capin

Hi All,

I just flew QR again.

My itinerary was -

May 28th QR274 AMS-DOH - 777
May 29th QR836 DOH-BKK - 380

June 11th QR833 BKK-DOH - 380
June 12th QR273 DOH-AMS - 777

QR274 was delayed by 25 mins due to a broken down tug in AMS and I missed my connection onto QR836. QR handled this really well and booked us into the same seats on QR832.

Once again the aircraft, food, wine/champage and service were 5 star. Really, really impressed, especially at 1329 euro a head.



(cue the knockers to discuss profitability and alleged mistreatment of workers).

msm2000uk

One of the most widely read Travel Blogs in the US, has just stated that QR has the Best Business Class Product.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...class-product/

For those of us who travel QR regularly, the distinction is certainly justified; and personally I feel it is good even on the 777.

M

capin

The 777 is fab. The 380 has nicer trimmings, the bar and more storage. I am 6'4" and find the 777 bed more comfortable as there is no tray over my feet.

msm2000uk

I totally agree about the foot-box.

The 777 allows me to wriggle around without bruising myself...the 787/A350/A380 do not.

Fortunately, my solution to that problem has been to book F

rossmacd

Cannot agree more ^ QR are really trying hard to win customers, and I am really enjoying my flights with them. Much more of a pleasure to fly than other carriers I have been used to in recent years

DreamTrip

I have flown most of the business class products out there but QR has the best business class in the world! ^

Matthew_22

The way I look at QR is, generally from the moment I board the aircraft until the moment I depart will almost always be excellent. For everything else, the level of customer service and professionalism tends to be much, much lower, and so I adjust my expectations accordingly.

capin

Completely agree.

jah718

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, QR offers an outstanding J product at reasonable prices. My two primary carriers now are QR and CX. CX have a great hard product and the lounges at HKG are really good, but the service, food etc. just doesn't blow me away.

On all of my trips on QR J, I can safely say everything was great. The service is always friendly and proactive, dine on demand, great hard product even on the 777, nice lounges in DOH etc.

If I can get the 777 with a seat beside me free, I actually prefer it to the others. Some of my best plane sleeps have come on the QR 777.

IAN-UK

... and those are the "everything else" areas we see.

The niggle is if lower standards follow through into other areas, whether stretched fleet, cost-cutting and an autocratic leader compound with the hmmmmmmmm safety rating awarded to Qatar (the system, not specifically the airline).

I'm a sucker for luxury on the cheap, but I'm conscious of trading my rock-solid confidence in the Lufthansas et al for meze and bling.

N1Rotate

You keep repeating this tune ever since the AKL issues. I didn't mean to respond in the past but I would just like to respectfully point out a few things. As an ex-employee of QR and one still in the industry in the region I am quite familiar with attitude of costs and safety and how conservative QR is in this matter.

Even though there have been cost cuts, they are targeted in specific customer facing areas as well as admin back office processes. For example most employee groups have received recent increases in pay and benefits, even in the current environment of cost cutting. There are many costly and unnecessary things that QR has not touched yet such as the obsessive external cleaning of the aircraft that QR does much more often than most airlines. QR's aircraft tend to be heavily optioned with costly extras, I don't mean in the cabin but in the cockpit too. For example QR's A350s have expensive head up displays when most airlines didn't specify them.

The crew utilisation is still less than lets say EK, they haven't resorted to practices that EK does for example with accounting for crew hours on ULR flights to allow the crew to fly more per year even though they are legal. They tend to be conservative and averse about accepting certain cost cutting practices such as mixed fleet flying which some other airlines do including those in the region. QR also still overspends on flight training with a lot of training being much more than regulatory required when the industry trend is to stick to the minimum required by regulations.

Look at this article to see where a lot of the maintenance is carried out by these major airlines that you presume are not cutting corners. For example even airlines like LH and AA fly their aircraft to China and the Phillippines to do major maintenance. QR has avoided that and when they outsource maintenance its to companies such as SR Technics in Switzerland, QR outsource a lot of aircraft maintenance to European companies when they have plenty of cheaper options close by. Not only do they cost more but it costs more to fly the aircraft to Europe for a check than to a provider closer by. There is an aversion to send aircraft to some places in Asia when major European and North American airlines have no problem doing so.

If you know QR pilots that have flown in airlines in Europe or North America you can ask them about the deferred defects/MEL items that they will find on QR's aircraft compared to the aircraft they flew in their previous airlines. These are components or systems that are inoperative or defective on the aircraft but the aircraft is legal and safe to continue flying with for a certain period and sometimes with certain restrictions. On QR these deferred defects were always kept to a minimum even though it is very costly, things were replaced or repaired before they needed to in general. Pretty much if an item fails and the part is there it will be replaced. On many major airlines in Europe or North America these aircraft will continue flying as much as legally possible before replacing or repairing these components to save costs. Even though it is safe and legal, these deferred defects sometimes increase work load for the pilots as they might require special procedures or require the pilot to comply to specific limitations.

I am not saying that airlines that outsource maintenance to China are unsafe, or airlines that leave a lot of deferred defects are less safe. Or that safety is all about how much you spend but I just find you linking cost cutting in things like catering and wine list to safety as being somewhat of a stretch. Also that same rating system that you always refer to which gives QR 5/7 due to shortcomings in the regulatory system in Qatar, gives Turkish Airlines (look up how many fatal accidents and incidents they have) 6/7 you can see how relying on this rating is not really reliable. If we look at regulatory environments, we can see that the FAA allows for shorter rest periods between flight duties than Qatari regulations, should that be a concern? It is not for me because I understand that safety is not as simple and superficial as that. Speaking of regulatory environments, reliable Lufthansa is supervised by the German regulator, you might be interested in this quote "Germany is one of Europe’s worst enforcers of air safety rules, trailing only Greece in failing to comply with basic requirements to protect passengers, according to a confidential report by Europe’s top aviation watchdog." - WSJ. This doesn't concern me one bit when I fly Lufthansa because the airline's safety is not just to be judged by the compliance of its regulator.

Also if we are going to talk about cost cutting, QR has had various cost cutting programs throughout the 2000s each time targeting different areas such as fuel consumption for example. Cost cutting is not a new thing but is a constant process, they had for example big cuts in the catering provisions circa 2006.

Pretty much all major airlines have continuos cost cutting programs including several ongoing programs at Lufthansa (which you cited), so if you have safety concerns about QR due to the cost cutting that should extend pretty much throughout the industry. In the US for example that cost cutting lead to shifts in the US to more regional flying with pilots paid in cases lower than municipal bus drivers, lead to pay cuts and pension cuts (which affect the state of mind of employees). Again this doesn't mean US airlines are unsafe but just that this subject is a lot more complex than a simple rating out of 7.

Jermyn

QR J on the 787 is an excellent experience, I'm less of a fan of the A380 as the cabin is so large and there are no head-height privacy shields on the seats.

SQ J on the 77WN is the best business class product out there - if you can get a seat in the mini-cabin. Otherwise I'd take EY J on the 380, followed very closely by QR 787.

capin

I flew EY J on a 777 and was very impressed. I'd love to fly SQ in J but have never found them to be competitive on price. My next long haul will be CX ORD-HKG-BKK in F (well F ORD-HKG), really looking forward to that.

IAN-UK

Gosh – you ‘re making me out to be an obsessive! I hold no brief for anyone branding QR as unsafe. I’ve been flying the carrier, on and off, for something like fifteen years, and I’ll continue to do so while tickets are cheap: I’m easy to seduce ☺ …. but if I had concrete concerns I’d ditch the bling.

I have niggles rather than those concrete concerns, meaning that if ticket prices were on par with those of Lufthansa et al, I’d settle for a doubt-free life without Krug.

What I observe is an airline continuing to haemorrhage cash in a rather more straightened world. I note the autocratic and abrasive style of the chief executive, and I note the concerns of international organisations about the regulatory environment the carrier operates in.

The Miami incident worried me. Frangible lighting structures saved the day. The key concern here was not the incident itself (BA and others have had similar, potentially disastrous, incidents), but the bizarre way it was addressed by Al Baker, summarily sacking the four flight deck members while claiming that clipping airport lighting was an everyday thing. NTSB handed authority for investigating the incident to the Qatari DCA, but sensibly (and quite properly) put their own representative on the team.

(For anyone interested, the interim report has been published: http://www.caa.gov.qa/sites/default/...20Miami_v3.pdf ) )

N1Rotate

I understand your points and concerns, and I don't mean its an obsessive thing its just that you brought it up a few times since the the AKL fiasco and I thought I would address that. I hope you didn't take offence at my response and apologies if it came across that way as no offence was intended and I highly respect your contributions to FT.

Regarding the "continuing to haemorrhage cash" concern, one thing to keep in mind is that QR has quite a few profitable subsidiaries that include:

- Qatar Aviation Services (ground handling monopoly at DOH).
- Qatar Aircraft Catering Company (catering monopoly at DOH).
- Qatar Duty Free (which is highly profitable and fast growing).
- Qatar Distribution Company (again highly profitable and has the monopoly for alcohol and pork distribution in Qatar).
- Airport management contract
- Concession on advertising revenue at the airport
- Large IAG shareholding which generates good dividends
- Double digit number of 3rd party aircraft (private and government aircraft) under management which is also a highly profitable and steady business.
- Aircraft Leasing business which I understand doesn't fall under QR's balance sheet.

The combined profit contribution of the above is in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year which help offset potential losses at the airline itself.