An Open Letter to my fellow AFF members - External Influence on this website

[lovestotravel]

Any forum/website will encounter staff or weird loyal freaks to a particular company and they will rant and rant and shoot down anyone that dares critic their employer or the the company they have a weird cult like association with.

I have no idea why people have a cult like loyalty to a company, when they simply couldn't care less about you as a person. You are just a number and make them money, nothing else.

You can either debate them, or play with them, and I choose to play with them as it's hilarious triggering them.

They either disappear or you just keep playing

(nicely of course)

 

[moa999]

An average aircraft age of 16 years is unacceptable when compared against the likes of SQ, EK and QR, and the amount of international aircraft in their fleet is also disappointing.

Two main factors on that.
1. Australian taxation policy (specifically aircraft depreciation) which uses a much higher life than many foreign countries. QF (and VA) have unsuccessfully lobbied to change this over decades.
2. Growth. A quickly growing airline (as EK and QR have been) will always have a younger fleet.
As they stabilise we are seeing a lot of older aircraft with dated product (eg. EK middle seat 777s, QR with old J)

Qantas right at this point actually has a pretty consistent internal product internationally, though this will change as 350s and newer 787s get delivered, and not all older aircraft get a refresh.

But much like some of QFs 747s before Covid, and the terrible two 332s of EBG and EBL (had near term lease expires that got extended at the last minute), I expect some QF aircraft to start looking very dated over the next decade.

A true FFer understands this and tries to minimise their chance of getting a dated aircraft.

 

[RSVKanga]

I expect some QF aircraft to start looking very dated over the next decade.

I really do hope that Qantas will begin to refurbish its current VH-ZNA—VH-ZNN 787 fleet starting from early 2026 onwards to ensure minimal disruption to consistency on their 787 product as the next tranche of 787s slated for 2027 onwards will almost certainly feature the A350 J, W and Y interiors. It would be a very uncompetitive choice to install the existing 787 seats on the next batch of aircraft in the era of products such as QSuite, as well as lie-flat suites with privacy doors even featuring on narrowbody aircraft of low-cost airlines (JB).

 

[elanshin]

I really do hope that Qantas will begin to refurbish its current VH-ZNA—VH-ZNN 787 fleet from early 2026 onwards to ensure minimal disruption to consistency on their 787 product as the next tranche of 787s slated for 2027 onwards will almost certainly feature the A350 J, W and Y interiors. It would be a very uncompetitive choice to install the existing 787 seats on the next batch of aircraft in the era of products such as QSuite, as well as lie-flat suites with privacy doors even featuring on narrowbody aircraft of low-cost airlines (JB).

I highly doubt QF would embark on refurbishing the 787s before they're done with the 330s and I doubt by 2026 they'd be done.

Also you'd be pulling planes out of a network that probably still don't have much slack between the 12 787s. We might see the refurbishment start once the new tranche of 787s and 350s start arriving in earnest.

 

[RSVKanga]

I doubt by 2026 they'd be done

I meant starting from 2026, and maybe finishing around 2029-30.

 

[elanshin]

I meant starting from 2026, and maybe finishing around 2029-30.

Yes and i am referring to the 330 refurbishment program which starts 2024/2025. i don't expect them to start the 787s until late 2020s (so 2028+).

The 787s are in demand for QF so pulling them from routes for months won't be happening until similar planes are in service (a350 both sunrise and normal) or new 787s.

 

[RooFlyer]

There is clearly an attempt on many forums, social media platforms and the news media to assemble a collective online sentiment intended to undermine the national carrier through unsubstantiated arguments which could apply to any airline. I’m not sure whether or not Qatar Airways are playing or have played any role in this collective 2023 Qantas misinformation, gaslighting and smear campaign, but QR does have a tendency and intention to regulate the internet in their favour (and they have succeeded in their campaign if they did play a role in this) and all the issues that people are complaining about apply to every other major international airline, in some cases those problems apply more to them than Qantas.

So it’s an international conspiracy now? Stop it! Ya killing me!

 

[tdimdad]

This has been quite a discourse, though it hasn't really gone much anywhere especially regarding the question raised in the original post. On occassion, following this has been like listening in on a backyard BBQ...

AFF is probably quite well inoculated against undue external influence because the travel experiences of the majority of the active members. Any overly positive or negative post will eventually get a respective counter-reaction and balance posted to the thread. I also appreciate that many arguments are founded on real-life experiences and/or factual information. Also, as many have recently mentioned, most members can simply skip over or temper the posts which seem dubious for whatever reason. If anywhere, the external influence may have a better success rate in some social media channels or groups filled with the occasional traveller (Bali twice a year on JQ and an annual family holiday to Gold Coast).

On flagging members who work for airlines or related companies, that would be a long shot. E.g., if I worked as a financial analyst on a contract to QF and loved to travel on my spare time, it'd be pretty farfetched to think I could speak with any authority about QF internal affairs or practices (plus, their policies and my contract would most likely prevent me from sharing any info that's not already publicly available).

Only if an AFF member is specifically assigned and paid for by a travel industry operator (e.g. an airline, hotel chain, etc) to listen in here and gather info from the conversations, and possibly also respond to specific questions or scenarios, they could (should?) be tagged accordingly (e.g. in their signature: 'A member of the Public Relations team at Virgin Australia', or similar).

 

[Pushka]

This has been quite a discourse, though it hasn't really gone much anywhere especially regarding the question raised in the original post. On occassion, following this has been like listening in on a backyard BBQ...

AFF is probably quite well inoculated against undue external influence because the travel experiences of the majority of the active members. Any overly positive or negative post will eventually get a respective counter-reaction and balance posted to the thread. I also appreciate that many arguments are founded on real-life experiences and/or factual information. Also, as many have recently mentioned, most members can simply skip over or temper the posts which seem dubious for whatever reason. If anywhere, the external influence may have a better success rate in some social media channels or groups filled with the occasional traveller (Bali twice a year on JQ and an annual family holiday to Gold Coast).

On flagging members who work for airlines or related companies, that would be a long shot. E.g., if I worked as a financial analyst on a contract to QF and loved to travel on my spare time, it'd be pretty farfetched to think I could speak with any authority about QF internal affairs or practices (plus, their policies and my contract would most likely prevent me from sharing any info that's not already publicly available).

Only if an AFF member is specifically assigned and paid for by a travel industry operator (e.g. an airline, hotel chain, etc) to listen in here and gather info from the conversations, and possibly also respond to specific questions or scenarios, they could (should?) be tagged accordingly (e.g. in their signature: 'A member of the Public Relations team at Virgin Australia', or similar).

I reckon someone with the words Roo and Kanga in their nicks are very suspect

 

[RSVKanga]

I reckon someone with the words Roo and Kanga in their nicks are very suspect

See, why does me making a few comments praising Qantas for recent good experiences and supporting them rather than QR automatically make me a suspected external influencer of the QF PR division?

This whole thread has been an ugly, and successful attempt to demonise anyone who supports QF as a paid shill, external influencer, shareholder, manipulator or propagandist for the airline. I think this thread has run its course, and as others have said; this forum would be the last place to successfully influence - better off doing it on other platforms engaging with the average Aussie rather than premium frequent flyers.

 

[Happy Dude]

Being a Scientist, I tend to view critical posts with some skepticism. However, I tend to view defensive and praising posts with even more skepticism. Empirical evidence is hard to come by in this arena so anecdotal evidence tends to be all we have. There's just so much negative reporting, here and elsewhere in the media, that the latter type of post seems harder to believe.

 

[Pushka]

See, why does me making a few comments praising Qantas for recent good experiences and supporting them rather than QR automatically make me a suspected external influencer of the QF PR division?

This whole thread has been an ugly, and successful attempt to demonise anyone who supports QF as a paid shill, external influencer, shareholder, manipulator or propagandist for the airline. I think this thread has run its course, and as others have said; this forum would be the last place to successfully influence - better off doing it on other platforms engaging with the average Aussie rather than premium frequent flyers.

See, it's a joke Joyce. Thats why people are laughing. They aren't laughing at you but the irony of the joke. Check who has the word Roo in their Nic. A hint. @RooFlyer. The one you are to and fro with here. Hence the

The forum tries to keep things above those very things you describe, yes it goes astray, hence the humour injection from time to time. Or my attempt anyway.

 

[justinbrett]

Being a Scientist, I tend to view critical posts with some skepticism. However, I tend to view defensive and praising posts with even more skepticism. Empirical evidence is hard to come by in this arena so anecdotal evidence tends to be all we have. There's just so much negative reporting, here and elsewhere in the media, that the latter type of post seems harder to believe.

Being a scientist, I'm sure you're aware of the negativity bias concept.

 

[Happy Dude]

Being a scientist, I'm sure you're aware of the negativity bias concept.

Yes it's why we see so many more negative posts than positive ones.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes it's why we see so many more negative posts than positive ones.

I agree, but your previous post reads to me like you're making the opposite point (ie, there's so much negative reporting it must be true, defensive and praising posts deserve extra scepticism).

 

[drron]

I must admit to feeling a little like the OP when just on 2 weeks before this thread started a new member joined.
I was hinted at as being part of a QR campaign to impugn QF. Problem is I have never flown QR and as far as I am aware never met or talked to anyone from QR.

 

[Happy Dude]

I agree, but your previous post reads to me like you're making the opposite point (ie, there's so much negative reporting it must be true, defensive and praising posts deserve extra scepticism).

Yes I am saying just that. But not saying anything about any posts being true though. The fanboi posts ought to be viewed with more suspicion but that doesn't make the opposite true.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes I am saying just that. But not saying anything about any posts being true though. The fanboi posts ought to be viewed with more suspicion but that doesn't make the opposite true.

That goes against the concept of a negativity bias. That indicates you should give more weight to positive experiences, not less, as there's probably far more good experiences that go unreported.

 

[Happy Dude]

That goes against the concept of a negativity bias. That indicates you should give more weight to positive experiences, not less, as there's probably far more good experiences that go unreported.

I'd have thought negativity bias is placing more weight, ie more likely to be true, to the negative report. Positive reports, as described by the OP, are less likely to be true, in part because there are fewer, and thus given less weight/more skepticism.

 

[justinbrett]

I'd have thought negativity bias is placing more weight, ie more likely to be true, to the negative report. Positive reports, as described by the OP, are less likely to be true, in part because there are fewer, and thus given less weight/more skepticism.

You sound like you believe there is only one truth.

All posts are probably true, as both good and bad experiences happen on all airlines every day. Every flight is different, every crew is different.

If you're after an aggregate picture, you need to consider that very few people will report good experiences, even less adequate ones; but lots of people will report negative experiences.

I see it all the time in hotel reviews. If you read through reviews for even the nicest hotels, they're full of negativity. In reality there much more likely to be good, but still entirely possible for some to have bad experiences. Most will have good experiences.