Could have been worse ... as Cathay Panic.

(Written on 20.09.2018)(Permalink)

Sadly, the average traveller doesn’t really think too deeply about what’s good for them. Advertising a NET (not earlier than) departure time - which is really what is happening here - and trying hard to fix the actual arrival time passes the logical test. Trust the Guardian’s business-bashing ethos to consider it’s a problem. They can’t even get their thinking straight about “punctual” as either a departure time or an arrival time - only saying pax have to spend more time hanging around airports or inside aircraft … like that’s a negative entitlement. What’s next - shorter security checks or less terminal walking thru duty-free shops? And no mention that this timing strategy supports incoming flight delays of aircraft or pax-connections … only looking for the negatives – not very balanced. Can anyone believe that an airline would try to adjust their advertised times to save compensation for a 3 hour delay as the journos have intimated ?… up to 1 hour maybe but 3 hours … just ridic

(Written on 31.08.2018)(Permalink)

Thanks for the link Geoff. I see it also says that BOTH Virgin and Q are being "investigated". Again, it seems that Q management is expected to behave better than lots of like businesses in other industries (eg Mining and Telcos) who are protecting their company tax position. I agree that it is great airline and from my experience with other exec management teams, the company could get a lot worse folks to run it. I guess I'm really struggling with the concept of using this great FA web site and its forum to trash Q management. Particularly bold headlines that imply that Q is being investigated alone. I think this is inappropriate and it must stop and some of us will continue to point this out each time it happens (plenty of time on my hands).

(Written on 01.08.2014)(Permalink)

You know, it's getting harder to believe things I read on this FlightAware news bulletin when this sort of article is posted by anti-Q members. Maybe they can explain why this article has been specifically headlined at Q when the ACCC is investigating all the Oz airlines? Sure, Q has a bigger carbon tax bill because it has more flights and miles but all of the airlines are complaining to the ACCC about not paying the tax. I wonder if posters are disgruntled staff and/or customers who are hell bent on destroying this company. I would like to see this sort of negative posting about Q stop. Incidently, the newspaper link does not take a reader to the specific article - looks like the poster did not want us to easily check the validity of his story.

(Written on 31.07.2014)(Permalink)

Thanks Andrew for your interpretation of marketing and economics in the airline business (even if it is a tad insular – most businesses are pretty cut-throat today – try being in Telco or Mining). But the difference here is more a question of whether Australians want to see Q survive as an icon of Australia. My friends do – maybe a bit sentimental like they were about Vegemite and Arnotts that didn’t survive as Oz companies. If Q staff don’t want it to survive and are prepared to bung on a blue that will likely kill it, then it will surely go the way of those others and Branson will have won. Pity about your jobs but really no worse than Holden in my outsider view. You see I think the icon idea only survives because those who believe in the idea get right behind it. I’m contributing by giving my loyal market share. You’re contributing by bashing your CEO or maybe union action. Can’t quite see how you are behind the icon idea.

(Written on 01.03.2014)(Permalink)

And cunning rats like Virgin CEO know all the weaknesses of Q after years working at Q. So can exploit every opportunity to do Branson bidding. These poor Q staff seem to have been sucked in either by Virgin's "clever" tactics or by Labour politics via their union mouthpieces. They need to step back and see the big picture. Average Australians are happy with Q even if Q staff aren't. I, for one, want to help Q with market share contribution. Why can't each loyal Q staff member do the same? Or are they hell-bent on destroying the icon?

(Written on 28.02.2014)(Permalink)

Sad sad staff of Q. Virgin tell us today that they even make a $80m loss with $300m injection from O/S government backers. I have no service issues with Virgin. Just feel they have got into your company's territory like a Trojan Horse and all you and your union mouthpieces can do is bash your CEO. Like you're going to find another one out there that will give you a break - wake up and go to virgin if you think it is better! Would you trust the Virgin boss? I am just a customer and we march with our feet. After speaking to my baby-boomer friends, they think we need to back Q to give them a fair go - wonder why you guys are so bent on killing your food-chain? What have your mouthpieces been telling you? Do you think for yourselves? Sorry I'm not normally disrespectful but you seem unwilling to listen to a customer perspective.

(Written on 28.02.2014)(Permalink)

Sorry Andrew but you sound bitter and frustrated and I am sorry I have offended you. Customer loyalty is alive and I pay real money for airfares (not discount) because I get good product and it provides market share support for Q. I'll never fly virgin again after they took money from O/S backers to increase capacity while they were badly losing money on existing capacity. Virgin 11% increase and Q only 6% capacity - it's basic marketing - you've gotta follow the loss leader as best you can - look at Woolies and Coles.

(Written on 28.02.2014)(Permalink)

CEO bashing seems to a favourite sport for Qantas employees and its unions. None of the past CEOs have been either popular or thought to have done the right thing according to some "expert" Q staff and union mouthpieces. Makes you wonder how Q can ever survive with such poor staff attitude to a company that is punching well above its weight in a seriously capital intensive industry. I've decided to become a loyal customer of Qantas to help them out - better support than a lot of their staff or unions. I'd hate to see China airlines get a leg up from all the negativity in this iconic Oz business. (incidentally, I do not work for Q or any or its suppliers so have no vested interest other than to wake up some very silly Australians).

(Written on 27.02.2014)(Permalink)