Time to give up on Qantas

[juddles]

..... It should be much easier & more profitable to keep truly frequent flyers than to keep attracting new pax ...

I am not an expert on running an airline, but it seems in general in life that businesses in every field use the one sale/new customer approach. The NUMBER ONE driver of most flight sales I suspect to be price. I think, in general, ¨truly frequent flyers¨ expect more than the average person. So they are actually harder to please tan bulk non-frequent flying customers.

Anyway, I think Qantas does an overall very good job of surviving in an absolutely cutthroat industry, and still manages to offer a good product, both to its bulk newbies, and the frequent fliers.

 

[Baysider]

The NUMBER ONE driver of most flight sales I suspect to be price. I think, in general, ¨truly frequent flyers¨ expect more than the average person. So they are actually harder to please tan bulk non-frequent flying customers.

Again, for those whose number 1 driver is price, they have the JQ product. Some perks and reward for loyalty are reasonable expectations for QF customers.

 

[browski]

I think, in general, ¨truly frequent flyers¨ expect more than the average person.

Actually, I think this is the exacly not the case.

True Frequent Flyers know exactly what to expect and their (generally low) expectations are mostly met. Delays, baggage loss and varying service levels are understood to be (normal) parts of the flying experience.

The non-frequent flyer has a delusional expectation as to what they will receive and this leads to post purchase dissatisfaction; and ridiculous rants about why they will never fly airline X or Y.

 

[juddles]

.....delusional expectation as to what they will receive and this leads to post purchase dissatisfaction; and ridiculous rants about why they will never fly airline X or Y....

agree with some of this

IMHO, to rant and declare ¨never fly¨ is 99% a ridiculous and poorly thought, knee-jerk reaction dummy-spit. An airline can have a fantastic fleet, great people, good prices, but if one staff member doesn´t do it for you, you need to see beyond that. To restrict yourself by such dummy-spit decisions is ridiculous.

I suspect that in secret, all these people who ¨will never fly Qantas again¨, actually will

 

[RAM]

agree with some of this

IMHO, to rant and declare ¨never fly¨ is 99% a ridiculous and poorly thought, knee-jerk reaction dummy-spit. An airline can have a fantastic fleet, great people, good prices, but if one staff member doesn´t do it for you, you need to see beyond that. To restrict yourself by such dummy-spit decisions is ridiculous.

I suspect that in secret, all these people who ¨will never fly Qantas again¨, actually will

It is horses for courses - some people do have a strong moral/ethical compass and others well...

When looking for flights I have a group of airlines I'll consider but before booking a major trip I'll spend a lunchtime searching "X Airways issues" and 'X airways problems' to ensure my knowledge is not outdated. In the 80s I'd ring two travel agents and ask them to quote on a Q return flight to the destination. Once I discovered the wonders of Bloomberg and "Fly" I was able to check the honesty of TAs and find one who was really offering a service.

Come the 90s and the competition heating up both domestically and internationally - it became Q was one I'd look at and allow a slight cost premium for. Post downgrades/missed Q flights due to Q staff - I began NOT flying Q where ever possible domestically and no cost premium for international.

Post some early 2000s international fun - Q is virtually now a last resort (or points redemption upgrade).

At a price I'll fly - trouble is the bulk of the time the price is not close for comparable service/safety IMHO.

 

[medhead]

I am constantly amazed by the knowledge levels of some of the instant experts here.

Conversely, it is not surprising at all that some people are actually capable of doing some basic research.

 

[straitman]

Conversely, it is not surprising at all that some people are actually capable of doing some basic research.

medhead,

I agree with you entirely.

It is the times that people shoot from the hip that I am referring to. i.e. the times when they don't do that research or have a knowledge base and still present things as 'facts'

 

[RAM]

medhead,

I agree with you entirely.

It is the times that people shoot from the hip that I am referring to. i.e. the times when they don't do that research or have a knowledge base and still present things as 'facts'

Shouldn't that be from the lip?

 

[eastwest101]

Shouldn't that be from the lip?

Sorry about the OT post. Never ever from the lip, if you think of the Wild West source of the phrase - it obvious they didn't have guns with triggers that could be activated by a lip. So off to the spelling mistakes/grammar thread for people who say that.

From urbandictionary.com (and I assume this was covered in the grammar thread at some point? If not maybe move this here?)

shoot from the hip an expression which suggests the described person
a. speaks or behaves in a brusque, honest fashion
b. does not censor their actions or words
c. speaks tersely; communicates with the fewest number of words

cf. to be brutally honest; to tell it like it is; to pull no punches

deriv. (Old West--when a person who 'shot from the hip' pulled their trigger in a proper draw (ie from a hip holster.) This is in direct contrast to a person who arrived to the gunfight with guns drawn. By extension, a person who 'shoots from the hip' possesses the positive quality of handling a situation in the prescribed mode.)