For once I agree with Shillard. QF's biggest issue is that it cannot compete on expenses with overseas carriers who have a lower cost base. By this I don't just mean fuel or labour but aircraft costs such as depreciation. As a result QF has made some poor choices as a result of being stuck between a rock and a hard place such as engine maintanance which has come back and bitten them. The other challenge relates to perception of brand. I am not convinced that SQ, CX or EK are that much better than QF in terms of product, routes, loyality program or service to either the once a year or true FF for international. However, the perception is that they are better. As a result the once a year traveller is drawn to these airlines over QF or when they fly QF and have an OK experience they have already decided it was going to be bad (confirmation theory).

I think QF is missing on three key areas
a) price vs expectations (why would I book QF J at $12,000 when UA and DL offer the same, if not better for $4500?)
b) too focused on the corporate accounts, rather than those who choose who they can fly with
c) consistent service - QF can be so hit and miss with what is provided by the staff and this only serves to re-inforce the negative experiences of others through public forums. At least with say Tiger or Ryanair you know it is going to be rubbish but it is cheap and like a dog is drawn back to its vomit value customers will put up with this because of the price. QF seems to have two side, it has good days where it shines and other days that makes Tiger look like Cathay or Singapore Air. As an aside I think the evolution of flash-packers shows that you can have both quality service and value at the same time and that the ULCC model doesnt not have to mean poor service.