Originally Posted by
steveholt
You're entitled to think whatever you like, but if you're going to ascribe QF's A380 issues to two factors (a lack of capital reinvestment and a lack of consumer protections in AU), it's fair to mention that another airline with a similarly-small A380 base that doesn't have those same capital reinvestment issues and which operates out of a country that does have significant consumer protections is also having significant maintenance and availability issues with their superjumbos. And when one goes down for BA, just as it does for QF, it throws the whole 380 operation into disarray. And there have been significant maintenance issues with these planes across BA and QF since they came out of storage. Those issues are simply reality, not excuses.
Thanks Steve, for popping into the QF forum. You are exactly right. What we are discussing here is not the a380 per se. (As a BA GGL, your analogy is somewhat flawed, but hey - please let me know what other airframe with QF you would like subbed in if an a380 goes tech and you are in F? Or any class if you are on QF1/2? I will let the airport know next time it happens),
The issue is not so much the 380, it is the utter disdain and contempt that QF show to their (best) passengers when these go tech. (Versus other airlines). And that improved capital management (i.e. none), company culture (>$210M in fines, class action success, exec STI and LTI framework etc, just google it) and regulatory framework (none) are the issues/differentiators - as to why is the effect and actions at (say) BA vs QF so different - given the same airframe and maintenance issues as you highlight.