This will be somewhat long, so sorry about that. I worked briefly for Australian Airlines in the late 80's, but have continued flying with them (and their future parent Qantas) since I left. What I loved about my brief time there was that I was surrounded by people who were genuinely happy and proud of where they worked. Most of the people I came across at the time shared a curious approach to their jobs: they didn't perceive their work as just a job, and didn't conceive their employer in purely economic terms. They worked as a team, for a company they felt part of. They were proud of what they did, and enjoyed their jobs because the relationship they had with their employer was infused with something larger than the size of their wallet on pay day. They believed in what they did, and who they worked for. This "relationship" influenced the way they performed their duties. From the reservations agent to the checkin staff, baggage handlers, engineering staff and cabin crew ... it was actually difficult to walk away from a flight "experience" and not notice it. Anecdotally, I often thought that the company's reputation for mechanical reliability, maintenance expertise and safety record was almost certainly a direct result of the extra effort engineers put in, because of the way they felt about the company they worked for.
Today, when I fly with Qantas, I'm more than a little bemused at how profoundly this has changed since then. Every contact I have is just that: a contact. Every individual staff member I encounter is an individual. Occasionally, I come across someone on the phone, at checkin or on board who seems to love their job, and I'm (briefly) reminded of why I used to love flying: it was an enjoyable experience, from start to end.
If you want to improve QFF, and give people a reason to choose to fly Qantas rather than another (cheaper) airline, then they need to feel the extra money they spend provides them with something of value. I think people are less inclined to choose to fly Qantas because the "brand" has undergone a fundamental change for the worse. It no longer evokes what it once did, because the experience of "service" has disappeared. The group's focus over the last decade or two has been increasingly driven by unitizing everything, outsourcing and restructuring operations to the point that the "company" has become a globular conglomerate of disparate entities. On paper, the economics of this approach are undisputedly sound.
In practice, they suck. The group's singular focus on it's balance sheet has resulted in driving one group of FAs into battle with another, and has done the same with pilots, ground staff and reservations agents. It's undoubtedly produced satisfactory (perhaps even exemplary) cost savings and maximized returns. It's impact on your "soft product" has been beyond awful; unhappy, cranky staff have a hard time "believing" in something and performing their duties accordingly. The "experience" of flying with Qantas that once distinguished it from its competitors has long gone.
When the group tries to focus on improving service, in an effort to reinforce the brand's image and their customers' satisfaction, their approach is the driven by the same, abstract focus on economics for its own sake: the Sofitel service is "purchased" for to first class lounge "guests", smiling actors and lens filters are bought to convince us that Qantas flights flights are "amazing", and Neil Perry™©® is contracted to prove the service on board is as good as it gets. Personally, I'd much rather QF-employed staff that serve, cook and perform their jobs influenced not by fine-tuned training and a veneer of "quality", but because they actually enjoy what they're doing.
If you want to a QFF program that encourages people choose to fly Qantas rather than another airline, maybe you should convince the deciders that the "product" you're selling is not a product at all, or a collection of products. Maybe it needs to be an experience, that is provided by people who love what they do. It's easy to be nice when you're happy, and to want to provide outstanding service when you feel like you're a part of something you believe in, and belong to. That would cost little, but would fundamentally transform the service you provide.
It would genuinely enhance what you do, in a way that would actually matter, and encourage people to perceive the value of what your offer as being worth what they pay.
Don't give me limousines, magazines, and ancillary gloss. Give me real service, by people who actually want to provide it, and I'll gladly choose to fly QF. Go and talk to your staff and find out what's making them unhappy about working for Qantas, then double it. Make them happy, so they'll be nice to me and your other passengers - do whatever you have to to change your relationship with them to build an actual "team" (dare I say, "family") of people whose approach to their job makes me want to actually seek them out.
If I fly a LCC, I want a seat, and to be transported. If I spend money with a full-service airline, I want an experience. And you can't provide that by continuing to adopt the approach QF has for the last decade or so.
OK, and yes, it would be useful if I could redeem points on longhaul on any OW carrier (please, pleas integrate JAL, LAN, CS and Iberia flights into online redemptions), and not have to compete with SG (and now seemingly PS) to do it. And at-booking upgrade confirmations would be nice too (but I won't hold a grudge if you don't - I'm sure there's a valid economic argument for not doing so).
PS Do I get a prize (or deleted) for the "most-stupidly-long" post ever?
1. lounges are packed and unpleasant at peak travel times
2. Qantas staff are often found "lacking" in their dealings with passengers at checkin and on board
Firstly, RedRoo, credit where credit's due: approaching a certain group of frequent flyers on forums is appreciated, and useful. Unfortunately, you've been subjected to a great deal of unnecessary and quite unproductive criticism by several posters is the threads you've participated in. For what it's worth, sorry the welcome has been so unpleasant, as it really didn't need to be.
AnonymousCoward, thanks for attempting to contribute in a productive way - I genuinely appreciate what you've had to say. It does indeed seem difficult to keep the thread focused on the original question, and instead we're heading toward a wish-list of economically unrealistic (and unrealizable) ideas, which I'm not sure address the initial question particularly well.
Getting rid of anytime access is clearly in the interests of an airline that is otherwise paying to provide pre-departure services to individuals whose travel expenses are then directed away from that company. It also helps address the problem of lounge overcrowding that (until the recent program changes were announced, when the mood mysterious took a 180° turn) was regularly the subject of negative posts on this forum. So, thanks for addressing the concerns of members of your program (ironically, they don't seem to appreciate it, so I'll thank you on their behalf).
As for the actual question originally posed: improving the program by thinking outside the box...
This will be somewhat long, so sorry about that. I worked briefly for Australian Airlines in the late 80's, but have continued flying with them (and their future parent Qantas) since I left. What I loved about my brief time there was that I was surrounded by people who were genuinely happy and proud of where they worked. Most of the people I came across at the time shared a curious approach to their jobs: they didn't perceive their work as just a job, and didn't conceive their employer in purely economic terms. They worked as a team, for a company they felt part of. They were proud of what they did, and enjoyed their jobs because the relationship they had with their employer was infused with something larger than the size of their wallet on pay day. They believed in what they did, and who they worked for. This "relationship" influenced the way they performed their duties. From the reservations agent to the checkin staff, baggage handlers, engineering staff and cabin crew ... it was actually difficult to walk away from a flight "experience" and not notice it. Anecdotally, I often thought that the company's reputation for mechanical reliability, maintenance expertise and safety record was almost certainly a direct result of the extra effort engineers put in, because of the way they felt about the company they worked for.
Today, when I fly with Qantas, I'm more than a little bemused at how profoundly this has changed since then. Every contact I have is just that: a contact. Every individual staff member I encounter is an individual. Occasionally, I come across someone on the phone, at checkin or on board who seems to love their job, and I'm (briefly) reminded of why I used to love flying: it was an enjoyable experience, from start to end.
If you want to improve QFF, and give people a reason to choose to fly Qantas rather than another (cheaper) airline, then they need to feel the extra money they spend provides them with something of value. I think people are less inclined to choose to fly Qantas because the "brand" has undergone a fundamental change for the worse. It no longer evokes what it once did, because the experience of "service" has disappeared. The group's focus over the last decade or two has been increasingly driven by unitizing everything, outsourcing and restructuring operations to the point that the "company" has become a globular conglomerate of disparate entities. On paper, the economics of this approach are undisputedly sound.
In practice, they suck. The group's singular focus on it's balance sheet has resulted in driving one group of FAs into battle with another, and has done the same with pilots, ground staff and reservations agents. It's undoubtedly produced satisfactory (perhaps even exemplary) cost savings and maximized returns. It's impact on your "soft product" has been beyond awful; unhappy, cranky staff have a hard time "believing" in something and performing their duties accordingly. The "experience" of flying with Qantas that once distinguished it from its competitors has long gone.
When the group tries to focus on improving service, in an effort to reinforce the brand's image and their customers' satisfaction, their approach is the driven by the same, abstract focus on economics for its own sake: the Sofitel service is "purchased" for to first class lounge "guests", smiling actors and lens filters are bought to convince us that Qantas flights flights are "amazing", and Neil Perry™©® is contracted to prove the service on board is as good as it gets. Personally, I'd much rather QF-employed staff that serve, cook and perform their jobs influenced not by fine-tuned training and a veneer of "quality", but because they actually enjoy what they're doing.
If you want to a QFF program that encourages people choose to fly Qantas rather than another airline, maybe you should convince the deciders that the "product" you're selling is not a product at all, or a collection of products. Maybe it needs to be an experience, that is provided by people who love what they do. It's easy to be nice when you're happy, and to want to provide outstanding service when you feel like you're a part of something you believe in, and belong to. That would cost little, but would fundamentally transform the service you provide.
It would genuinely enhance what you do, in a way that would actually matter, and encourage people to perceive the value of what your offer as being worth what they pay.
Don't give me limousines, magazines, and ancillary gloss. Give me real service, by people who actually want to provide it, and I'll gladly choose to fly QF. Go and talk to your staff and find out what's making them unhappy about working for Qantas, then double it. Make them happy, so they'll be nice to me and your other passengers - do whatever you have to to change your relationship with them to build an actual "team" (dare I say, "family") of people whose approach to their job makes me want to actually seek them out.
If I fly a LCC, I want a seat, and to be transported. If I spend money with a full-service airline, I want an experience. And you can't provide that by continuing to adopt the approach QF has for the last decade or so.
OK, and yes, it would be useful if I could redeem points on longhaul on any OW carrier (please, pleas integrate JAL, LAN, CS and Iberia flights into online redemptions), and not have to compete with SG (and now seemingly PS) to do it. And at-booking upgrade confirmations would be nice too (but I won't hold a grudge if you don't - I'm sure there's a valid economic argument for not doing so).
PS Do I get a prize (or deleted) for the "most-stupidly-long" post ever?
unproductive and unnecessary criticism - I'm really confused by that, first I haven't noticed anything particularly bad. Second isn't it the job of marketing people to ask what their customers think and get their feedback, whether it is criticism or not. I'm sure that Red Roo is able to own the decisions that have been made and accept criticism. In fact, that criticism has already seen an improvement with the arrival access.
