Why do we hold unreal expectations of Qantas??

[Max Samuels]

Your information is out of date. Things have changed since JAL went bankrupt and a considerable effort is made to keep things more balanced. The official government aircraft are now mantained by ANA.

ANA snatches 'honor' from JAL as designated firm for official aircraft

Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia news and expert analysis published by Nikkei, an award-winning independent provider of quality journalism.

asia.nikkei.com

Ok but I think my point is still valid. At least there was an acknowledgment that JAL was the National Carrier and with it came some responsibility. And now the mantel is handed to ANA. But still acknowledged. However Qantas continues as the defacto "National Carrier" with nothing formal in place yet as we all know greatly benefits from Government business...

 

[Max Samuels]

Completely agree.

Surely even the most devoted of Qantas fans knows that, deep deep down, a big chunk of Qantas' "prefect" safety record is also due to luck..... I am not saying that they don't do an "excellent" job of maintaining their aircraft, but luck has a part to play too....

 

[Max Samuels]

I understand they don't have the Singapore girls, QF has it's issues and sometimes fail.

But WHY can't they have the Singapore girls??? That is the question. Anyone here that knows anything about the FA recruitment process for QF would know that it is the most drawn out theatrical interview experience that a person could hope to see!! 1000s of people apply for a few positions.... go through days of interviews... and yet they still seem to hire the saddest and lousiest people around!!! WTF??? How can that be?? That has always surprised me. Perhaps because the recruiters are actually former (and possibly still current) FAs and they don't want to be shown up by someone young and friendly?

 

[Melburnian1]

I think a lot of it is to do with people being so blinkered that they don't actually go out and try other airlines and realise that QF is not really a market leader in either hard product, service, food etc. Most QF staff, for example, are totally unaware of what product other airlines offer so they do generally believe the hype that they are the best airline in the world.

By patronising so-called 'second ranking' airlines like BR and PR, I not only save a bucketload on fares, but travel in many cases on more modern aircraft and always - without fail - receive pleasant service, reasonable to good food, a flight that most often runs on time - all the things that QF fails to constantly deliver.

And then there's the excellent value sales that companies like PR - a privately owned airline - offer, allowing for more frequent trips in lie flat J seats. QF never matches these prices.

milehighclub (otherwise a great contributor) was miffed when I said QF was not even in the top 20 airlines worldwide, but that's my opinion with which I'm sticking.

 

[Melburnian1]

My values and Qantas values are closer together than say Etihad.

I wouldn’t, no matter how good or cheap, ever use Emirates, Etihad, Qatar etc simply because they are a part of oppressive governments. Despite the slick looking cities they still kill people for adultery, lock unmarried people up for holding hands.

I’d rather support QF, AA BA with my hard earned. Even Cathy now is under the Chinese pump.

So again, I fly QF as tu home team with more closely alignd values on what they do with my little part of the profit I contribute to.

That's a valid observation and one for a multitude of reasons in respect of the ME3 that I daresay is shared by many.

But what about the other Asian airlines that you don't mention that provide excellent service? A few to mention: JL, KE, NH, OZ, PR, SQ to reel quickly off. Singapore for instance is not a true democracy, but while I don't like how it canes and executes individuals (with Japan also occasionally doing the latter), those two 'values' are insufficient for me to not use its world leading airline.

 

[Max Samuels]

Singapore for instance is not a true democracy, but while I don't like how it canes and executes individuals (with Japan also occasionally doing the latter), those two 'values' are insufficient for me to not use its world leading airline.

The whole death penalty thing puts me off SQ completely. And I struggle with it when dealing with Japan. But... at least the Japanese only execute mass murderers... Singapore will hang you for much lesser crimes. I hate Singapore.

 

[dajop]

If capital punishment is a factor in purchasing decisions where does one draw the line?

Travelling Australia -LHR on QF, for example. OK, QF1 ... no good, routes via SIN. So QF9 instead, problem solved. But is it? QF9 is operated by a 787, a Boeing, US produced aircraft, they have capital punishment too, so that's no good.

There's hotels .. many owned by middle eastern entities, booked via US corporations ....

Airbnb .....

 

[Max Samuels]

If capital punishment is a factor in purchasing decisions where does one draw the line?

Travelling Australia -LHR on QF, for example. OK, QF1 ... no good, routes via SIN. So QF9 instead, problem solved. But is it? QF9 is operated by a 787, a Boeing, US produced aircraft, they have capital punishment too, so that's no good.

There's hotels .. many owned by middle eastern entities, booked via US corporations ....

Airbnb .....

It is tricky. However, Boeing is manufactured in Washington and they don't do the death penalty

Washington Senate passes death penalty repeal bill

The moves comes months after the state's Supreme Court struck down capital punishment as arbitrary and racially biased. The bill now heads to the House for consideration, and Gov. Jay Inslee, who imposed a moratorium on executions in 2014, has...

www.seattletimes.com

At least in the US it is debated and discussed and there is real progress in seeing it abolished.

Singapore, on the other hand.... people are too scared to oppose it, so every time there is a hanging the Singaporean people continue their mindless activities of shopping and pretending all is well.

 

[dajop]

It is tricky. However, Boeing is manufactured in Washington and they don't do the death penalty

Washington Senate passes death penalty repeal bill

The moves comes months after the state's Supreme Court struck down capital punishment as arbitrary and racially biased. The bill now heads to the House for consideration, and Gov. Jay Inslee, who imposed a moratorium on executions in 2014, has...

www.seattletimes.com

Some of the 787 are assembled in South Carolina .... it's complicated.

 

[RichardMEL]

IMO these days the notion of a "flag carrier" is somewhat outdated and very last century.

Consider the "good old days" when just about every euro nation had to have their own airline flying their people to all points in the world, even if it made very little sense (eg: SABENA, JAT and so on) but was ALL about national pride and in some ways geopolitical - ie: if we can fly you from XYZ home country to JFK, LHR etc then we're on the map as a "somebody"

This even extended to Asia where this notion still survives to some extent (eg TG is a bit of a basket case but still gives it a red hot go).. MH I think finally gave in by ditching F but still plying the skies to/from LHR, but even they saw sense in swapping 380's for 359's. And, it was more or less nationalism that saq SQ split from the original MH (and yes, they became a much bigger and better carrier) and, outside of the ME3 are probably the biggest real "flag carrier" left given the size of Singapore).

In the USA, PA was the undisputed flag carrier for decades until it went under.. these days there's no real "flag carrier" any more even with endless consolodation to "the big three" of UA DL and AA (plus all the rest).

These days both with the failing of the legacy carriers in smaller places (the aforementioned SABENA for example, MALEV, Aer Lingus in it's various incarnations, Olympic.. heck even Swiss born of Swissair) and the rise of powerhouse LCC's in europe (Think Ryanair, EasyJet, Wizz etc) t and the establishment of the EU as a single market, plus domination of the big players LH, KL-AF and now IAG(BA,IB, EI etc) your flag carriers as such are far less relevant (imo) then they once were.

And yes, even Australia where QF, which was very much akin to PA for a long time holds the notional "National Carrier" moniker more through history than anything else. IMO it's the only reason they hang on to LHR and NYC services (and will offer F on project sunrise allegedly).

And let's face it, VA could hardly call themselves a flag carrier given their very limited international network. True QF have paired back a heck of a lot from the heyday, but they can at least claim to serve all major populated continents (obviously JNB and SCL are really stretching it for own metal but at least they do ).

These days though, for most carriers in the world, it's about partnerships and codeshare as much as it is about the reach of one's own metal.

my thirteen cents worth

 

[RichardMEL]

Not only is the 787 assembled both in Everett, WA and South Carolina (where union laws are FAR different and it costs less) but they moved their HDQ to Chicago some years back. And of course, like airbus, Boeing uses parts made all over the world, including Melbourne.

 

[Max Samuels]

Some of the 787 are assembled in South Carolina .... it's complicated.

Meh. Good enuf

 

[Max Samuels]

Not only is the 787 assembled both in Everett, WA and South Carolina (where union laws are FAR different and it costs less) but they moved their HDQ to Chicago some years back. And of course, like airbus, Boeing uses parts made all over the world, including Melbourne.

All true. But we seem to only apply that train of thought to modern western countries like ourselves. I am sure that there are North Korean products made by slaves in prisons that contain some component that was manufactured in, or whose IP belongs to, a western country.... does that make the North Korean slave-built product "good" and "moral"? No.

So, even though Boeing uses components made from all over, I am satisfied that the bulk of its operation, its management, and probably most of its IP, reside in a place whose morals I have no issues with.

I cannot really avoid flying in a Boeing plane. But I can avoid SQ. And I do.

So go put a noose around that!

 

[dajop]

I cannot really avoid flying in a Boeing plane. But I can avoid SQ. And I do.

From other posts, I am pretty sure you do fly VA - yet 80% of it is owned by interests with poor track record regarding human rights - i.e. Singaporean, Chinese and Emirati interests, and surely if you object to SQ for this reason, you would have to avoid VA as well. I wouldn't say the Chinese and UAE approach to human rights is any better than Singapore's.

Or maybe as VA is losing money, that such interests are losing money is a good thing right??

 

[amaroo]

Surely even the most devoted of Qantas fans knows that, deep deep down, a big chunk of Qantas' "prefect" safety record is also due to luck..... I am not saying that they don't do an "excellent" job of maintaining their aircraft, but luck has a part to play too....

Steve Purvinas and his members probably take a different view on the matter.

Reminds me of that saying - the harder I work, the luckier I get.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Consider the "good old days" when just about every euro nation had to have their own airline flying their people to all points in the world, even if it made very little sense (eg: SABENA, JAT and so on) but was ALL about national pride and in some ways geopolitical - ie: if we can fly you from XYZ home country to JFK, LHR etc then we're on the map as a "somebody"

JAT flew to the US and Australia - both having large Yugoslv communities (these days fractured as they are different nations). Plus their flight to Beijing, which I suppose was for Communist alliance purposes (although why it flew via Calcutta I dunno!).

Sabena had - and still does through SN airlines, a sizable African network, prolly from their days as a colonist.

QF may have gone the way of Pan Am and Trans World had it not acquired a large domestic network.

 

[Max Samuels]

Steve Purvinas and his members probably take a different view on the matter.

Reminds me of that saying - the harder I work, the luckier I get.

I suppose we can disagree on this point.
To the general public, an airline's "safety" record includes incidents even unrelated to any maintenance.. I'm thinking MH.... I was actually booked on an MH flight a few months after the 2nd incident, and the airline was getting so many people cancelling out of "panic" that they waived cancellation fees out of fear of even more bad PR, and we changed to EK.

So, yes - I think luck does play a part. I think if QF had 2 planes shot down out of the sky in as many months, the public would lose confidence in its "safety" record.

 

[CaptJCool]

So, yes - I think luck does play a part. I think if QF had 2 planes shot down out of the sky in as many months, the public would lose confidence in its "safety" record.

For 8 weeks only......